Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Spectator UK)   RIP, diversity of opinion (1770-2014)   (spectator.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Sad, free speeches, English Defence League, New York Times best-seller, New Statesman, Brandeis University, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, diversity, Leveson Inquiry  
•       •       •

6071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-17 11:39:16 AM  
15 votes:
How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate

i340.photobucket.com

/more like Spec-tater.
2014-04-17 01:27:08 PM  
11 votes:
Libertarians: "The free market will prevent people from discriminating! People just won't shop at places whose proprietors discriminate!"

*PREMISE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ONCE*

"ZOMG HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH TERRIBLE FORCE THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER."


 

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here. Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views? If so, do his views disqualify him from every job? Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?


When you donate to a campaign, it is no longer a personal or private view, is it? You are *actively spending money* to try and convince others to see things 'your way'. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT ADVERTISING ON THESE ISSUES IS.
2014-04-17 01:44:29 PM  
10 votes:
I love the irony inherent in these sorts of op-eds. They all essentially boil down to:

1) I said something stupid/hateful and now people are being mean to me
or
2) I said something stupid/hateful and now people are ignoring me

And how this is terribly unfair and must somehow mean their right to say stupid and hateful things is being restricted because nobody's listening to them.

Yet, at the same time, it's this incessant, babyish whining and perpetual sense of victimization that makes people so tired of their endless shiat and leads them to mockery and disinterest.

Protip, assholes. You're free to speak, but I am not obliged to listen. And I will not listen. You have nothing of value to say and you have proven and reinforced this every hours of every day of every week for the last 25 years. You are free to babble on incessantly about whatever half-cocked horseshiat you want, but I will not waste any more of my time entertaining it nor will I pretend that your babble justifies any sort of response beyond flippant dismissal.

Nobody is taking your freedom to speak, you're just assholes and now nobody's listening when you do. The irony is that we got to this point precisely BECAUSE you are able to freely speak whatever halfwit nonsense is rattling around inside that hollow melon rind on top of your neck.

You have every right to speak what's on your mind. It's your own damn fault that you choose to do so through malicious, dishonest and recklessly confrontational outlets like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and "the Spectator".

Not that any of this cathartic internet shouting really matters. If there's one thing the right knows for sure, it's that they're constantly the victims of everything and nothing is ever their own fault, so it can't possibly be that they've just alienated everyone but the aging minority of diehard buttlicks that cling to disproven economic ideas and an idyllic 50s dreamworld that never really existed. No, that's not it. It's just that "the left" is really, really mean and out to get them. Yea. That's the ticket.

It's THE OTHER GUY'S fault! FREEEEDOM!
2014-04-17 11:43:49 AM  
9 votes:
Yeah, we've never before collectively decided as a society that some political beliefs are morally reprehensible to work toward.
2014-04-17 11:42:28 AM  
9 votes:
WAHHHHHHHHH MY BAD IDEAS ARE BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS WAHHHHHHHHHHHH
2014-04-17 12:02:59 PM  
8 votes:
Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.
2014-04-17 12:16:53 PM  
7 votes:
Not one of the examples demonstrates Government stopping free speech.
2014-04-17 11:59:12 AM  
7 votes:
It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?
2014-04-17 11:47:46 AM  
7 votes:
More conservative whining...must be a day ending in -y
2014-04-17 12:21:51 PM  
6 votes:

Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.


Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.
No cite given. No farks given either since the article doesn't elaborate.


And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C - whoa, don't worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it's down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about 'where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society'.

So, the Australian government is considering opening up more free speech (and letting racists be racists) and this is now an RIP for diversity of opinion?


And you, sir, can now learn that free speech just makes others more about how stupid you are. Thanks!
2014-04-17 12:16:20 PM  
6 votes:
I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.
2014-04-17 12:12:49 PM  
6 votes:

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


There will 'always' be social consequences to publicly airing an unpopular view point.  Expecting otherwise is just plain silly.  That's how the social mindset works.

Complaining about people getting shunned and mocked for offering up viewpoints contrary to the social standard is akin to being 'that' guy who insists that he should be able to wander around naked in public as long as he's not hurting anyone.

In short, I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.
2014-04-17 02:39:14 PM  
5 votes:

Gulper Eel: Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Losing in the marketplace of ideas is not being "shouted out."

Academia is not the place where "everything goes" academically, it is a place where ideas are judged on their merits, especially according to the scientific method.  This article and the white knights here are merely complaining that it's not fair that some ideas don't stand up to such scrutiny.
2014-04-17 11:39:24 AM  
5 votes:
In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.
2014-04-17 02:55:01 PM  
4 votes:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


Here's the problem - his job has very much to do with his view, and how the public views them.  The job of a CEO isn't like the job of a carpenter or a clerk.  A CEO's job is to maintain public image and increase the value of the company.  Your public image and personal views go to the very heart of your job.  It doesn't matter if you are good at merger and acquisition activity, speeches, and leading a team of executives.  If your public image can hurt the brand of company, you're directly hurting your job.

We live in a free market, right to work job environment.  The right has embraced this concept for centuries.  With that comes certain drawbacks.  A company can let you go (or ask you to leave) for any reason that hasn't been legally defined as related to a protected class.  As long as they embrace that model, and there aren't safeguards that ensure that only your job performance matters, people WILL be fired for secondary things that the company finds a disruption to their goals, values, or interests.

Now, the government can't censor those views, and can't criminally penalize you for it, but that's it.  The private market can make its own judgements.  Mozilla was legally and ethically justified in asking their CEO to step down.  His views can seriously damage the brand and the company, and it was in their best interests to let him go.

As painful as it is, the free market worked EXACTLY as intended.
2014-04-17 02:16:50 PM  
4 votes:
Wait... some of you are confused and even concerned about the Mozilla thing??!

welcome to the real world, kiddies.

If your actions can, by association, reflect poorly on your employer (which is usually a matter of pure opinion on the part of your employer unless the action is legally protected) bye bye moron.

He wasn't shown the door for being Jewish or male. He opened his gob up (and his wallet, which is apparently the same thing).

Mozilla had no obligation to keep him, defend his right to personal view, waste time and money on a p.r. campaign to differentiate a from z.

Businesses exist to make money, not to protect snowflake employees giving them a shiat public image.
2014-04-17 02:14:12 PM  
4 votes:

qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

[i.imgur.com image 562x437]


IIRC, Dick Cheney didn't "support" marriage equality so much as "didn't join the Republican fight against it". Privately, I think it's clear he does support it, but publicly, it was "No comment. We love our daughters" for Junior's whole tenure in office.

And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.
2014-04-17 02:12:54 PM  
4 votes:
All the recent spate of conservative butthurt and "can't we all get along?" whining comes down to one thing: they're losing. They're losing on every front, they know they're losing, and suddenly the ideological inflexibility which was fine when they were calling the shots is proof of progressive unfairness. In a certain sense this guy is right--people should be willing to listen to the arguments of the other side and argue them civilly. But when your ideological opponents have positioned themselves at the extreme of edge of, not only what's civil but what's ethical, and increasingly, what's legal, you are within your rights to refuse to reach out across an abyss of disagreement which they themselves created. The right wing has staked out a position that is reactionary and called it the new conservative norm. Old fashioned liberals and moderates are not obliged to accept their extremism as legitimate. We are no more obliged to communicate with them civilly than we are with the representatives of the Westboro Baptist Church.
2014-04-17 01:52:38 PM  
4 votes:
yes "The LEFT" is doing it...and only the LEFT... just like all those massive "LEFTIST" Free Speech Deniers who went after the Dixie Chicks back in 2003...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kan8ZPBPqo
2014-04-17 01:48:07 PM  
4 votes:

SauronWasFramed: // Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


"Nary a discouraging word "? Bullsh*t. Clinton and Obama were roundly criticized by members of their own party for being on the wrong side of history, and eventually they came around.

Whereas Reagan and both Bushes opposed same sex marriage, never became "ready for it" and continue to oppose it to this day (well, not Reagan, thankfully). And all the mouth-breathing Jesus wheezers in the GOP celebrated them for doing it.

You'll have to forgive the rest of us for not being as impressed as you apparently are by your party's politically-motivated, backward-thinking intransigence.
2014-04-17 04:59:59 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.
2014-04-17 03:51:40 PM  
3 votes:

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.


lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.


lantawa: The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.


Two statements. Directly undermining each other. Next to each other.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE MOCKED AND SCORNED.
2014-04-17 03:06:17 PM  
3 votes:

cchris_39: stuff


So, your point here is that you take offense at being called a racist, but not enough to change your behavior?  The REAL problem is that liberals are being mean to you?

Oh, and BTW:

"If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined"

There's a name for this belief.  It's called "white supremacy."  If you don't like that fact, then perhaps you need to make some changes.
2014-04-17 02:47:02 PM  
3 votes:
So, I guess we should invite Ahmadinnerjacket to our university to speak out about how no homosexuals exist in Iran and that the Holocaust did not exist and sit quietly and respectfully as he makes his remarks?  Or are we allowed by the Right to at least publicly and loudly guffaw as he declares the nonexistence of gay people and Jews killed in the death camps?

Right, that's exactly what the Right said.
2014-04-17 02:45:51 PM  
3 votes:

SauronWasFramed: Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Oh, bullshiat. Anyone who says Obama or Clinton got a free pass from the left for anything is just betraying their loyalty to right-wing "news" outlets.
2014-04-17 02:17:38 PM  
3 votes:

Jjaro: How is that not hypocritical?


Well, mostly because it's not true. Obama has been taking flak for his vacillating opinion on the issue since he ran for his senate seat and Clinton was president 20 years ago during a time period when social opinions on homosexuality were just beginning to come around. You can't just look back to a time period when EVERYBODY'S opinions were different and then criticize one of those people for changing it.

Back to the point of Obama, unlike the unapologetically homophobic Eich, Obama opposed Prop 8 and his opinion, while shifting with the political winds, has never been firmly anti-gay. He has always supported, at a bare minimum, civil unions and has never donated to restrict the rights of others based on their sexual orientation. Apples, meet oranges.

But, whatever. If they didn't have completely inapt analogies and similes the right wouldn't have any at all, it seems.
2014-04-17 01:33:45 PM  
3 votes:
Free speech also doesn't mean that all possible views should be entitled to equal regard.
2014-04-17 12:18:17 PM  
3 votes:
Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).
2014-04-17 11:49:27 AM  
3 votes:
multiculti

Asshole bigot red flag.
2014-04-18 12:55:12 AM  
2 votes:

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: grumpfuff: In order to call you wrong, I'd first have to figure out what the fark you're saying.

Something about how people online not shutting up and accepting his bullshiat is a violation of his 1st Amendment rights

No.  Sorry.  Your trololo statement would be incorrect. Simplistic much? Very mighty. Great arbiter you ....prostration for your Majesty is from you expected, not forthcoming......

i2.kym-cdn.com
2014-04-17 11:33:01 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: This article isn't sufficinet, but it's a beginning, thankyaverimuch:   http://billwarnermyblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/terrorists-iraqi-baa t h-party-members-escaped-to-usa-and-become-used-car-dealers-in-bowling- green-ky-and-tampa-supplying-terrorists-in-iraq/


A beginning of what?  Some Iraqi refugees were party members and wound up in KY.  Where's the connection to liberals?  Or any Americans?  Did you know that some Nazis ended up in America after WW2,  It's true.  And they were the founders of what came to be called the Tea Party.

But don't ask me to prove anything beyond their presence in America.  If you do, you are a vicious, weasily suppresser

k? thankyouverymuch
2014-04-17 10:44:04 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


I looked up that exact phrase in Google.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is happening. Every single headline of every single article I looked at, before I chose a link at random, showed NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that such a thing is happening.

I saw nothing whatsoever in the random example article I have provided a link below to, that even remotely infers in any way whatsoever that the US is being infiltrated by, very specifically and precisely, BAATHISTS. Baathism a solidly Middle Eastern problem.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/world/magazine/107238/baathism-ob it uary


The cult of resistance leads to a culture of hysteria. Once you have spent 35 years or 50 years manning a machine gun and vowing resistance to the end, your ability to work up more thoughtful habits of mind is bound to become a little circumscribed.
2014-04-17 10:34:57 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: This thing, suppression of diverse opinions, exists.  I am displaying to a small group of weaselly misfits that vicious snark will not suppress diverse opinions.  Learn from it, each and every one of you who has taken dirty, cheap shots; cheap shots that you completely expected would silence me.   Now who is paranoid?  It's certainly not me. I still think that Baathist tactics are being used in the United States under a different name. I understand, perfectly, the viciousness of the far Left.  It is reaI, and it is hateful.


The words surrounding those bold words seem to disprove your thesis.

You can think that "Baathist tactics are being used in the United States," but unless you can actually point to exactly how, who, and what that opinion has as much weight as "The Queen of England wants to control the White House." It is a paranoid statement. It is paranoid because you are assuming suppression, persecution, antagonism... without any evidence of it. You simply see it as there when no one else does.

I'm not trying to be a dick. I really think you should consider calming down, stepping back, and look at exactly why your whole Baathist statement isn't carrying any weight with anyone else in this thread. And if you genuinely think there's some driving Baathist force behind American politics you disagree with... you might want to consider talking to someone. Get some other opinions.
2014-04-17 10:03:37 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: Wut?  A halfway friendly post? What powerful magic is this?  I like the bad "habbits" mispelling, BTW.  Little hobbits with bad habbits. Lots of that in Lower Farkistan.


Seriously dude, you need to step back and take a breath. You are being genuinely paranoid and not entirely coherent.
2014-04-17 09:59:58 PM  
2 votes:

Kittypie070: what the foaming mad chocolate unf*ck is lantawa talking about??

I can't even parse that last pile of word salad he puked up.


I hate to say this, but it could genuinely be a form of schizophrenia. Delusions, paranoia... it's kind of unsettling. I feel a little bad about it. I'd like him to recognize that he's not making sense in any conventional way, is clearly paranoid, and could possibly benefit from some help.
2014-04-17 09:51:17 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: Made you, and anyone else in this thread, think about Baathists, didn't I?  That was my primary goal, and I achieved it in a superlative manner.  Now, a lot more very thoughtful people are aware of a type of political activism that I wanted them to be aware of.


In another region of the world. With no farking connection at all to American politics. After 500 posts, you've been unable to draw a line from point A to point C. There is no B. You even admitted there's no B. You posit hypothetical Bs, but can't actually find the damn thing.

I don't expect you to give me a point B right now, or to actually draw the connection. I would like you to understand why, without that connection,  your argument has no merit.

Saying you made everyone in this thread think about Baathists is about as valid as me saying I just made everyone in this thread think about bat'leths. Bam, lots of people are now thinking about Klingon swords. It has precisely fark-all to do with the argument and I can in no way draw a direct connection between them and American politics.
2014-04-17 09:14:27 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. [buzzword] [buzzword] [buzzword] strategists have stooped to
[fainting-couch] unethical methodology in their political tactics by [corporate robospeak] under [scare word]-type
suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of [outsider boogeyman] political influence.



Doctor Kittypie has dissected your political free speech with a rock hammer and a pair of soldering tweezers, and carefully re-decomposed it via feline linguistic meta-analysis.

Thus, FTFY.
2014-04-17 08:13:19 PM  
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!


I should mention I know how much I like women, I wouldn't care if I were gay, and honestly the fact that the troll is trying to use the same tactic against me proves how much I've gotten under his skin. Also the opinion of some poltroon who never backs up his assertions and engages in nothing but sophistry when taken to task means dick to me.

My oh my which "welcome to fark" .gif to use...
2014-04-17 05:54:38 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: The pay's a hell of a lot better playing two-step music than the rock/indie stuff I play with. More of a crowd pleaser, too.

Two step eh? Let me know when you do an indie gig. If on the off chance you're making PsychFest in Austin, drop me a line.

BSABSVR: That would require him to own his opinions.

Which I have expressed....but that would require you to read.


You never express your actual opinion on anything. You hint and you imply. If someone asked you if you wanted Mexican or Italian food, it would be a 20 minute dialog where you talked about how you have issues with Marinara, you're trying to avoid breads, would be inclined to get something with some spice, could probably choose a better drink than wine with dinner etc.

At no time would you just say "let's do Mexican tonight". It would force you to make a statement that someone might contradict.
2014-04-17 05:53:08 PM  
2 votes:
cchris_39:

No.  Your religion does not give you the ability to not follow laws that everyone else must follow.  It does not matter if your religion says that you may kill disobedient children, society says no one can so neither can you.

Minority rights are not a ballot box issue. If you believe that something should not be a right, feel free to amend the Constitution.
2014-04-17 05:26:06 PM  
2 votes:
lantawa: idiotic derp

I was willing to hear your thesis, but you just failed. Horribly.

Baathism may have had its origins in a Spiritialistic Arabic form of Marxism, but that entire passage you quoted speaks only to influences on Baathism, not Baathism's influences on Western Liberal policies.

And the LATTER of the two is what is being discussed, as it is the premise of your argument.
2014-04-17 05:25:49 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


What?  You claimed a connection, back it up!  There is a "possible" connection between Republicans and Nazis, but if I ever actually make that connection, please call me on my bullshiat, just as I am calling you on yours.

Yes, baathism exists (or existed), and yes, there are Americans who support leftist views.  But you have provided no actual link between American liberals and baathists, just "I can imagine a link, why can't you?"

It's utter bullshiat.

Provide evidence of the link, please.
2014-04-17 04:31:08 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


I'm trying to assume you're not a troll, so I'll offer some constructive criticism.

Asserting an outside influence from a specific force without being able to offer evidence of that specific force exerting influence is paranoia. It is a sign of schizophrenia. Without evidence, your claims have no more weight than Lyndon LaRouche supports claiming modern politics is a plot of the British royal family to take over the United States. They're only superior to assertions that political leaders are aliens in the sense that there is evidence the groups involved in your scenario actually exist.
2014-04-17 04:27:55 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: When a political movement seeks to not disclose its techniques for beating its opponents, then it falls to deduction and observation to arrive at conclusions.  I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


So instead of pointing at examples or presenting a trend from known events, you're saying you can't back up your assertions. In fact, you're saying you don't actually have anything which which to back your assertions.

The correct response to [citation needed] is not "It's a secret and they won't tell us!" It's "Here are some news reports, studies, statements, and papers that back up what I'm saying." You're trying to connect Baathism to Western left-wing politics without anything more than a vague fog of intellectual persecution to back it up.
2014-04-17 04:27:04 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Huzzah! A thousand cheers for you making an actual concrete assertion. Now provideany credible evidence this is so. Even "scary socialist" Europe tends towards multiparty representation.
2014-04-17 04:06:21 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.


Is it something I said that's making you not want to actually explain your statements or offer any sort of evidence or logic behind them? Because this might surprise you, but your assertions are not self-evident. They seem disconnected, jarring, and paranoid, and if you can't actually back them up they're going to keep seeming disconnected, jarring, and paranoid.
2014-04-17 03:55:41 PM  
2 votes:

whidbey: Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.


Thank you for stating so clearly that she's the bigot.

Not the medieval shiats who carved her up when she was a child.
Not the goons who forced her into an arranged marriage.
Not the savages who threaten her life to this day, and have tailed her around the world.
Not the professional victims at CAIR who see a bigot behind every package of bacon.
Not the useful idiot snowflakes who are uncomfortable with what she has to say about their faith.
Not the easily-cowed administrators who couldn't be bothered to learn the first thing about her until the heat was on, and then promptly folded.

Nope, SHE's the Islamophobe. (shun.jpg)

Not only should we have the right to call out this monstrousness, we have the duty to do so, to offend the easily-offended (especially those who use 'offense' as a pretext to shut down debate), and whatever may be most noxious to their adherents and defenders, to do those very things and then some.

Yes, even if she hangs out with those awful neocons sometimes.
2014-04-17 03:52:53 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: . Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence.


img.fark.net
2014-04-17 03:36:43 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


You know, I think they may make a medication for whatever is going on in your head.
2014-04-17 03:24:25 PM  
2 votes:

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..


Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.
2014-04-17 03:12:12 PM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


And it's impossible to believe that the victim of such violence might - MIGHT, mind you - harbor a few metric tons of resentment over not only the subculture that allows (or demands) this violence, but the larger culture that has not uprooted it; while also combining the many, many stripes of the "culture" (which encapsulates 20-25% of the world's population, so yeah, there's going to be diversity there) into a single one and condemning the whole thing?

We shouldn't give a megaphone to a rape survivor who wants all men castrated, either.
2014-04-17 03:12:02 PM  
2 votes:

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


I was going to take the time to address this, but it wouldn't penetrate, so why bother?  You're a proud bigot and there's nothing else to be said but that.

This is the part where social consequences come into play.
2014-04-17 03:05:09 PM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: You mentioned Ahmagonnagityousucka. Funny you should mention him. Columbia University invited him to speak. They did it right. And in the end, he revealed himself as a buffoon.


And the Right excoriated them for it.  They claimed it would legitimize his positions and give him a platform to expose his ideas, the same argument they used against giving trials to accused terrorists, too, BTW.  That's the farking point, that the RW is suddenly trying to pretend that they care about free speech but only do now that it is coming out against them.

Gulper Eel: Brandeis did it wrong, and with a vastly less objectionable speaker.


Great, you are right, Brandeis farked up.  Now, explain why one fark up by one university in the entirety of this country is supposed to represent a new insurgence of Leftist censorship.  Because it doesn't.  What it does represent is that this particular university skittish as hell about inviting Muslim reprisals against their students.  It sucks, but is understandable.
2014-04-17 03:01:12 PM  
2 votes:

Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.
2014-04-17 02:44:58 PM  
2 votes:

Jjaro: Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat

I'm pretty sure he's not utlilizing a "b-b-b-b-but" against Obama or the Clinton's.  He is commenting on the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue.  How is that not hypocritical?

Nuance seems to be something that the Right has a really hard time understanding. Voting for Obama did not mean you agreed with every position he took. In 2008, gay marriage supporters had two choices: (1) vote for the guy who supports civil unions and hope that his stance on same-sex marriage changes changes over time or (2) vote for a candidate from the party that supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Doesn't seem like hypocrisy to me.

OTOH, there are many people qualified to be the CEO of Mozilla. It wasn't like they had to choose between Eich (who only believed in discriminating against his gay employees outside of the office) and zombie Fred Phelps.
2014-04-17 02:38:30 PM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


You may have seen the press and academic institutions like that, but the very idea of publicly expressed views as being consequence-free is ridiculous.  That's not how the world works, no matter how you might view it.

Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.
2014-04-17 02:26:23 PM  
2 votes:

Serious Black: I don't necessarily think Eich should have been fired or resigned from his position as CEO of Mozilla over his donation to the Prop 8 campaign. But if the board of directors or Eich decided that they shouldn't continue the contract, that's their right as a participant in the free market.


The employees decided they weren't going to work for a bigot -- which is a simple general term for "one who would deny equal rights to a minority group." They openly signed letters using their real names, prepared to leave the company. The Board didn't force a resignation because of his donation, they didn't give a damn about that, they forced him out because he could never lead and he'd have been a serious impediment to the company's progress.

If we want to frame this in right-wing terms, the employees were prepared to exercise their capitalist rights to not work for a company they didn't like, and the company decided it was in their best interest to prevent that.
2014-04-17 02:06:58 PM  
2 votes:
Maybe they should pull themselves up by their boot straps and start convincing people that theirs is the correct position instead of being a bunch of babies. Gay rights wasn't exactly popular in the 60's and 70's, and many gay activists suffered far worse than this laughable list of so-called grievances against free speech. Now, a majority of Americans support gay rights.
2014-04-17 02:06:47 PM  
2 votes:

Jjaro: the people who were so adament about getting that guy fired, for making a donation 6 years ago, when his views dont affect his work at all, while not even caring about their "teams" recent stance on the very same issue


This is the first time I've heard that the people who signed that petition never criticized Democrats who opposed gay marriage. If that's true then they deserve to be called hypocritical.

But is it true, or is it just a bullsh*t accusation? Because it sure sounds like a bullsh*t accusation.
2014-04-17 01:35:37 PM  
2 votes:
This is how a saw it:

static.ddmcdn.com

Lots of that.
2014-04-17 01:31:53 PM  
2 votes:
It's really simple, people. Either you want a ban on abortions or you want every pregnant woman to get one. There's no middle ground like understanding that banning something won't actually stop it and might actually contribute to its prevalence.
2014-04-17 01:13:41 PM  
2 votes:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I think the Eich thing was stupid from the word go. There are plenty of CEOs I think are assholes, but they shouldn't be fired for it. However, on the grand scale, the public has the right to take their money and do business with whomever they see fit, and the job of the CEO is to make his company the most profitable company he can, if that means resigning his post, then that's the decision he should have made. I don't blame Mozilla, I blame the public who made a mountain out of a molehill, but they were well within their rights to do so.
2014-04-17 12:38:46 PM  
2 votes:

Nabb1: In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?


I don't care what he thinks - and he only gave a relatively small amount to his cause - it's not like he's the new Fred Phelps.  And he had every right to say and do as he did, and there has been no government action or retaliation.  I did not join in any boycott but people had the right to boycott, and his corporation had the right to strongly suggest his resignation in an effort to minimize the damage.  I don't agree with all the conservatives who ran to chik-fil-a to support the anti-marriage equality CEO, but they certainly had that right, as did those who boycotted.

If you have a high-profile job, it's probably a good idea to steer clear of hot-button issues.  You have the right to get involved, of course, but you'll have to face the consequences.
2014-04-17 12:35:01 PM  
2 votes:

Nabb1: Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he thinks?


Clearly, a lot of people.

Since money is now considered 'free speech'(thanks, SC!), it's perfectly acceptable to enact legal consequences against him for his 'free speech' expression.

To my way of thinking, a boycott against Mozilla because he donated money to Prop 8 is the same as boycotting a diner because the cook is constantly using racial slurs.
2014-04-17 12:30:24 PM  
2 votes:

SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.


Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat
2014-04-17 12:28:54 PM  
2 votes:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


In the case of Mozilla, my question would be what was the corporate policy towards LGBT employees, did they offer benefits to domestic partners, etc. If there is no indication whatsoever that his personal views were carrying over into Mozilla corporate policy, who cares what he things?
2014-04-17 12:15:27 PM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.

You ought to read the article, then.


Why?  I don't care.
2014-04-17 12:08:43 PM  
2 votes:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Who incited a riot or violence in these cases? Nobody, except perhaps those doing the shouting-down.


I neither know, nor care, about whatever cases you're going on about.  I'm merely explaining for the slow-minded sorts just what 'free speech' is and what it entails and what its limitations are.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 11:54:03 AM  
2 votes:
the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

Right.  It's sad to see chicken farking spread to Europe.
2014-04-18 09:01:35 PM  
1 vote:
I've had it made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to me that I have no right to think anything other than what lantawa demands I think.

I have no right to believe anything other than what lantawa demands I believe, and that I am morally and ethically wrong because I wouldn't accept a premise without facts that confirmed the validity of the premise.
In other words I have no right to think independently.

This is what is known as FREEDOM.
For the very last time, goodbye.

I'm done here.
2014-04-18 04:50:47 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.

You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".

Catch up.  This thread has evolved well past that post to which you are responding.

Yes, I'm aware that you've continued to bring the crazy since that post.

Yeah.  That wiki article is really cray cray   *rolls eyes*


FFS, nobody is saying Baathism doesn't exist.  They're just saying that your attempt to smear American liberals as having anything in common with Baathist is ridiculous, and your either being disingenuous or insane.  The more of your rantings I read, the more I think the latter.
2014-04-18 04:46:23 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


This would not have been a "debate" at Brandeis, but a rant against Islam by someone who (understandably) has a serious beef with what she perceives as "Islam". The people who mutilated her were not adherents of Islam, even though that is what they called themselves. Her gripe is about a bunch of bastard misogynists hiding behind the Koran to exercise their brand of evil.
If this were to be an actually debate, then an Imam or two - true scholars of the faith - should have been invited along to refute her statements about that religion. That is how these things are supposed to work... but this was not going to happen, there was going to be no "open debate", and so Brandeis shut it down.
2014-04-18 04:18:05 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers: Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities. You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree. You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.


You might start with the man in the mirror there, Mr. "Liberal Baathism".
2014-04-18 04:16:03 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: grumpfuff: I was unaware someone calling for a group of people to be wiped out is not hate speech.

Nobody called for that. Ali called for Islam to be defeated


And how do you "defeat" Islam without murdering a lot of people? You really think the Ayotallahs etc. would be more than happy to ease up on the fundamentalism if we just "Jebusplained" things to them?

You can do a to to encourage the Muslim world to reconsider its attitudes but you'll never "defeat" anyone with force.
2014-04-18 04:07:11 PM  
1 vote:
Wow. It goes from 659 to 492 comments with trolling dipshiat removed from the grid. Something to think about.
2014-04-18 04:04:35 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Well, yes. Maybe you should.


1. not conservative
2. if that's the best you can come up with, then maybe you should
3. we know you be trollin', so now... ignore
2014-04-18 04:02:11 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: This makes about 8 or 9 cites that I've given (a few of them suspect, I'll admit).  But wait, what have any of you who oppose me done but sit there like little chickadees in a nest with your mouths wide open, going, FEEEEEEED ME.  FEEEEEEEEED ME!  Yeah, you guys are real fine intellects, and obviously Masters of the Political Universe.


Ok, I was wrong - calling you a Glen Beck chalkboarder is an insult to Glen Beck chalkboarders.  But please, respond by calling names and claiming intellectual superiority because they are lacking "imagination" to create the connections you invented in your mind.

We need to be warned about the lizard people.  And the reverse vampires.  Did you find the moon landing sound stage?  Do you have any new 9/11 Truther links for us?  Maybe a few new pictures of chicken wire and cinder blocks?  I mean, that's clearly evidence.

Please.  Show me where the brown man touched you.
2014-04-18 03:58:41 PM  
1 vote:

grumpfuff: lantawa: Muslim customs and practices, by actual observant Muslims, are incredibly third world and backwards.

My Muslim neighbors(well, three houses down) have such incredibly backwards customs such as going to the mosque, reading the Koran, being kind to their neighbors, and inviting us over every few weeks for some tasty, tasty food.

How horrifying.


I still have patheticcrybaby on my list, has he just dropped all pretenses and just started calling all Muslims "Sand Successful and Attactive African Americans" yet? Someone who posts the drivel  grumpfuff quoted cannot not be thinking that.'Fess up to being a racist farking coward  lantawa, it's not like you have displayed any redeemable qualities otherwise.
2014-04-18 03:48:07 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: This one's nice.  I like this one.  Shut it, Halli

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/06/04/why-the-manchild-hates-t he -promised-land/


Just take your meds.
2014-04-18 03:28:41 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: This makes about 8 or 9 cites that I've given (a few of them suspect, I'll admit).  But wait, what have any of you who oppose me done but sit there like little chickadees in a nest with your mouths wide open, going, FEEEEEEED ME.  FEEEEEEEEED ME!  Yeah, you guys are real fine intellects, and obviously Masters of the Political Universe.


A few of them suspect? Seriously dude you are freaking whacko.
2014-04-18 02:53:52 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: My opinions are open on President Obama himself, but this link is full of links that can be perused if the spirit so moves you fine, cynical folk.

http://www.infiltratednation.com/2012/10/obamas-love-of-islam-social is m-with.html


24.media.tumblr.com
2014-04-18 02:44:45 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Ilmarinen: The issue was not over being a speaker, but an honorary degree. "Universities consider it important to make a distinction between inviting a speaker who may air unpopular or provocative views that the institution does not endorse, and awarding an honorary degree, which is more akin to affirming the body of a recipient's work."

They didn't consider it important to make that distinction until they started feeling the heat. Then they promptly folded. I'm unimpressed.


Nobody is impressed by them, since they clearly didn't think their plan all the way through. But I think withdrawing the honorary degree (which are meaningless anyway) and inviting her to a discussion was the best way to repair the damage.

This whole thing has been much ado about nothing, starting with the protesting bloggers, but it's not an example of censorship. It's just a farkup.

Btw, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very intelligent person with an amazing life story. I appreciated the film "Submission" she made with Theo van Gogh (who was murdered shortly after because of it). Though I don't agree with some of her more conservative views (interestingly, she started out as a politician in the largest Dutch socialist party, then went over to the main right wing party), I wouldn't pass on the opportunity if she were to speak at my university.
2014-04-18 02:03:44 PM  
1 vote:

menschenfresser: 1) Certain posters on here are unbelievably masterful trolls and are full of troll win, or


I miss the days when trolling meant actually pissing people off, and not just getting people to respond to you.


/inmydaytrollingmeantsomething.jpg
2014-04-18 02:00:11 PM  
1 vote:

barneyfifesbullet: The left is so open minded and tolerant, just as long as you agree with them.

Everything about them just proves what Mark Steyn says here absolutely correct. The outrage from spoiled Obama kids here whenever they encounter anything but affirmation is always fun to laugh at. The pollution of media outlets and college campuses by leftist brown shirts has really created a lot of ugly.

The never-ending bitterness from the left about the success of Fox News is also daily amusement for the rest of us. One place on a television landscape of 500 channels that doesn't have a bat phone to Obama, and the left whines continuously about it.

Contact Fox News sponsors some more now, you pro-censorship psychos. Instead of, you know, just not watching something you don't enjoy watching. Like, the way America treats MSNBC.


That's quite a tapestry you've woven in your mind there.
2014-04-18 01:59:55 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: You know, it's unfortunate for you that you lack vision and intellect in regard to this topic.


By "vision and intellect," you mean "jumping to conclusions based on no actual evidence," right?

 

lantawa: This is a CORRECT observation on my part


I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAY I'M RIGHT!
2014-04-18 01:58:02 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Well, look at that. They exchanged ideas. Why would that be such an intolerable stretch for the Brandeis students? Her position is defensible on the grounds that Islam is different from other major religions in that it is expressly intended to have both spiritual and political components, and as such should be confronted by free nations as inimicable to what they stand for.


You'll have to forgive me for not thinking that "Wipe them all out" is a defensible position.

Gulper Eel: Should Brandeis have invited her in the first place? Probably not as a commencement speaker - the idea being that somebody with controversial ideas should be brought to campus to debate rather than to give an address in a form where there's no opportunity for rebuttal.


So Brandies shouldn't have had her as a commencement speaker, but the students were wrong for protesting it? Do you even listen to yourself?

Gulper Eel: Since that was too intellectually taxing for the administration to have considered, then it's understandable that their students are similarly weak-minded and can only manage to make vague noises about "hate speech" as if the phrase is a magic talisman to fend off all disagreement.


I was unaware someone calling for a group of people to be wiped out is not hate speech. Again, if I said all Catholics are pedophiles, would that not be hate speech?
2014-04-18 01:57:36 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Echo chamber much?......echo chamber much?....echo chamber much?


God, what a loser. Never mind.
2014-04-18 01:56:33 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: whidbey: lantawa: [i466.photobucket.com image 300x400]

God dude you really proved to be utterly full of shiat here.

Thanks for smearing it all over the forum walls.

Thanks for sharing.  The fact that you are taking great umbrage at that picture lets me know of your greatly dickish viewpoint.


No, it means you've been shiatting up this thread with complete bullshiat.

I thought that was against the Fark TOS.

I'll tell you what--how about one more stupid off-topic shiatjack before I put you on ignore?

Go.
2014-04-18 01:56:03 PM  
1 vote:

soporific: But if you can't find the actual evidence, I'll settle for knowing how you came across this notion in the first place. Who first told you about the Baathist influence? Where did you read about it? Where did you hear about it? Who put two and two together for you?


It's just another word that ends with "ist" that he can hurl at 'the left' in a weak attempt to portray them as something scary and evil. I guess 'socialist' and 'marxist' and all the others have lost that new car smell, so to speak, so he had to find a new one that he can drive around and feel special about since he's got the ability to spot the nefarious plot that doesn't exist.
2014-04-18 01:50:20 PM  
1 vote:
The left is so open minded and tolerant, just as long as you agree with them.

Everything about them just proves what Mark Steyn says here absolutely correct. The outrage from spoiled Obama kids here whenever they encounter anything but affirmation is always fun to laugh at. The pollution of media outlets and college campuses by leftist brown shirts has really created a lot of ugly.

The never-ending bitterness from the left about the success of Fox News is also daily amusement for the rest of us. One place on a television landscape of 500 channels that doesn't have a bat phone to Obama, and the left whines continuously about it.

Contact Fox News sponsors some more now, you pro-censorship psychos. Instead of, you know, just not watching something you don't enjoy watching. Like, the way America treats MSNBC.
2014-04-18 01:47:43 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: From the article that I just posted:

The Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party is a Marxist Leninist movement created after a purge of the leadership of the ruling Arab Socialist Baath Party.
MAJOR FIGURES
Ibrahim Makhous:leader
Mahmoud Jadeed:official spokesperson
BACKGROUND
The Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party was established in 1970 following the purge of the ruling Arab Socialist Baath Party's leadership initiated by Syria's new president, Hafez al-Assad. Ibrahim Makhous, who had served twice as minister of foreign affairs between 1965 and 1968, escaped arrest and imprisonment and took refuge in Algeria, where he founded the breakaway Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party. In 1979, the new party joined the National Democratic Assembly, a coalition of leftist movements, along with the Syrian Socialist Party, the Arab Socialist Movement, the Revolutionary Worker's Party, and the Democratic Arab socialist Union.  Following the start of the Syrian uprising in 2011, the Democratic Socialist Arab Baath Party joined the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change.

So, NO WAY that any of these political bodies could be involved in ANY Western political activity.  NO WAY.  There's obvioously not enough proof.  OBVIOUSLY.

WAIT.  There's a bunch of SMOKE in this thread.  Therre's NO WAY that there's any FIRE.  NO WAY.  Because we all know, that WHERE THERE'S SMOKE THERE IS NO FIRE!  WE KNOW THAT!  PROVE OTHERWISE.  WE'RE WAITING..........


Show me the fire. Show me how Baathist ideology is actually influencing Western politics and you'll begin to have a point. I repeat, saying that it COULD happen is not proof that it IS happening.

But if you can't find the actual evidence, I'll settle for knowing how you came across this notion in the first place. Who first told you about the Baathist influence? Where did you read about it? Where did you hear about it? Who put two and two together for you?

Because if you came about this opinion by yourself, you WOULD have evidence that supports your claim that there is a Baathist influence. Instead, my guess is that you heard it or read it somewhere and just believed it, which is why instead of concrete evidence, you take as Gospel the notion that just because it might happen that it is happening. Someone told you this information and you believed it.

So my real question is: how do you know they're right?
2014-04-18 01:30:42 PM  
1 vote:
I'm somewhat proud of myself I helped inspire  lantwwwwaaaaah I want my mommy to go full retard.
2014-04-18 01:16:18 PM  
1 vote:
From the very first example: "In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'F*cking Zionist, f*cking pricks... Get the f*ck off our campus.'"

This is exemplary of what conservatives cannot seem to grasp... this is not about free speech, this is about stupid. When you put what you have to say out into the public sphere, expect it to be discussed, debated, praised, ridiculed, examined, dismissed, thought about, ignored, commented on, deleted, copied, manipulated or otherwise acted upon. Everything that comes from your hand, mouth and mind will be judged, and as you have the right to say/print/write it we (society) has just as much right - nay duty - to trash the living sh*t out of it if we think it's crap.

You do not get to put sh*t out without expecting a reaction, as conservative speakers do on Fox News Channel. They can spew all the stupid the want in that venue, and will be met with head nods from the paid bobbleheads along with affirmative grunts and squealing and foot stamping from their audience. This is not that bubble... this is the real world, and in the real world not everyone in going to believe or like what you have to say. If you're too pussified to deal with that the maybe you should STFU and go back to your corner.
2014-04-18 12:24:58 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Well, at least all this hard herp work resulted in an exact 12:00 PM simulpost, so there's that.  Could it be a sign?


It's a sign that you still haven't provided any evidence that actually supports your claims. As I've stated before, you have all the credibility of a Truther, a Birther, and a Geocentrist. And you will maintain that level of credibility until you provide actual evidence that shows how exactly this supposed radical element is directly influencing Western politics. Not just how it might influence, how it could influence, a theoretical or hypothetical possibility.

You can keep posting until the thread is locked. You can post in other threads and make the same claims. But without the actual evidence, you are an old man yelling at a cloud and to be taken as seriously.
2014-04-18 12:15:32 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Well, since you do not have even the most rudimentary understanding of how the English language works, I believe that I'll just ask you to crawl back under whatever rock you previously escaped from. Go on. Go on now. It's over for you. No respect, since you are just regurgitating, in the rest of your last post, the usual booga booga crap about how someone MUST meet your arbitrary need for evidence. You're really looking like a jackwad here, so, I guess, next move is up to you, Gomer.


Good job on using secondary definitions that are in conflict with your assertion to make a false point.  I'll bet your a hoot every time you claim that theories "are just guesses".  Vision is based on making something you want come to pass - such as having a vision for the future for your company, etc.  You were making a claim that we should have "vision" about your claims of Baathism.  You slipped to the secondary definition to make imagination and vision equal when challenged on it.  Good job!  You're now an excellent sophist, and a good liar.

Still no evidence of Baathist influence in leftist thought.

Still no evidence of the West "adopting" Baathist methodologies or ideologies.

Still no evidence of western liberal thought centers adoption of Baathist doctrine.

Rage, rant, and attack your critics all you want.  They asked for evidence connecting these items.  You've provided none.  There is absolutely zero difference between you, and a person who claims that lizard people have taken over the government.  But watching you try to be insulting is amusing.  So if you want, continue with that.  I'm deeply hurt by the angry mutterings of people who stand on the side of the road and scream at traffic.
2014-04-18 12:11:25 PM  
1 vote:
imgs.xkcd.com
2014-04-18 12:00:00 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Well, look at that. They exchanged ideas. Why would that be such an intolerable stretch for the Brandeis students? Her position is defensible on the grounds that Islam is different from other major religions in that it is expressly intended to have both spiritual and political components, and as such should be confronted by free nations as inimicable to what they stand for.


That is no intolerable stretch for them at all, since "she "is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue.""

Should Brandeis have invited her in the first place? Probably not as a commencement speaker - the idea being that somebody with controversial ideas should be brought to campus to debate rather than to give an address in a form where there's no opportunity for rebuttal.

They are exactly doing as you say they should. The issue was not over being a speaker, but an honorary degree. "Universities consider it important to make a distinction between inviting a speaker who may air unpopular or provocative views that the institution does not endorse, and awarding an honorary degree, which is more akin to affirming the body of a recipient's work."

Of course, the college could have, I dunno, spent two minutes with Google and figured all this out ahead of time.

Absolutely right. They totally screwed up.
2014-04-18 11:29:23 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: This is a poorly delivered message, tardy participant in the thread. It (your message) is the usual vomited herpaderp of dull, brainwashed dogmatists everywhere. Look at the post directly above your post. The Fark article itself contains a reference to Baathism. But to you, it's all oh so obscure and oh so ephemeral. And BTW, vision and imagination would be pretty much synonyms, so suck it, Francis.


So, an article that "references" it is just as good as evidence to you?  Because someone says the words, that's evidence?  I'll let you in on a little secret - no one here is buying your bullshiat.  I can reference aliens in relation to the Kennedy assassination, but that's not evidence.  You've blustered and twisted yourself into absurdity, and have no credibility because you have produced nothing useful to the conversation.  Poking and prodding you has just become an amusing waste of time, since you made it clear several hundred posts ago you weren't interested in actually backing up your wild accusations.  You look like a fool.

Vision and imagination are not synonyms.  Not even close.  And neither are useful when making concrete claims of connections between an extremist world view and our political realities in the U.S.  I have vision and imagination about Angelina Jolie sleeping with me.  I may even reference an article written online that mentions the concept.  Neither is evidence of reality.

And I'll repeat it again, because it's the most important thing someone like you should ever hear:  Providing evidence isn't an arbitrary standard.  It's the standard for any useful discussion on any topic of debate.  At all.  Ever.  You literally can not get less arbitrary than that.  A person is not "brainwashed" because they demand facts to backup a claim.  It's what separates rational, useful discussion from the Glen Beck chalkboard crowd.
2014-04-18 09:57:15 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.

"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!

Right under your little nose, in the referenced Fark article, was a reference to Baathism. I wonder why?  FTFA, as follows:

I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology - not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion - immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' - the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights - like freedom of expression - come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers:  Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree.  You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.


Perhaps the better course of action would be to realize that no one is trampling on your right to free speech. Having the right to free speech does not guarantee you a forum at a university or a business, but you are free to self-publish your thoughts or start a blog or even talk on the street corner. If a radio station, tv network, or university doesn't want to have you talk, that is not suppression of your speech rights. And saying mean things to people with nutty ideas is also not suppression, it's ridicule... something you seem perfectly fine engaging in yourself (you dirty Baathist!).
2014-04-18 09:38:52 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: You know, it's unfortunate for you that you lack vision and intellect in regard to this topic.


You're using the wrong word.  The right word is imagination.  You still haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your claim, and still push it as the Truthtm.  And you've gotten more laughable and transparent as the thread has continued.  You have a paranoid assertion that you're sure is true, but have nothing to support it.  Some guesses and vague Glen-Beck-chalkboard connection between there being immigrants and that some of those might be bad.  That's it.

lantawa: You've assigned some arbitrary standard that you've declared I must meet.


Providing evidence isn't an arbitrary standard.  It's the standard for any useful discussion on any topic of debate.  At all.  Ever.  You literally can not get less arbitrary than that.
2014-04-18 09:28:31 AM  
1 vote:

theknuckler_33: lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.

"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!


Right under your little nose, in the referenced Fark article, was a reference to Baathism. I wonder why?  FTFA, as follows:

I'm opposed to the notion of official ideology - not just fascism, Communism and Baathism, but the fluffier ones, too, like 'multiculturalism' and 'climate change' and 'marriage equality'. Because the more topics you rule out of discussion - immigration, Islam, 'gender fluidity' - the more you delegitimise the political system. As your cynical political consultant sees it, a commitment to abolish Section 18C is more trouble than it's worth: you'll just spends weeks getting damned as cobwebbed racists seeking to impose a bigots' charter when you could be moving the meter with swing voters by announcing a federal programmne of transgendered bathroom construction. But, beyond the shrunken horizons of spinmeisters, the inability to roll back something like 18C says something profound about where we're headed: a world where real, primal, universal rights - like freedom of expression - come a distant second to the new tribalism of identity-group rights.

Again I say to you and others who are locked into your echo chambers:  Stop being totally dogmatic dicks, and start showing some intellectually integrated perceptual abilities.  You are capable of such, so practice it, and stop with the sneering contemptuous approach to those with whom you disagree.  You are truly interfering with societal advancement when you do this, i.e., fail to contemplate alternative viewpoints.
2014-04-18 09:07:34 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.


"If you don't believe my outrageous claim it only proves that my claim is true!"

ROFL!
2014-04-18 08:15:12 AM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."


Slow golf clap for Dick Cheney eventually coming around to accept that his own gay daughter should have rights.

And who are these "other Republicans" who supported GM before Obama and Clinton? Because Republicans are pretty famous for a complete lack of empathy for any situation that doesn't directly affect their own lives.
2014-04-18 07:42:31 AM  
1 vote:

The_Forensicator: Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.

You are the perfect spokesperson for the Fark Dependents


Back from Stormfront I see. You get coached in the fine art of being wrong about everything all the time and posting the most insipid woo ever while over there?
2014-04-18 07:36:54 AM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: numbquil: It's a big deal to have someone at the highest position in your organization who doesn't support equality when your organization is telling the world they support equality and making the world a better place.

Until that someone at the highest position at long last takes his finger out of the wind and "evolves" in the correct direction, for which he gets HERO tags and a supporting chorus of nothing-to-see-here-move-alongs.


Stretching really hard there for a bsabvr.
2014-04-18 07:12:30 AM  
1 vote:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


Except that the position at Mozilla does have something to do with his views. Mozilla is more than an organization that develops software. Part of their philosophy is making the world a better place for everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. They are an organization that gives away their products for free to achieve these goals. Not only do they give it away at no cost but they make the source code available so the curious can use it as a learning tool or derive their own software from it. It's a big deal to have someone at the highest position in your organization who doesn't support equality when your organization is telling the world they support equality and making the world a better place.
2014-04-18 04:52:34 AM  
1 vote:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s


Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.

The number of Iraqi immigrants in the United States tripled between 1980 and 2007, from 32,121 to 102,000. Most of this growth occurred during the 1990s.

You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.

So, from a perfectly acceptable and valid immigration article from a perfectly legitimate site...in which you laboriously managed to prove that, yeah, there's kind of a lot of Iraqi refugee-immigrant type folks gadding about....

...you still cannot back up your claim that there is Baathist infiltration in our government because --

CTRL+F "Baathist", Results: PHRASE NOT FOUND.

You continue to fail to properly back up your ultimate conclusion.

You instead ASSUME with no evidence whatever except rampant goofballism from some non-credible blog that merely because there's a verifiably true large number of something scattered around here, that a fraction of that something has just simply got to be baath-ed in evil.

Give me something, anything at all about "Baathist infiltration of the Federal government" from Red State, or The Blaze.

In other words stop spraying spit all over my monitor and make a damn effort.
2014-04-18 04:20:54 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: [i466.photobucket.com image 300x400]


God dude you really proved to be utterly full of shiat here.

Thanks for smearing it all over the forum walls.
2014-04-18 04:16:47 AM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: The students were confronted with a victim of the faith they profess to hold...and proceeded to whine that SHE was the problem.


Ignoring the rest of your post because I'm tired of your "ALL NJ IS BAD BECAUSE REASONS" crap, the problem wasn't that she was a victim of the faith. The problem was that she claimed all people who hold that faith are the same way.

So, according to you, it's perfectly ok for me to say all Catholics are pedophiles.
2014-04-18 02:36:57 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Here's an article that has a little factoid; the fact that there are over 100,000 Iraqi immigrants in the U.S.  Out of 100,000 immigrants, it is entirely reasonable to think that a number of Iraqi Baathists could come into the U.S. under the guise of being refugees.  But doubters, you just go lalalala no proof, you mad, etc,, etc.  You can bet that our law enforcement forces include a Baathist underground as part of the terror threat in this country.  Here's the article:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/iraqi-immigrants-united-state s


Yes, it's entirely possible that some of them are Baathists. It's also entirely possible that the vast majority of them are simply immigrants looking to make a better life for themselves.

You seem to really be scared of Muslims.
2014-04-18 01:19:35 AM  
1 vote:

The_Forensicator: Bucky Katt: All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.

You are the perfect spokesperson for the Fark Dependents

media0.giphy.com
2014-04-18 01:10:05 AM  
1 vote:
NEWSFLASH: "Free Speech may have unintended consequences on your social life and career when people realize you're an enormous douche.  Your loudmouthed, poorly thought out opinions have ramifications on what people think of you."

Yes, truly, RIP free speech... No wait actually, RIP personal responsibility.
2014-04-18 12:46:59 AM  
1 vote:
All the rightwing apologists came out for this one.  I haven't seen some these alts since 0bama got reelected.
2014-04-18 12:36:15 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: You think that I'm worried about conforming to some standard that THIS PLACE mandates?


No.  You're not even worried about backing up your claims with evidence.

Diversity of opinion is great, but I expect someone to be able to back up their opinions.  It will almost certainly not change my mind (though it's been known to happen), but I frequently say/think, "I don't agree with that dude, but his opinion is well-reasoned and his ability to make his case is impressive".

Then there are whiners who scream suppression!! when someone dares to ask them for some sort of evidence to back up their claims.  They're called wusses
2014-04-18 12:29:55 AM  
1 vote:
More rightwing crybabies.
2014-04-18 12:22:05 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Kittypie070: dude I'm fking serious you're bleedin everywhere, man.

just...stop flailing around and chill.


WUT!  I'm enjoying this.  You think that I'm worried about conforming to some standard that THIS PLACE mandates?  I think not.  Now, I like this place.  It's a great news aggregation site, and the tech folk who manage the traffic (and herd the cats) do a great job.  But, well, it's been time, for some time, for a lesson or two to be learned by the peanut gallery.  Today's lesson is ongoing, and you do, in fact, seem to be learning a few things.   I'm sitting on it and spinning and whoa am I getting dizzy. New vistas of learning await you as you master your newly developed perceptions. Now, back to the absolute mad foaming gibberish techniques.  It's a thing, and it's real.  You're getting it, slowly.


You can't do anything to me, Detective Whackanut, so why don't you go pour some more water on the sauna stove?
2014-04-18 12:21:42 AM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Bloody William: lantawa: Wut?  A halfway friendly post? What powerful magic is this?  I like the bad "habbits" mispelling, BTW.  Little hobbits with bad habbits. Lots of that in Lower Farkistan.

Seriously dude, you need to step back and take a breath. You are being genuinely paranoid and not entirely coherent.

Actually, I'm sensing a sort of hysteria being generated from a number of you guys who've chosen to gang-troll me.  There're medications that you can take for hysterical conversion reactions.  You might want to look into that.

This last post that you just quoted, well, that's a take on Johnny Depp's Barnabas Collins in the movie Dark Shadows, combined with amusement at the habbits word.  Obviously a sign of deep paranoia and incoherence.  Try to keep up.  You idiots asked for this.

Again, the title of this thread is RIP, diversity of opinion.(1770-2014).

This thing, suppression of diverse opinions, exists.  I am displaying to a small group of weaselly misfits that vicious snark will not suppress diverse opinions.  Learn from it, each and every one of you who has taken dirty, cheap shots; cheap shots that you completely expected would silence me.  Now who is paranoid?  It's certainly not me. I still think that Baathist tactics are being used in the United States under a different name. I understand, perfectly, the viciousness of the far Left.  It is reaI, and it is hateful. I truly do not care if you disapprove of my stance or not.  I am sharing it with you, period.  Free speech, yaknow.......


i2.kym-cdn.com
2014-04-18 12:19:10 AM  
1 vote:

Kittypie070: what the foaming mad chocolate unf*ck is lantawa talking about??

I can't even parse that last pile of word salad he puked up.


I'm actually incredibly close to using ignore for the first time ever. It's not amusing, it's not interesting, it's not...anything. It's just a lot of words and insults in something that vaguely resembles sentences, all while screaming about being oppressed because we said [citation needed].
2014-04-18 12:00:27 AM  
1 vote:
dude I'm fking serious you're bleedin everywhere, man.

just...stop flailing around and chill.
2014-04-17 11:55:40 PM  
1 vote:

WARNER P.I.
SEX DETECTIVE


TRUSTWORTHY EVIDENCE




My gods I haven't seen anyone just...up and fking obliterate his own Fark rep,
such as it was, in this ugly a fashion for...err, at least since this last Christmas.
2014-04-17 11:42:25 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: This article isn't sufficinet, but it's a beginning, thankyaverimuch:   http://billwarnermyblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/terrorists-iraqi-baa t h-party-members-escaped-to-usa-and-become-used-car-dealers-in-bowling- green-ky-and-tampa-supplying-terrorists-in-iraq/

www.webtrafficroi.com
2014-04-17 11:34:58 PM  
1 vote:
A blog? THAT'S your evidence!!??

A frakking wordpress blog!!?? From this guy?

Bill Warner Sarasota Private Investigator, SEX, CRIME, CHEATERS

That's the absolute best you can do after winding yourself that tight and flinging all that pseudo-erudite terminology around??
2014-04-17 11:19:48 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: I understand, perfectly, the viciousness of the far Left.

And you have taught me of the thin-skinned, paranoid stupidity of the right.

Fight on li'l freedomsoldier!

Check my profile.  You see that political grid.  I am center-left.  Imagine that.  and I AM center-left, currently unaffiliated with any party, and free-thinking as a gotdamn bird, you little snarker, you.....*pinches and shakes your little virtual jowl*


Whatever...left/right, up/down, north/south...you will be forever known as the guy who makes wild claims then gets his feelings hurt when people ask you to back up your shiat.

A wee little man, delicate like a pretty little flower,,,

....THAT'S BEING SPPRESSED!!!!!
2014-04-17 11:17:26 PM  
1 vote:
And I wonder what birdy chunder thinks the President is.

Come on, enlighten us "hysterics" with your "superlative" reasoning, you little snarker, you.
2014-04-17 11:12:37 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa:

Check my profile.  You see that political grid.  I am center-left.  Imagine that.  and I AM center-left, currently unaffiliated with any party, and free-thinking as a gotdamn bird, you little snarker, you.....


The Baathists/Communists/ZOG, etc, ad infinitum have infiltrated the government!

Yeah. Reeeeeaaaaaalllll free thinking as a bird right there.

Free to think what Alex Jones or better yet what the voices in your head has told you to think.

Same difference really, because NO DAMN PROOF.

Meanwhile I have to scrape your birdy ass chunder off my window.
2014-04-17 11:06:28 PM  
1 vote:

Animatronik: I didn't say I was a prof and I didn't say or assume you worked in college admissions. I don't recall appealing to authority; actually I did the opposite. I wasn't claiming you should respect mah autaritah because I have a Ph.D. I was pointing out that since I was in or worked at three different universities for 14 years total I might know something about the people in them. But hey if you graduated from the warrior caste academy I can respect that.


If I actually take you at face value then, you're demonstrating you've been so far removed from being a student that your experience is no longer relevant.
2014-04-17 10:49:58 PM  
1 vote:
And he sits there claiming his audience is hysterical.

Oh look, I infromed you with my superlative method of pulling the deliberate lunacy of THE BAATHISTS ARE INFILTRATING out of my ass ha ha ha, to resist my holy sacred wisdom is to gang troll me.
2014-04-17 10:39:48 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: I understand, perfectly, the viciousness of the far Left.


And you have taught me of the thin-skinned, paranoid stupidity of the right.

Fight on li'l freedomsoldier!
2014-04-17 10:36:58 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Bloody William: Lionel Mandrake: I was more curious as to why you were fearing the hammer.

[37.media.tumblr.com image 500x276]

/Has no farking clue what "the Hammer" is. Tom Delay's nickname?

This is the hammer.  Damn, you guys are denser than a briar patch.[i466.photobucket.com image 448x254]


Oh, the... ban hammer that's almost never used on Fark except when users report instances of explicit content or personal attacks? This isn't Reddit, dude.
2014-04-17 10:33:41 PM  
1 vote:

Kittypie070: johnnyrocket: These conservative retards want to debate established science and hard facts? What morons and fools.

Mwelp it looks to me like lantanawowie is attempting to deny the very existence of right wing media, for one thing.

Maybe Oral Roberts College also doesn't exist and there are no evangelical organizations operating in the Air Force Academy either.


I love how rightwingers forget they essentially have many of their own higher ed institutions where liberals are pretty damn unwelcome. Granted, aside from the technical and military ones they're all pretty low rated, but that's really their own fault.
2014-04-17 10:24:07 PM  
1 vote:

Animatronik: Throwing out whatever random insults that pop out of your rotten brain may prove you're smart enough to work in college admissions, but not that you actually have something to say that is worth reading.

In case you hadnt noticed, colleges DO discriminate in their admissions. They discriminate based on things like grades, among other things. This leads to an elitist culture at some top universities, and gullibility with respect to blithely accepting spoon fed doctrine from your professors. You may think you're a lot smarter than people you meet on places like FARK because you went to college or are in college. But the reality is, you really don't know much except what it took to get you there. You probably don't have much say worth hearing about much of anything in the world of politics. I sureas hell didn't at that point in my life.

But one difference back then was that liberals didn't display the base intolerance for different ideas as students, because they weren't thoroughly indoctrinated the way students are nowadays. If you want to be somebody that contributed a lot to society, keep an open mind.


I never said I work in college admissions, just that you have no clue what the admissions process is like, especially with regard to why students pick what institutions they apply to. You ever notice in US News & World Reports there are summaries regarding student life, listing student clubs? And other collegiate rating services will often have a description of student life and the political atmosphere of the college or university? And that many students will often select a school due in large part because of this?

Everyone knows you need decent grades for a college to look at you, but why do they interview you many times or try to find out more about you as a human being while going through the admissions process if cultural compatibility is something schools aren't taking into consideration?

You also have no clue where I am in life or how old I am, and frankly you've said nothing rational to demonstrate that students aren't looking at the political philosophy of a college etc. when making the decision to apply... when many if not most do.

So since we're cool with making appeal to authority fallacies- which if you were ever a decent prof you'd know is pretty much the lowest, lamest debate tactic ever, I have a triple PhD in Interdimensional Engineering, Warp Field Propulsion, and Zero Point Energy Systems Engineering from the University of Gallifrey as well as holding several Masters degrees from the Daystrom Institute, and when I graduated undergrad from the Warrior Caste Academy on Minbar ISA President John Sheriden delivered the keynote address (obviously before he went off with the Old Ones). I notice you never listed what institutions you got your PhD in Phrenology or Alchemy etc. from.
2014-04-17 10:24:00 PM  
1 vote:

johnnyrocket: These conservative retards want to debate established science and hard facts? What morons and fools.


Mwelp it looks to me like lantanawowie is attempting to deny the very existence of right wing media, for one thing.

Maybe Oral Roberts College also doesn't exist and there are no evangelical organizations operating in the Air Force Academy either.
2014-04-17 10:10:38 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: Crotchrocket Slim: CanisNoir: Pure speculation

AKA you have nothing but strawmen

So you agree with him? Or are you just ignorant?


I honestly don't care to separate the few kernels of corn from the general feces you like to post anymore. Go away.
2014-04-17 10:07:12 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: So, you're doubling down on the douchebaggery


By "douchebaggery" I guess you mean asking for you to provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims.  ANY evidence.  SOMETHING!!

lantawa: you ascribe to being able to intricately dissect my every thought.


Quite the opposite - I CAN'T read your thoughts, that;s why I'm asking you to provide some evidence for the claims you make.

lantawa: Carry on.....in time, you'll learn.


That sounds like a challenge.  I accept.  Please bring proof or evidence or reasons or explanations next time we meet.  kthx  Bring SOMETHING more than a paranoid persecution complex.

lantawa: And, BTW, it's hard for me to believe that you don't know what "the hammer" is. Get with your little weasel buddies, and use your secret decoder rings with each other, and then you can find out and be in the know. Cheesus, you doesn't know what the farkin' hammer is; you must've had a sheltered childhood.


I was more curious as to why you were fearing the hammer.  Or perhaps you were just afraid that you would lose control and throw a tantrum.  If you can't trust yourself, just say so.  I'll be happy to call it a night so you can go whine with your teddy and complain about all those unfair liberals who have the unmitigated gall to actually ask you to back up your claims.

...which you STILL haven't done.  It's all I ask, man.  Given all the time we've been going at each other, I'd think you'd have had plenty of time to track down a few sites and provide some links.  Is that really too much to ask?
2014-04-17 09:55:38 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: Pure speculation


AKA you have nothing but strawmen
2014-04-17 09:53:54 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Made you, and anyone else in this thread, think about Baathists, didn't I?  That was my primary goal, and I achieved it in a superlative manner.  Now, a lot more very thoughtful people are aware of a type of political activism that I wanted them to be aware of.  My work here is done.  Well, don't you have a date with a red dot somewhere?


what the f*ck

Did you really need to be such a whiny panicky hyperbolic whackaloon about it?

Are you even aware that you just insulted yourself?

We aren't going to listen to you, we're either slapping the sh*t out of ourselves for LISTENING to your drivel in the first place, mocking it, or laughing hysterically at you.

Yes, your "amazing" "wonderful" and "glorious" work here is DONE.
2014-04-17 09:46:41 PM  
1 vote:

Animatronik: Crotchrocket Slim: Animatronik: Crotchrocket Slim: Gulper Eel: Crotchrocket Slim: Post made less dishonest

Don't be obtuse and don't try to change the subject. We already have a daily Michele-Bachmann-said-something-stupid thread for that subject.

The supposed key point of a university education is that you're going to a place where the rules for discourse are different than they are in the outside world. You're not supposed to go along to get along like you might on the outside just to keep the peace. At college you're not only supposed to tolerate dissenting opinions; you're supposed to welcome their existence and learn how to debate them heartily so as to perhaps learn something new in the process.

And if you're in a faith-based group at a college, you're in the place where you are sure as shiat not supposed to resort to whining when your belief system is challenged.

The argument about Christian foolishness you're trying to drag into this has to do with what they do in the world outside, but no matter how valid it is it has zero to do with the original point at hand

Yes let's just ignore the massive amount of prejudice and bigotry Muslims face every day and the fact that much of this is at the hands of Christians, and that Christians still have a stranglehold over our culture. That's totes irrelevant.

And you're right in one regard: given that Universities are selective about the students they take in, the students do have a right to demand the University comport to their wishes somewhat. Higher ed exists in a far freer market than elementary schools.

Students demanding that universities "comport to their ideas" is a really DUMB IDEA because most students are idiots who should be learning from their betters. If you want to protest a war, fine. If you want to protest a speaker for being a wizard of the KKK, fine. If you want to protest a speaker because, in addition to being a brilliant writer, they hold political opinions that a majority of students don't ...


Sure you did, what with you displaying a complete lack of knowledge of the collegiate admissions process. I didn't know shiatty community colleges offered PhD programs.
2014-04-17 09:33:49 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: We'll be talking again in other threads, and that right soon.


Will you be bringing facts to that thread, or more unwarranted paranoid teabagger bullshiat?  Either way, I look forward to ii

lantawa: The suppression of diversity of opinion is a real thing. You gang-troll folk have taken a stance that opposes this truth. Middle Eastern political influence is, indeed, a part of this phenomenon. You are truly, and I say this unequivocally, stupid or actively encouraging this suppression if you are not recognizing this fact.


So, asking you to back up your claims is "suppression?"

lantawa: And I do not like "the hammer." So, in order to keep privileges, disengagement has to occur, because otherwise the escalation just continues until total overload.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems to be some form of "WAAAAH!!  I'M A VICTIM!!1!"  Man up. dude.

lantawa: You've perfected the gang troll.


Gang troll = "these meanies won't stop asking me to back up my claims!  Why won't they just accept my outrageous claims?  Oh yeah, because they are SUPPRESSING me!!"
2014-04-17 09:31:14 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: The speaker the Muslims were whining about in this case is an atheist. Christianity has nothing to do with this case.


I'm an atheist and I still don't care. No one has the right to be entitled to use an educational institution as their own personal pulpit, speaking at such an institution is a privilege and an honor.

And the idea that Muslims are somehow unique in being on the receiving end of prejudice and bigotry is laughable, especially given what happens when the shoe's on the other foot - in the many nations where they are dominant they positively delight in dishing out the hate on a scale that would make Fred Phelps blush. But one atheist ex-Muslim shows up at the college they attend in Boston and all of a sudden the college must rescue them from...from what, exactly? Being called out? That's pathetic. Defend your faith if it's so damn wonderful. (No pressure-cooker bombs allowed.)

What the fark fantasy situation is this? BTW aside from the Mozilla situation- which you lame trolls have already been thoroughly schooled over for the last month- in TFA the only example from the US (which is the only example relevant to me) an honorary degree was offered, then after a student uproar rescinded. NO ONE ANY TIME ANY WHERE IS ENTITLED TO AN HONORARY DEGREE. That's not a free speech issue.
2014-04-17 09:23:59 PM  
1 vote:
What is lantawawaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhohgodthebaaaathistsare coming SMOKING!!??

certainly it isn't this delishus chillout mellow leafy freak chow that I'm sharing with my crazy smokin buddy Canis.
2014-04-17 09:20:44 PM  
1 vote:
I love when trolls do the hissy fit "SCREW YOU GUYS I'M GOING HOME!!!! RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!!!!!" only to come back and demonstrate just how rattled and shaken they are by the convo in the thread.
2014-04-17 09:19:07 PM  
1 vote:

Animatronik: Crotchrocket Slim: Gulper Eel: Crotchrocket Slim: Post made less dishonest

Don't be obtuse and don't try to change the subject. We already have a daily Michele-Bachmann-said-something-stupid thread for that subject.

The supposed key point of a university education is that you're going to a place where the rules for discourse are different than they are in the outside world. You're not supposed to go along to get along like you might on the outside just to keep the peace. At college you're not only supposed to tolerate dissenting opinions; you're supposed to welcome their existence and learn how to debate them heartily so as to perhaps learn something new in the process.

And if you're in a faith-based group at a college, you're in the place where you are sure as shiat not supposed to resort to whining when your belief system is challenged.

The argument about Christian foolishness you're trying to drag into this has to do with what they do in the world outside, but no matter how valid it is it has zero to do with the original point at hand

Yes let's just ignore the massive amount of prejudice and bigotry Muslims face every day and the fact that much of this is at the hands of Christians, and that Christians still have a stranglehold over our culture. That's totes irrelevant.

And you're right in one regard: given that Universities are selective about the students they take in, the students do have a right to demand the University comport to their wishes somewhat. Higher ed exists in a far freer market than elementary schools.

Students demanding that universities "comport to their ideas" is a really DUMB IDEA because most students are idiots who should be learning from their betters. If you want to protest a war, fine. If you want to protest a speaker for being a wizard of the KKK, fine. If you want to protest a speaker because, in addition to being a brilliant writer, they hold political opinions that a majority of students don't agree with, Fark you...


As Universities are obligated to accept anyone and everyone who applies, and students never look at the cultural values of an educational institution when applying.

Do you know how I know you've never gone to college of any kind? Except maybe loser community colleges?
2014-04-17 09:15:03 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!

Well, okay.  I will.  To be honest, I'm amazed that I'm still here and that the hammer has not yet descended.  It would be best if I now went to contemplate the Baathist issues in solitude, so, I say, arrivederci......

Running away again...hardly a surprise

Welcome to Fark!

Oh yeah, I'm well aware of the type:  1) An outrageous claim is made, 2) a request for evidence is made, 3) Ignore requests and/or express feelings or persecution and/or leave the thread.

Oh, then eventually return to FARK and act surprised that everyone laughs at you, then more persecution complex/tail between legs whining and fleeing.

Usually it's boring, but sometimes I find it entertaining.

Jesus Christ.  You guys are like a pack of weasels, Little imp-weasels, feeding on the imaginary carcasses of your opponents who you've vanquished only in your imaginations. We'll be talking again in other threads, and that right soon.  You folk who have gang-trolled me are a lot duller and unimaginative than you'd otherwise believe.  The suppression of diversity of opinion is a real thing.  You gang-troll folk have taken a stance that opposes this truth.  Middle Eastern political influence is, indeed, a part of this phenomenon.  You are truly, a ...


So, still nothing...I'm shocked
2014-04-17 09:05:06 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Crotchrocket Slim: Post made less dishonest

Don't be obtuse and don't try to change the subject. We already have a daily Michele-Bachmann-said-something-stupid thread for that subject.

The supposed key point of a university education is that you're going to a place where the rules for discourse are different than they are in the outside world. You're not supposed to go along to get along like you might on the outside just to keep the peace. At college you're not only supposed to tolerate dissenting opinions; you're supposed to welcome their existence and learn how to debate them heartily so as to perhaps learn something new in the process.

And if you're in a faith-based group at a college, you're in the place where you are sure as shiat not supposed to resort to whining when your belief system is challenged.

The argument about Christian foolishness you're trying to drag into this has to do with what they do in the world outside, but no matter how valid it is it has zero to do with the original point at hand


Yes let's just ignore the massive amount of prejudice and bigotry Muslims face every day and the fact that much of this is at the hands of Christians, and that Christians still have a stranglehold over our culture. That's totes irrelevant.

And you're right in one regard: given that Universities are selective about the students they take in, the students do have a right to demand the University comport to their wishes somewhat. Higher ed exists in a far freer market than elementary schools.
2014-04-17 09:02:02 PM  
1 vote:

SeriousGeorge: Crotchrocket Slim:

I am flabbergasted. Can someone else please try to explain my point to this person?

I understood your point, and it's a pretty lame one. "People should be never be allowed to vote with their dollars, they are obligated to give their entirely voluntary business to individuals they find offensive".

No, that's not even close to my point. My point was about the rapid expansion of what is deemed offensive, and the haste with which people are willing to bring down the hammer on supposed transgressors. Obviously there's no legal issue in firing the DJ for a club because he played an entirely innocuous song, I'm wondering whether it's appropriate. Do you think #CancelColbert was a one-off thing? I don't, I think it's quickly becoming the new normal and don't be surprised when these things start to succeed.


Oh I see. Did you know that the club has its own First Amendment rights and that the lati- you know what, fark this. If you think there's much of a different relationship between dj and radio station or dj and club you're an imbecile.

You aren't even trying to read a thing I type, or even try to understand it. I don't care if there is a huge campaign that is presently directed at Colbert (and if the right is first catching onto the fact that he's been mocking the shiat out of them for years that's pathetic) that is their right. I also don't care if they are successful in getting Colbert cancelled (which is exceptionally unlikely given that Comedy Central demonstrated they didn't give a shiat about marketing to butthurt conservatives when they hired someone to mock them in a way that was obvious to anyone without extra chromosomes in the first place). I don't care if the Rightwing's attempts to take the piss out of Colbert and Stewart just demonstrate that they are bitter, humorless assholes who can only tear others down.

This sort of thing isn't new, the rules have not changed, you could always be fired for conducting yourself publicly in a way that makes it very difficult for the employer to keep you on and still conduct business. What's changed is society is getting sick of rightwing dirtbaggery,and the dirtbags are sad they don't have free reign over the rest of us anymore. This is the life the rest of us have had to live for decades, man up Nancy boy.
2014-04-17 08:39:14 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: Crotchrocket Slim: CanisNoir: Since when did supporting gay marriage become bigotry? Oh it doesn't, you just wanted to prove my point by calling me a bigot.

You're a joke.

Sure you support gay marriage, while working against all efforts to actually lift a finger to make gay marriage a legal reality.

Dafuq!? I've never worked for or against Gay Marriage, and even when I held the Traditionalist view, I refused to vote on the subject because I knew my view was irrational. You're just talking out your arse. Again, a joke.


As failing to vote on your supposed principles is the only way to advance an agenda in the US. Quick count to "potato" with your fingers, no toes.
2014-04-17 08:37:44 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: grumpfuff: Yes, because it's only Muslim students who "stamp their widdle feetsies and demand that the bad [person] stop talking."

It's not like full-grown Christians do that every farking day, but no, you'll reserve your poutrage for some Muslim college kids

In this very cherry-pickedcase which ignores how much more common it is to have this coming from Christains in America,it  is only the Muslim students who complained, along with the usual PC professors who never met an authoritarian before whom they couldn't grovel.

What stupid things Christians may do in completely different circumstances is an entirely different debate.


Post made less dishonest
2014-04-17 08:36:08 PM  
1 vote:

SeriousGeorge: Crotchrocket Slim: SeriousGeorge: I'm talking about the propriety of forcing people from their jobs because of a perceived slight to an oppressed group and the desire of some social-justice warriors to insist that all public places become a "safe space" for them.

I.E. you have no clue how the free market works unless it's supporting your agenda. Unless the DJ owns the radio station- and yes DJs work for radio stations you obtuse boob- he has not First Amendment right to the airwaves. Tell me you at least think "right to work" state laws are at least retardedly clownish, then you might not have a completely hypocritical position.

I am flabbergasted. Can someone else please try to explain my point to this person?


I understood your point, and it's a pretty lame one. "People should be never be allowed to vote with their dollars, they are obligated to give their entirely voluntary business to individuals they find offensive".
2014-04-17 08:32:35 PM  
1 vote:

Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!

Well, okay.  I will.  To be honest, I'm amazed that I'm still here and that the hammer has not yet descended.  It would be best if I now went to contemplate the Baathist issues in solitude, so, I say, arrivederci......

Running away again...hardly a surprise

Welcome to Fark!


Oh yeah, I'm well aware of the type:  1) An outrageous claim is made, 2) a request for evidence is made, 3) Ignore requests and/or express feelings or persecution and/or leave the thread.

Oh, then eventually return to FARK and act surprised that everyone laughs at you, then more persecution complex/tail between legs whining and fleeing.

Usually it's boring, but sometimes I find it entertaining.
2014-04-17 08:27:02 PM  
1 vote:

SeriousGeorge: I'm talking about the propriety of forcing people from their jobs because of a perceived slight to an oppressed group and the desire of some social-justice warriors to insist that all public places become a "safe space" for them.


I.E. you have no clue how the free market works unless it's supporting your agenda. Unless the DJ owns the radio station- and yes DJs work for radio stations you obtuse boob- he has not First Amendment right to the airwaves. Tell me you at least think "right to work" state laws are at least retardedly clownish, then you might not have a completely hypocritical position.
2014-04-17 08:24:18 PM  
1 vote:

Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!

Well, okay.  I will.  To be honest, I'm amazed that I'm still here and that the hammer has not yet descended.  It would be best if I now went to contemplate the Baathist issues in solitude, so, I say, arrivederci......

Running away again...hardly a surprise


Welcome to Fark!
2014-04-17 08:18:09 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!

Well, okay.  I will.  To be honest, I'm amazed that I'm still here and that the hammer has not yet descended.  It would be best if I now went to contemplate the Baathist issues in solitude, so, I say, arrivederci......


Running away again...hardly a surprise
2014-04-17 08:08:45 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Okay sport. Here ya go. You've worked hard for it, and I just want you to once again see the horrible horrible picture of your Illustrious Leader; you know, the one that outraged you and sent you spiralling into a black hole of "farkying" that bad ol' man who dared to insult your idol. If this were the Middle East, and this guy in the pic was the leader of the Middle Eastern country, then I'd be ended, disappeared, taken out to the desert, and buried. Too bad that you can't do that, isn't it. Schadenfraude indeed: Maybe He can make a vagina out of YOUR anus. You'd like that, wouldn't you?


Shouldn't you be providing evidence to back up your claims?

Get to work, slacker!
2014-04-17 08:06:18 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: grumpfuff: There's a difference between being an atheist, and saying:

"Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."

That's it?

That's what got the Muslim students all fretful? They don't know how to contest those points other than to pout and stamping their widdle feetsies and demand that the bad lady stop talking? How the fark did they get admitted to Brandeis being that clueless?

That's a pretty flimsy excuse for a religion they've got going there. Farking hell, even that nutcase Ahmadinejad showed up at Columbia better prepared for a debate.


Yes, because it's only Muslim students who "stamp their widdle feetsies and demand that the bad [person] stop talking."

It's not like full-grown Christians do that every farking day, but no, you'll reserve your poutrage for some Muslim college kids.
2014-04-17 08:04:33 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.

For once I'm glad someone quoted a troll I got listed as I wouldn't have been able to drink in the pure schadenfreude from the butthurt pussy* being given a taste of his own medicine. Oh the poor baby got his pwecious feewings hurt

*Don't think of the dynamics of that phrase for long

Crotchrocket Slim: grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.

For once I'm glad som ...


lantawa: This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.

Practice what you preach rev.
2014-04-17 07:58:08 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: grumpfuff: CanisNoir: If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.

CanisNoir: The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.

"We don't need anti-discrimination laws, the free market will fix it!"

*free market fixes it*

"WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING HIM??"

Not to mention, saying it sets a dangerous precedent is stupid. Both sides have called for boycotts and people to fired before.

One example of a person shouting a single word does not make a pattern, and is not comparable to what Condi Rice, Cheny and others faced when invited to speak.

Your second example would be valid if there were actual discrimination at work, but Eich did not discriminate against anyone. Sorry, that one fails hard. There was no outward evidence of his political views, they only became widely known because someone vindictively took advantage of a California law and published the prop 8 donor list and then another company used it to take the heat off of themselves after one of their employees tweeted something obnoxious.


Turd dog, all political donations over $100 in California are public knowledge and Eich knew that when he made the donation, and he knew he made that donation when he accepted the CEO position, also knowing this would make him a public figure. But of course you support his bigotry even if it's far more passive than your own so he shouldn't ever have to take responsibility for them. The free market is supposed to enable you to discriminate against people you dislike, not actually be a free market, right? I'm waiting for your pathetic, unconsidered, limp wristed rationale as to why not.
2014-04-17 07:57:10 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: One example of a person shouting a single word does not make a pattern, and is not comparable to what Condi Rice, Cheny and others faced when invited to speak.


I've never heard of them being shouted at while making a speech. Trying to act like one side does this more than the other is blatant partisanship. Both sides do it, because both sides have immature little farks who do not know how to act.

CanisNoir: Your second example would be valid if there were actual discrimination at work, but Eich did not discriminate against anyone. Sorry, that one fails hard. There was no outward evidence of his political views, they only became widely known because someone vindictively took advantage of a California law and published the prop 8 donor list and then another company used it to take the heat off of themselves after one of their employees tweeted something obnoxious.


So the problem isn't that he made the donation, it's that people found out? Really? Not to mention he claimed he still held those beliefs.
2014-04-17 07:52:17 PM  
1 vote:

grumpfuff: lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you.  You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.

I lol'd.


For once I'm glad someone quoted a troll I got listed as I wouldn't have been able to drink in the pure schadenfreude from the butthurt pussy* being given a taste of his own medicine. Oh the poor baby got his pwecious feewings hurt

*Don't think of the dynamics of that phrase for long
2014-04-17 07:50:22 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: ScaryBottles: lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.  To be honest, the ganglike suppressive efforts regarding my viewpoint, by many of you here, is very much like the Baathist method of shouting down a dissident and then setting upon him.
[news.psu.edu image 200x200]

You walked right into that one chief.....

It's true that I did walk right into it, and I even forgot the combination to my locker, heheh.

To be fair, that is what Baathists do, though it's way too much of a stretch to believe that the average ITG Farker is a truly violent Farker

assets.diylol.com

You're making this too easy.
2014-04-17 07:46:26 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: *tap tap tap* anyone who doesn't want a strong black man to make his anus into a vagina that is?

This is what you wrote in the Mother Jones topic thread.  Why?  Why would you write something like this? Who's the closeted homosexual?  Who has a problem with their sexual identity?  Hint:  It's not me, sport.  It's you. You've been calling me names for some time now, and you have ZERO actual reason or cause to be trolling me like you are trolling me.   Now, shut your pie-hole and grow up. This is the adult world, where many persons like myself and the others in this thread discuss and differ in their opinions relative to social and political topics that are currently in play.  YOU.   Stop the personal attacks.  I'm really tired of it and you're being truly offensive.


I lol'd.
2014-04-17 07:44:54 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: CanisNoir: an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.

QFMFT.

Outspoken atheists like Dawkins, Ali and Hitchens (may God, Allah, Buddha, Cthulhu, Zoroaster, Odin, Zeus and Eric Clapton rest his soul, just to take the piss out of him) should be the very people a religious student association should welcome to campus, eager for debate.

Instead we get this insipid whining from the Muslim Snowflake Association that their feelings are hurt, and the administration bends over for them.


There's a difference between being an atheist, and saying:

"Once it's defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It's very difficult to even talk about peace now. They're not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars."
2014-04-17 07:42:13 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Regarding the "link" between Middle East and West, I told you and everyone else here that I would work on it.


So you still have nothing.  Got it.

Please restrict your response to backing up your original accusations.

Or talk more about what I would do or like to do, as if you know fark-all about me.  It's a very handy diversion.

And I don't know fark-all about you either, other than your complete inability to back up your claims.

Any time you care to get back to the claim you made, and provide evidence to back it up, I will be here to listen and consider it very seriously.

And if you choose to leave, or whine some more, I will be here to laugh at you.
2014-04-17 07:39:19 PM  
1 vote:

Lionel Mandrake: Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)

Hey  Lionel, y'all be debating a hypocritical clownshoes troll who has posted more than enough of his own creepy closeted gay imagery involving Obama.

I'm well-aware of what he is...but I believe in second, third, etc chances.  I keep hoping that one these FARK "conservatives" will actually back up their shiat, and set the table for an actual intelligent discussion.

Sometimes it actually happens!  Or, used to, any way.  I don't expect much from this particular troll/coward, but I am always hopeful that one will actually provide some starting ground for a discussion.  But it's pretty much always: Outrageous statement followed by requests for citations followed by diversion (you're so naïve!!) followed by further requests for evidence, followed by silence)

Some days I'm in the mood to give another opportunity and I don't mind typing a bunch.  These moods are ephemeral and so far have born no fruit...but I will continue to try from time to time.  Maybe...someday...maybe,,,


It's very sad that American conservatism has sold itself out such that it only appeals to miscreants, retards, and generally worthless assholes today :(
2014-04-17 07:32:50 PM  
1 vote:

Crotchrocket Slim: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....

Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)

Hey  Lionel, y'all be debating a hypocritical clownshoes troll who has posted more than enough of his own creepy closeted gay imagery involving Obama.


I'm well-aware of what he is...but I believe in second, third, etc chances.  I keep hoping that one these FARK "conservatives" will actually back up their shiat, and set the table for an actual intelligent discussion.

Sometimes it actually happens!  Or, used to, any way.  I don't expect much from this particular troll/coward, but I am always hopeful that one will actually provide some starting ground for a discussion.  But it's pretty much always: Outrageous statement followed by requests for citations followed by diversion (you're so naïve!!) followed by further requests for evidence, followed by silence)

Some days I'm in the mood to give another opportunity and I don't mind typing a bunch.  These moods are ephemeral and so far have born no fruit...but I will continue to try from time to time.  Maybe...someday...maybe,,,
2014-04-17 07:27:57 PM  
1 vote:

CanisNoir: If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.


i2.cdn.turner.com

CanisNoir: The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.


"We don't need anti-discrimination laws, the free market will fix it!"

*free market fixes it*

"WHY ARE YOU OPPRESSING HIM??"

Not to mention, saying it sets a dangerous precedent is stupid. Both sides have called for boycotts and people to fired before.
2014-04-17 07:25:41 PM  
1 vote:

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes, I have a couple of times.

The use of the phrase "free speech" is a distraction. The author is talking about the ability to speak freely.
If someone is invited to give a speech, they should not be shouted out by attendees who disagree. This practice is predominant on the left side of the American political spectrum.
I have less of a problem with speakers being disinvited, but an Educational institution should embrace debate not run from it.
The Mozilla incident, imho, was a horrible and vindictive thing and I think it set a dangerous precident. I hope the right does not engage in a "tit for tat" campaign.

Also, I might add, terms such as racist and bigot are used with zero evidence existing to prove either and have diluted them to near meaninglessness.

The right is not completely innocent in this, but the culprits are predominantly liberal, and younger.

/The order should probably read younger and liberal as I think it has more to do with age than it does your type of politics.
2014-04-17 07:11:47 PM  
1 vote:

cchris_39: Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.


No. It's more like this:

If you want the immigration laws enforced because you hate Latinos- BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay without justification - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills because you think it's immoral for women to use it to have sex without consequences- BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born because women should be punished for having intercourse- BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates  in a way that suggests black people are innately inferior- BIGOT! (racist),

 If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote because it disenfranchises your inferior opponents- BIGOT! (more racist),
 If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined  because white people are innately more intelligent and productive- BIGOT! (extremely racist).
2014-04-17 07:09:13 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Lionel Mandrake: lantawa: ........... well, bye.

So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"

Excuse me, SIR. I was saying bye to the guy who was saying bye to me.  You know, that guy;  the one who posted the gif of the American Eagle, attached to a man's loins, becoming erect and spewing cum.  I was saying bye to that guy only.  And good riddance....


Oh, you're still here.  Perhaps, SIR, you would be so kind as to provide that evidence of a link between Baathists and American liberals?

Or you could just run away (again)
2014-04-17 07:02:54 PM  
1 vote:

Lionel Mandrake: SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.

Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views


What I find more amusing is that many of the people screaming about how Eich is being oppressed are the same people who called for Bashir to be fired.
2014-04-17 06:54:18 PM  
1 vote:

SeriousGeorge: I was amazed at the irony with which people supported the removal of Eich because of his homophobic views only to have a lot of those same people sneer at the idea that Stephen Colbert should face any backlash for his (debatably) racist joke without noticing the similarity between the two cases.


Or the differences, as in one was satire.

For the record, I believe calls to boycott Eich/Mozilla were silly.  But they were at least based on his actual views, and not a satirical poking of views
2014-04-17 06:37:13 PM  
1 vote:

KillaChinchilla: I have this strange idea that if a comments section can change your opinion on an actual political affiliation level you are easily manipulated.


This really isn't the case, at least not all the time. Simple example, waaaaaaay back when, I was a bit of a Truther. Lurking on Fark and reading articles from places like PopSci that other Farkers posted is one of the major reasons I no longer am.
2014-04-17 06:10:24 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: And do you good folk not see how readily these views by a Baathist founder could be Westernized?


The question isn't whether it's possible. The question is whether it has actually happened. You have spent a lot of time arguing that there is an actual, factual Baathist influence on Western politics. What you haven't done is show any proof that that is actually happening. Just saying it might happen is not proof that it has happened.

You still have the same amount of crediblity as Truthers and Birthers and Geocentrists. That won't change until you provide actual evidence of the specific influence actually happening, not just speculation on what could happen.
2014-04-17 06:07:46 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: ........... well, bye.


So, proving your inability to back up your claims, you've decided to just leave....typical FARK "conservative"
2014-04-17 05:46:54 PM  
1 vote:
If you don't agree with me I will do my best to change the laws to force you agree with me.

Screw your religion. I want the government to make you buy me stuff and shut you down if you try to resist.

And the things I can never accomplish at the ballot box I will relentlessly pursue through the courts. I have a 14th amendment right to any damned thing I want.
2014-04-17 05:40:19 PM  
1 vote:

Summercat: KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?

Yes. Me.

On a wide variety of subjects; back when I started FARKing I was leaning towards Republican/Libertarian.

I got better.


sparks.brushfireoffreedom.org
2014-04-17 05:38:52 PM  
1 vote:

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


I have, certainly. Especially when it comes to parsing Supreme Court decisions and such. I'd say have your views refined is a much more reasonable metric.
2014-04-17 05:38:25 PM  
1 vote:

KillaChinchilla: Question: Has anyone ever been to a Fark comments thread and had their mind changed on a political subject?


Yes. Me.

On a wide variety of subjects; back when I started FARKing I was leaning towards Republican/Libertarian.

I got better.
2014-04-17 05:32:43 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: UncomfortableSilence: After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.

Is your google-fu really that weak?  Are you guys really that clueless?

this link is the FIRST result from the googled term "baathism":   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism

These paragraphs, below, are from that article.  How hard is it to put two and two together.  Seriously guys.  C'mon!

Aflaq deeply supported some Marxist   tenets, and he considered the Marxist concept of the to be one of modern humanity's greatest discoveries. However, he disagreed with the Marxist view that dialectical materialism was the  only truth. Aflaq believed that Marxism had forgotten human's spirituality. While believing that the concept would work for small and weak societies, the concept of dialectical materialism as the  only truth in Arab development was wrong.

For a people as spiritual as the Arabs, the working class was just a group, albeit the most important group, in a much larger movement to free the Arab nation. Aflaq agreed to Karl Marx's view that the working class was a central force, but not which role it played in history. In contrast to Marx, Aflaq believed in, and believed that in the Arab world all classes, and not just the working class, were working against. What in the west was a struggle between various classes was in the Arab world a fight for political and economic independence.

For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in ...

We have a Major Problem,

Creation is Cubic Opposites,
2 Major Corners & 2 Minor.

Mom/Dad & Son/Daughter,
NOT
taught Evil ONEism,
which  VOIDS Families.
********************************************************************* * ********************

Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die evil.
********************************************************************* * ******************
 Evil God Believers refuse to
acknowledge  4 corner Days
rotating simultaneously around
4 quadrant created Earth -
in only 1 rotation, voiding the
Oneism Evil  1 Day 1 God.
You worship Satanic impostor
guised by educators as 1 god.

No 1 God equals 4 - 24 hour

Days Rotating Simultaneously
within 1- 24 hour Rotation of
 4 quadrant created Earth.
Ignoring 4 Corner Earth Days
will Destroy Evil Humanity.
I am organizing Children to
join "Cubic Army of 4 Days"
to convert Evil 1 Day Adults
to 4 Day mentality existence,
to serve perpetual humanity.

"Nothing on Earth more Evil

than a human educated as 1,
when composed of opposites
that cancel out as an entity."
In fact, man is the only 1 Evil,
and will soon erase himself by
ignoring Cubic 4 Day Creation.
If a Man cannot tear a page
from the bible and burn it -
then he cannot be a scientist
,
or participate in Symposium -
to measure Cubing of Earth
with Cubic intelligence wiser
than any man or god known.
Educators have destroyed the
human analytical brain to a
single perspective, in spite of
all creation within  Universe
being based upon opposites,
binaries & antipodes, including
Sun/Earth binary relative to the

 human male/female binary. No

 ancient insignificant dead 1 Jew
 godism can match or exceed the
enormity of the Sun/Earth
Binary. His heart is not big
enough for sharing with the
vastness of created opposites.
1 has no heart beat or breath,
constituting death of opposites.
God in Human form has human

 limits as body controls activity.

You are taught Evil, You act
Evil, You are the Evil on Earth.
Only your comprehending the
Divinity of Cubic Creation will
your soul be saved from your
created hell on Earth
- induced
by your ignoring the existing
4 corner
harmonic simultaneous
 4 Days rotating in a single cycle
of the Earth sphere. Religious/
Academic Pedants cannot allow
4 Days that contradict 1Day 1God.
Educators destroy your brain,
but you don't know, so why care?

Creation ocurrs via opposites,

but Religious/Academia pedants
suppress it teaching Satanic One.

After 30 years of research, I now

possess the Order of Harmonic
Antipodal Cubic Divinity Life -
too large for physical form, but
Binary Spirit of the masculinity
Sun & feminity Earth Antipodes.
ONEism is demonic Death Math.
I have so much to teach you, but
you ignore me you evil asses.
You will recognize 4 corner Days
or incur
Easter Island Ending.

Never a Genius knew Math

to achieve my Cubic Wisdom.
Cubic thought Reigns as the
Highest Intelligence possible
on the planet Earth. One 96
hour rotating Cube within a
single rotation of Earth -- is
an Ineffable Transcendence.
Bible and Science falsify 1
corner day for the Cubic 4
corner Days rotating daily.
A single god is not possible
in our 4 Day Cubic Science,
that equates Cubic Divinity.
Everybody is both stupid and
evil for ignoring the 4 days.
Cube Divinity transcends all
knowledge, Humans can't
escape 4 corner Cubic Life.
Fools worship mechanics of
language - while they wallow
in fictitious & deceitful word
.
Exact science based on Cubics,
not on theories. Wisdom is
Cubic testing of knowledge.
Academia is progression of
Ignorance.   No god equals
Simultaneous 4 Day Creation.
Humans ignore their 4 corner
stages of life metamorphosis.
This site is a collection of data
for a coming book - peruse it.
No human has 2 hands as they
are opposites, like plus and
minus, that cancel as entity.
Academia destroys your brain,
your ability to think opposite.
The eyes of the flounder fish
were relocated, why were yours

 relocated? Your opposite eyes

were moved to 1 corner to overlay
for single perspective, but that
corrupts your Opposite Brain.
*****************************

KNOW CUBE, OR HELL.

Education and Religion
severely diminishes
your
intelligence and mentality,
instituting ONEness Evil
,
You are educated stupid -
and you have no inkling to
just how EVIL you think.

Seek in haste to attend a

lecture by Dr. Gene Ray,
Cubic and Wisest Human -

His Wisdom is Awesome.
*************************************
For Cumming, GA 30041 Lecture,
email: o­ra­y612­959[nospam-﹫-backwards]knilh­trae*ne­t
*******************************************
Both Cubic Thinkers and SnotBrains were
born with opposite brains, capable of math
analysis to know most everything.    The
Religious/Academic Oneness Brotherhood
destroys the Brain's ability to think opposite
of singularity trash taught.
Such reduced
Brain intelligence
begets the student a
tag of SnotBrain android - encapable of
comprehending absolute proof of 4 Days
rotating simultaneously within a single
rotation of Earth. Cubics comprehend it.
You are a Cubic Thinker, or SnotBrain.

You SnotBrains will know
hell for ignoring TimeCube.
I do not promote or suggest
anyone killing you, but you
are unfit to live on Earth.
Binary Life Force
is more
Powerful than ONE God -
especially the ole dead Jew,
for which you've denounced
your own mother and father.
1 side brain can't reason
without the opposite side.
Americans are so dumb,
educated stupid and evil,
they have snot for brain.
Believers have snot brain.
Educated have snot brain.
God worship only needs
a snot brain, but it takes
Opposite Brain Analysis
to know Harmonic Life.

The masculinity Sun and
femininity Earth - form
a Binary of Harmonic
Opposites
  at Center of
Universe - Greater than
either Sun or the Earth,
debunking all fictitious
Oneism Gods taught by
religious/academic Word
Animals. The invention of
fictitious WORD inflicts
humans as Word Animals
- the dumbest and most
Educated stupid and Evil
animal to inhabit Earth
and the Universe. Watch
for Giant Erasor as there
is a great danger of the
human Word Animal being
self-erased.   You cannot
comprehend the actual 4

 simultaneous days in single

rotation of Earth, as 1 day
1 God ONEism blocks the
ability to think opposite of
the ONEism crap taught.
Education destroys brain.

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human

**********************************

Gene Ray interview by Lionel on Air America Radio,

The Lionel Show - 10am, Friday, August 3, 2007

Creation is the Harmonics of Opposites -

Opposites are the Harmonics of Creation.
God entity is queer sex, or no opposite sex.
God Oners must ban all sex with Opposites.
Trinity of males degrade female opposites.
Sex okay for atheist, but not God Oneists.
Opposite hemispheres equate planets to a
Giant Brain, that has 4 faces, but no limbs.
Adults create baby, baby evolves to adult.
No 1 God can create a planet of opposites,
which equate to a zero value existence, and
cancels to nothing as an entity in death.

**********************************
"Cubic Time" - Cubes
Earth, Life and Truth

Word God is Bad Math
MATH SHOWN HERE IS
FAR SUPERIOR TO GOD
AND CHRISTIANITY. USE
IT TO SAVE HUMANITY.

HONOR THE 4 DAYS



OR YOU SHOULD DIE.


Dr Gene Ray is the
Greatest Philosopher,
and is the Greatest
Mathematician.
www.TheWisestHuman.com
********************************************


Cubic Harmonics
Only Cubic Harmonics can save
humanity. Cubic Harmonics
will pacify all religions.

96-hour Cubic Day

debunks 1-day unnatural god.
96-hour Cubic Day
debunks 1-day as witchcraft.

96-hour day willdisprove disunity

god. Academians are teaching -
pseudoscience.

Worshipping a Word God

will destroy the USA.
********************************************************
2014-04-17 05:28:41 PM  
1 vote:
lantawa:For Aflaq, socialism was a necessary means to accomplishing the goal of initiating an Arabic  renaissance period, in other words,  . While unity brought the Arab world together and liberty provided the Arab people with freedom, socialism was the cornerstone which made unity and liberty successful. No socialism meant no revolution. In Aflaq's view, a system would not succeed in a country such as that was dominated by a "pseudo-feudalist" economic system in ...

Okay, I'll contribute one thing to your "discussion" before I start heading out to run some brief errands.

"So, some guy decided that certain ideals and tactics would help him achieve his goals for the people he wanted to support. This is evil! Evil I tell you!"

.. and, so what? You're still trying to Godwin a discussion by using this guy instead of Hitler, because he used some of the same propaganda techniques that are used today by organizations left -and- right of center? Whoop-de-hell. BFD. You're an idiot, and that's not "snark machine" talk, that's genuine "TellarHK's MFing Opinion" talking.

"Select views and techniques from a guy people don't like could be shared and used by completely different groups with goals sharing only the most vague and debatable similarities if any! Get the whole story here only on Fox 11!"

Wheeeeeeee. Such amazing conversation. I'm bored now. Time for a taco.
2014-04-17 05:28:06 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Crotchrocket Slim: Are you guys seriously trying to debate the troll who used to post his politically themed jack off material in Fark threads?

STILL  butthurt about that photoshop picture that I posted about a half a year ago?  Not done with me yet?  Grow a sense of humor.  Did you notice that NO ONE supported you when you tried to "ghey-bait" me with YOUR gross imagery?  You're engaging in cheesedick moves that have NOTHING to do with the current topic.  Stahp it!


Ok. So you're trolling. Got it. Bye. Kill yourself.
2014-04-17 05:26:50 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  ...  Be aware of it:  It is real.



lantawa: So, let's hear your further excuses about how there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection between Eastern Marxism and socialism, and Western Marxism and socialism.


Funny how suddenly everyone else has to prove to you that "there is just no possible way that there is a credible connection" when you were declaring Baathist political ideology HAS reached the west. You are just using a different word to cry "socialist" and "rule for radicals"! It may be the latest cover version, but it's still the same old tune.
2014-04-17 05:26:12 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.

You know, if you took off your Captain Laconic helmet and offered two or three more sentences to connect the point you're trying to make to the people which whom you're arguing, you'd be a lot more successful in conveying any sort of point. You'd probably come off a lot less like a smarmy git, too.


That would require him to own his opinions.
2014-04-17 05:24:04 PM  
1 vote:
lantawa: wiki

Again, I went looking for evidence of anything relative to baathists and left leaning etc.  I saw that there was a wikipedia article describing what baathism is.  Not the same thing.  There was nothing to back up the assumptions you have created from reading a wikipedia article about an Iraqi political movement.

/Still waiting for the evidence beyond "can't you see it guys, the cloud looks just like a rabbit."
2014-04-17 05:12:25 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Not likely


Imagine that.


If you won't put any effort into debate, why should I? There are other dissenting viewpoints with which I can have real discussions beyond two or three words.
2014-04-17 05:09:26 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


But frankly, we aren't, and I don't see why you still seem to think her bigoted statements aren't without consequence.
2014-04-17 05:02:51 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Here, let me answer that for you. I am a liberal atheist. Richard Dawkins is a farktard who should stick to evolutionary biology.
2014-04-17 05:02:14 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views


In defense of dogmatism,

Regardless of how legitimate someone believes their view to be (or they evidence they have to back it up), dogmatic dismissal can actually be appropriate. Debates encourage a society to gradually normalize a topic and frankly there are things we shouldn't normalize. Sometimes it really is better to live a cynical/hypocritical existence rather than openly discuss toxic ideology.
2014-04-17 04:59:40 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Funny, that's the same excuse you posted last time, and when you finally did post it, I responded to it and you never answered.
2014-04-17 04:57:59 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


Is your point that his imprisonment is an example of free speech being suppressed or an example of an arguably reactionary law in a country that just might be overly sensitive about its association with the holocaust?

Because, if something like were to happen outside of Austria or Germany, you might have a point about the former, but as it is it seems more the latter.
2014-04-17 04:56:40 PM  
1 vote:
After attempting to google Baathist and various combinations of words that would tie it to leftist or democratic politics, I found nothing.  Not even the infowars article that this must have spawned from.
2014-04-17 04:56:10 PM  
1 vote:

BSABSVR: Apparently "baathist liberals" is going to take the place of "fabian socialist" and "alinskyite tactics" to make people who have never opened a book past the cover sound like they know farkall about politics.


I think it falls somewhere between "liberal fascists" and "shape-shifting reptile people control the world". All of these concepts are idiotic and wrong. It's a matter of degrees of crazy.
2014-04-17 04:52:36 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making.

The discussion of David Irving is a good start.


and bonus points if you can figure out how that relates with this story.
2014-04-17 04:50:19 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: I can see how what you are saying is true. The humorous way to approach that perception would be to say that yes, I'll go study it out and bring back some citations.  More seriously, I guess I have to admit that it is a thesis without background citations.  So, that admission should please the butthurt in this thread.  Okay.  In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.  I admit that just posting a couple of Baathist links by Wiki and a blog are insufficient evidence for the disbelievers.


My butthurt is indeed pleased as if a great ointment has been applied to it, but a few clarifications.

It's not insufficient evidence for the disbelievers. It's insufficient evidence to the nonbelievers. People who simply don't believe your assertion, not people who actively push against your assertion. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the assertion, and claiming those who disagree as "disbelievers" or implying that only those directly antagonistic to your claims would not be satisfied by your lack of evidence is dishonest.

You should also recognize why the links you posted are insufficient. The Wikipedia entry for Baathism is not self-evident and offers no statement supporting your claims of American liberal politics being influenced by it or any citation to follow through on it. The blog post you linked was not a claim about American politics and liberals being influenced by Baathism. It was a post from an Iraqi American talking about Iraqi politics and how Baathism was itself influenced by Russian and German totalitarian politics.

The connection you make to liberals is not self-evident. There is no evidence of it at all. And the promise you make for the future doesn't help:

In future days I will try to show examples of how Baathism could be a hybrid Americanized Leftist political methodology.

Stop. "Could be" is not "is." It certainly isn't "clearly is." It definitely isn't "can be proven to be." If you're saying all you can offer is speculation and tenuous conceptual connections with no evidence, don't bother. You won't convince anyone. Not just disbelievers, but  anyone. The only person to whome liberal Baathism is self-evident is you.
2014-04-17 04:49:46 PM  
1 vote:

heap: UrukHaiGuyz: I can't watch videos at work. Look at me basking in my hatred of knowledge! Don't be such a tool.

this isn't your first experience with the Obtuseotron 4000, is it?


No. It's easy to stay smug if you remain vague and obtuse instead of actively engaging in debate. It's apparently been working well for him a long time. If it ain't broke...
2014-04-17 04:47:21 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: "The new way", as in something that's been around, relative to the U.S., for well over two decades. You know that you are wrong, and it just kills you to admit it. I'll wait for your admission.


Or you could get off your ass and provide some citations.  There must be loads of them out there.  PLEASE SHARE!!
2014-04-17 04:45:29 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: whidbey: 1. The "right" to make bigoted statements or actions without consequence
2. The "right" to be ignorant without consequence (global warming)
3. The "right" to continue being bigoted or ignorant without consequence

Were we to have been discussing Richard Dawkins slamming Christianity you'd be doing a Camille Crimson on him - but since it's Ayaan Hirsi Ali slamming Islam she's the bigot.

Oh, that  is splendid.


Pure hypotheticals don't really help your argument.
2014-04-17 04:38:45 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.

It wasn't baseless. As I said, I am speaking from personal experience. And the evidence is the lack of the same sort of public calls/petitions of disdain against Obama or Hillary for not supporting gay marriage on the national level until it become political beneficial for them to do so.


You called a specific group of people who signed a petition against Eich for supporting Prop 8 "hypocrites".

Unless you have "personal experience" that these people gave someone on "their team" (your words) who did the same thing a pass, your charge of hypocrisy is baseless.
2014-04-17 04:36:29 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: TellarHK: I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.

I have a sickening feeling that "Baathist" will become the new "Saul Alinsky" in the next few weeks.


"Hey, look. We can use this new polarizing buzzword to antagonize people when we talk about propaganda techniques that have been applied on all sides of debates to one degree or another for centuries! And it's not the Nazis for one! Hurray!"

The only way to beat that nonsense is to ignore it. Don't mock it. Don't pay attention to it. Just ignore it, shake your head, and talk with *sensible* people you disagree with. If someone can't debate or discuss a situation without that kind of crap, they're not worth talking to. Yes, that's being judgemental. No, I don't care what people who oppose me think of that.
2014-04-17 04:32:30 PM  
1 vote:

UrukHaiGuyz: Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr

Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.


It's a speech against the idea of using the government to silence people, it's basically off topic to this discussion.
2014-04-17 04:31:40 PM  
1 vote:
I think the whole "Baathist" thing is basically just the new way to argue without Godwining a thread. Ignore it, folks. We all know he's full of crap, and so does he. 8/10 though, lots of people dragged into it.
2014-04-17 04:29:23 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: grumpfuff: It's a common tactic of his. "Watch the video." "I can't, I'm busy." "Well, you're just not interested in honest debate."

Or I could post the text of the speech to which you'd give a tl;dr


Post the most relevant bit/bits of the text to whatever point you're making. Or continue substituting wryness for actual argument. That's cool too, I guess.
2014-04-17 04:28:37 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".

There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.


Citation Needed. If this is true, show us a specific event in which this has happened. Otherwise your claims are meaningless noise. If you want people to take you seriously and not lump you in with Creationists, Geocentrists, Truthers, and Birthers, you need to actually support your claims with evidence.

You have a thesis, but it needs support. Otherwise you lack credibility.
2014-04-17 04:27:18 PM  
1 vote:
Mentat: that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).

How does your last sentence follow from the previous one? It is not bigoted to dislike someone for holding odious views. Their views are part of who they are. You can't really separate the two. When those people are also friends and family, then sure, it puts you in a more conflicted position. You have to decide if what you like about a given person outweighs what you don't like enough that you still want to associate with them.

For some people close to you, you've obviously decided that your ties to them are more important than their odious views. That's fine. Deciding otherwise is fine too. It's still not bigotry.
2014-04-17 04:25:24 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: how about giving me some feedback on the Baathist movement and the points that I've brought up.  You know, real discussion.


Um, I see your tirade more of a smokescreen to distract from the real issues, that making bigoted statements do have consequences. As for "shutting down debate," repeating the same fallacious claim over and over after called on it isn't "discussion."

Diversity of opinion =/= tolerance of bigotry

now back to your eagle-squirting
2014-04-17 04:24:38 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: Why not just answer the simple question?

I did. And the video has nothing to do with boycotts. Watch and learn.


Lord, you're tiresome. How about no, for reasons previously stated.
2014-04-17 04:24:27 PM  
1 vote:

BSABSVR: You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".


There *is* something called radical Western politics, and that radical Left will use ANY means, no matter how vile and reprehensible the ethics, and including Baathist methodology, to further its agenda. And the Left would LOVE one party rule, FYI. Ergo, so forth and such as, son.
2014-04-17 04:23:01 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


So, I was right. It's just the new "OMG SOCIALIST/MARXIST" with a dash of SAUL ALINSKY and FASCISM/NAZI thrown in for good measure.

Never heard that stuff before.
2014-04-17 04:22:46 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: I'd like to offer you citations, but the political reality is that political trade secrets exist, just like technical trade secrets exist.


"I can't prove it, I just know it's true"


lantawa: There are some ignorant people who truly do not see the Baathist influence in the United States.


Please provide a detailed list of examples of Baathist influence, including citations and explanations of how that particular event shows Baathist influence.
2014-04-17 04:13:23 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: meaningful debate about political methodology.


Meaningful debate like this?

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.

2014-04-17 04:10:14 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.


I see you have the usual plethora of ad hominems, and no actual facts. Keep on keepin on!
2014-04-17 04:10:07 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: BSABSVR: Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?

[img.fark.net image 285x171]

Nice.  Childishly stupid and indicative of a juvenile mentality, but well done, son.  American eagle gif spews cum from a man's loins; it's all part of a meaningful debate about political methodology.  You should be so proud of yourself.  Gold stars all around....


You are asking me to take something called liberal baathism seriously.  I have better things to do.  OSomehow, none of them involve rape rooms or one party rule.  Ergo, you're a moron and a crazy person, so shove that condescension straight up your farking ass,  "son".
2014-04-17 04:09:38 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: I did not know that about Obama.  But yeah, kinda damning he regressed on that stance before Biden essentially forced him to embrace it again.


He's stated in the past that personally he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. These are views I disagree with and they do make him slightly bigoted in a religiously fueled way, but they are also views he has not only not acted upon, but shows no inclination to act upon. He recognizes that his personal beliefs in this should not be codified into law.
2014-04-17 04:05:13 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Bloody William: lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

lantawa: Your opinion is rubbish.

lantawa: The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.

Two statements. Directly undermining each other. Next to each other.

THIS IS WHY YOU ARE MOCKED AND SCORNED.

You're really threatened by this, aren't you.  All caps screaming, disregarding that I'm simply responding to someone else's assertion that my thinking is "rubbish."  And I know, exactly, the political persuasions of anyone who "mocks and scorns" me.  Truth be told, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I'm just sad that you've been brainwashed by whatever thinking process it is that makes you think that you have some sort of groupthink truth that gives you great powers.  Anytime I see someone drag out the "royal We", I know that I'm dealing with an immature intellect.


For a "mature intellect" you sure as hell have a hard time making an actual direct point. Shine on, though. You're more interesting than the usual claptrap.
2014-04-17 04:01:55 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: whidbey: change the channel or stay mad

Yeah...um...whut?


Oh it's the "I don't know what you're talking about card
so I'll keep posting that same stupid link I got called out a bunch of last times card"

it's a double play
2014-04-17 04:01:07 PM  
1 vote:

Flappyhead: There were a lot of words in that article but for some reason it all read like


I'll never understand why right wing media tries so hard to portray themselves as whiny little crybabies with massive persecution complexes (sprinkled with a dash of hypocrisy).
2014-04-17 03:59:27 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: UrukHaiGuyz: How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company?

It's not. Why not watch the video and get back to me?


Because I have work to do as well. Why not just answer the simple question?
2014-04-17 03:56:43 PM  
1 vote:

Felgraf: Libertarians: "The free market will prevent people from discriminating! People just won't shop at places whose proprietors discriminate!"

*PREMISE ACTUALLY WORKS FOR ONCE*

"ZOMG HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH TERRIBLE FORCE THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER."



Looks like those well-farked chickens have come home to roost in a bed of their own making...  or something.

Regardless, please cry more sweet, sweet helpless victim tears.
2014-04-17 03:52:56 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: Infernalist: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

Rubbish.  The Baathists used the Iraqi government to shut down dissent through violence and intimidation of violence.

Left leaning people in America simply mock and scorn those on the right.  If you see the two things as even remotely the same thing, you're either insane, retarded or a troll.

Your opinion is rubbish.  The "mocking and scorning" is part of the willful ignorance that comes from methodical, dogmatic dismissal of legitimate opposing views.  If you can't see the connection between the two things, you're either a low-IQ sycophant for Obama, or an indoctrinated member of your movement who is fearfully denying the truth.


So, a troll. Fair enough, but you're not very good at it.
2014-04-17 03:50:55 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: BSABSVR: That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.

I think it does. Not that they'll remember much about what the other graduation speakers have to say, but now it's guaranteed to be something along the usual forgettable blah blah blah go forth and blah blah blah you're too hung over to remember any of this blah blah blah and in conclusion blah blah blah good luck with that 200 grand in debt.


Ok.  So the commemcement speaker will suck.  Why is that controlling speech?  Ali was given a different option that would have put her "kill all the Muslims" philosophy on similar footing with Ahmedinijhad's "kill all the Jews" philosophy as far as having the opportunity to voice that opinion at a University.  She chose not to take it.  She has no fundamental right to a commencement address just because she won't be reading Doctor Suess.
2014-04-17 03:48:28 PM  
1 vote:

Dancin_In_Anson: Take 20.


How is boycotting not exercising free speech, whether by an individual or a company? You can't force people to be customers.
2014-04-17 03:46:46 PM  
1 vote:

stpauler: Gulper Eel: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".

By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.

Let's see:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'
Sounds like two people got their free speech. And no government involvement

In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
Yeah, don't see the government here either.


At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek 'special clearance' before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The BBC is owned and run by....the government itself. Moreover, they were found to be giving climate skeptics favorable coverage. The BBC has come under fire from the chairman of an influential committee of MPs for favouring climate change sceptics in its coverage - and, according to documents seen by the Guardian, replied by saying that putting forward opinions not backed by science is part of its role.


In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.
And still not the government. And OH NOES! They withdrew an honorary degree? Yet she can still speak her mind?


In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the ...


It seems the right is attempting to do to the word 'diversity' what they did to the word 'liberal'.
2014-04-17 03:44:41 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: UrukHaiGuyz: You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.

You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. And obtuse; you seem to be obtuse, as well. Maybe you can settle your thoughts with a nice canine dish and some beer. That'd probably get you back on track so that a meaningful dialogue could be initiated.


You jump into the thread with equally paranoid and vague ramblings about how liberals in the U.S. are Ba'athists and you want to talk about meaningful dialogue? Not sure if crackpot or weird troll.

/'grats on your expansive vocabulary, though
//makes me lean more towards crackpot
///also....canine dish? wat
2014-04-17 03:40:34 PM  
1 vote:

BSABSVR: Gulper Eel: But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.

Well yes, welcome to every PR farkup everywhere.  That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.


Yeah but apparently we're supposed to "respect" bigotry because free speech or something.
2014-04-17 03:38:32 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: But having made their bed, they were too chickenshiat to sleep in it.


Well yes, welcome to every PR farkup everywhere.  That still has nothing to do with eliminating diversity of opinion.
2014-04-17 03:36:56 PM  
1 vote:

SovietCanuckistan: Dafuq happened in 1770? Saint Reagan holy essence spawned the seed of 'Merica?


Voltaire. "Reverend, I hate what you write, but I will give my life so that you can continue to write."  

Which became the more commonly (but incorrectly) attributed quote along the lines of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
2014-04-17 03:36:31 PM  
1 vote:
cdn.niketalk.com

The edification of this emancipation reaps destruction of the paradigm that shifted into the systemization of coalescing facts discussed in bath houses. To disagree is to disregard the amalgamation of gentrification of liberalism and the vociferation of mesmerizing dedication.
2014-04-17 03:30:48 PM  
1 vote:

Jackson Herring: Bloody William: What the fark are you talking about?

liberals are bad, a bloo blah bloo TOTALLY JUST LIKE SADDAM HUSSEIN!!11! BE AFRAID!

2014-04-17 03:27:47 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: lantawa: HeartBurnKid: Of course Baathism is a real thing.  So are socialism and Marxism, as well as fascism.  The problem is, to many people, the meaning of the latter three (as well as the former, if your post is any indication) is simply "disagreeing with me".

That would be, and is, an incorrect statement. Radical liberal political strategists have stooped to incredibly unethical methodology in their political tactics by coalescing their messages under Baathist-type suppression of opposing views. Quality political dialogue is now much more difficult to find in the West, precisely because of Middle Eastern political influence. We are through more than one looking glass in the political arenas of the West. "Disagreeing with me," yah, my sweet tookus that's what it means..

What the fark are you talking about?


He's really angry at the people that exist in his head.
2014-04-17 03:26:36 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative?  There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance."  I'm speaking from personal experience.  I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage.  If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


You made a baseless accusation of hypocrisy. The burden's now on you to show they are hypocrites; apparently you can't, so admit that in the absence of actual evidence of hypocrisy you were wrong to make the charge.
2014-04-17 03:24:03 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.


Uh.... The Spectator isn't a U.S. publication...
2014-04-17 03:23:50 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


If that mere disagreement is "lalcks/gays/mexicans" ought to be treated like property, yes.
2014-04-17 03:21:45 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Care to defend what Brandeis did?


They denied her the honorary degree, but offered to have her come and debate her point of view which is "Islam must be exterminated".  And given her history, I can kind of get where she is coming from, but there is no obligation to let her get the degree and speak at commencement.

Keep in mind that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia U, most of the people who were outraged about Ali not speaking were calling to his speaking engagement cancelled.

That's not an apples to apples comparison, but it;s as close as we can get .  Ali was given an opportunity to make her case, she chose to complain to her wingnut friends.  Brandeis should have googled her, rather than giving her an opportunity based on her publicity bio.  They farked up in multiople ways here, but this has nothing to do with the freedom of ideas.
2014-04-17 03:16:45 PM  
1 vote:
Brandeis farked up. Mozilla was well within its rights to force out the officer who would be the face of the company for being personally and politically against the perception of that company, especially after his appointment caused a significant amount of internal unrest, including three board members resigning in protest. This wasn't because of OKCupid posting a mean message on their Web site. It wasn't about the homogay lobby. It was about Eich's appointment stirring up more shiat for Mozilla than he was worth.

As for the other examples in that whinefest? We're not Ireland, England, or Australia, you victimized little shiat.
2014-04-17 03:15:35 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: I won't begrudge anyone the right to speak whatever they believe, but at the same time, I'm sure as hell not going to be friendly and welcoming to people who make it plain that their viewpoints and intentions are at odds with my own life.  So, no, you can't come to my party.  Not yours.

Except that the press and academic institutions pitch themselves as the places where ideas are to be openly debated  without reprisals - but when push comes to shove, institutions like Brandeis side with the people doing the pushing and shoving.

The idea is that you should  expectyour positions to be challenged, welcome it, and be ready to debate - not to smugly strut off flatly stating that no debate is necessary.

Shouting down the opposition is a coward's move. It's a minor-league variation on what those batshiat Koran-felchers in Tehran did to Rushdie.


Like the Tea Party members when meeting their elected representatives?
2014-04-17 03:12:11 PM  
1 vote:

cchris_39: If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),


We already know. Was there actually a point to this demonstration?
2014-04-17 03:09:05 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: When did we collectively decide on that? And let's so some specifics from you on which beliefs are so reprehensible that they need to be shut down.


I was unaware I was still allowed to own slaves.
2014-04-17 03:08:30 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: Wooly Bully: Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.

Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.

How do you want me to prove a negative? There's not gonna be a news article of "Gay rights activists don't chide Obama for his stance." I'm speaking from personal experience. I don't remember many people beating Obama (or other Democrats) up over his early statements on gay marriage. If I am wrong, please, I am more than happy to be corrected.


Well, I think there is some intellectual dishonesty at play here. From the beginning of Obama's statements on gay marriage, while he was initially in favor of "civil unions" over "marriage", he was clear in advocating these unions have all the same protections and rights as marriage. Now were there people criticizing him over his unwillingness to go big, of course. But it's important to note that having a prominent Senator, and potential President, on the side of full legal recognition of same-sex couples had great potential, and was a step forward.

None of that is the same as denying rights.
2014-04-17 03:08:03 PM  
1 vote:

lantawa: theknuckler_33: lantawa: Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West

Is 'Baathist' the new socialist or Marxist? First time I'm seeing this derp.

/whynotboth.jpg

You've never heard of Baathism?  Well hell, son, you'd better brush up on your backstroke.  Here's a couple of links to get you going:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism  (check out the "reactionary classes" chapter on that page, to answer your question)

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2009/09/baathism-modelled-after-nazism .h tml

But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


lantawa: But really, get up to speed.  This is a topic that I've studied since 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.  I was in the U.S. Army Reserves Medical Corp, and deactivated about three weeks before my entire old Company (a MASH Unit), went to Saudi Arabia for support work.  I wanted to know who this jacktard was that had invaded Kuwait, and he was, well, a vicious Baathist tyrant.  I learned pretty much everything that I needed to know about Baathism. (TFA discusses this a little bit, but that part of the article is quite far down in the essay.)

It's sad to see that Baathist ideology and methodology has been adopted in the West.  Very troublesome development to unsuspecting political opponents.  People will catch on soon enough, though.


You sound more than a little paranoid. How is Ba'athism any more relevant to the U.S. political debate than Marxism, Maoism, etc.? It's completely irrelevant as its goals and inception were tied deeply to the history of Arab states, and a desire to modernize. It has literally nothing to do with the function of our government or constitution.

If the right would stop plucking random irrelevant ideologies from around the world to use a boogeymen and focus on practical governance for a minute we might be able to get something done once in a while.
2014-04-17 03:06:01 PM  
1 vote:

cchris_39: Infernalist: In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

Hence the universal use of that term for any and all objections.

If you want the immigration laws enforced - BIGOT! (xenophobe),
If you oppose anything gay - BIGOT! (homophobe),
If you don't want to buy other people's birth control pills - BIGOT! (war on women),
If you think a viable fetus has the right to be born - BIGOT! (more war on women),
If you bring up black illegitimacy and drop out rates - BIGOT! (racist),
If you think you should have to prove who you are to vote - BIGOT! (more racist),
If you think white western culture has contributed more to humanity than all others combined - BIGOT! (extremely racist).

Pretty much any disagreement with the left will get you the bigot label in one form or another.

Also, if you're religious you can't possibly believe or enjoy science.

And if you think any government program should ever be cut or people should get to keep more of the money they earn, you're an evil straight from Dickens snatching the last morsel from a starving child.

If you think people can and should succeed on their own, you are dreaming of something foolishly "bootstrappy" that they cannot possibly be expected to achieve without government.

/proud bootstrappy bigot.


ahhhh, the conservative victim. That train is never late!
2014-04-17 03:03:46 PM  
1 vote:

Gulper Eel: Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.

So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.


When you want to get around to addressing what I said, as opposed to what the voices in your head said, I'll be right here.
2014-04-17 02:58:05 PM  
1 vote:

js34603: Headso: Basically they want freedom speech and they also want people who disagree with them to have no freedom of speech to take a shiat on the original free speech.

Not like us. We want our free speech and to make sure people who disagree with us face the consequences. That's much better.


Yes it is. People who disagree with us have a right to say what they want as well and take matters in hand to make us face a consequence if we disagree, apart from anything illegal or immoral.
2014-04-17 02:52:36 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: I'd argue views on homosexuality were coming around in 2008 as well


Which is immaterial since I was talking about the Clinton administration's behavior being in-line with the prevailing attitude of the time.

Jjaro: Which is why over half of CA, one of the more liberal states in the country, voted for Prop 8 in the first place


No, "over half of CA" did not vote for prop 8. Over half of the people who showed up did. So 52% of 80% of registered voters - which is 78% of eligible voters - voted for prop 8. So, no, nowhere near half of CA voted for prop 8. It doesn't really matter what the state as a whole thinks if a good chunk of it can't be bothered to actually go vote to make it happen, which is a constant problem for the democratic party in every state.

Jjaro: he did in fact, apologize


No, he did not. The foundation offered an apology, not Eich.

Jjaro: never did anything to restrict the rights of gays at Mozilla.


That has nothing to do with anything as he was never attacked for "restricting the rights of gays at Mozilla". You can't just make up arbitrary things he didn't do as redeeming qualities when nobody is saying he did them in the first place.

Jjaro: And you don't know for a fact that like Obama, he wasn't in favor of civil unions


I don't know a lot of things about him, what's your point? I do know that at a bare minimum Obama has never supported prop 8 and has always supported at least civil unions. He is also the first sitting president to state unequivocal support for gay marriage and he was integral in the overturning of DADT, one of the bigger mistakes of the Clinton years.

I also know for a fact that Eich supported prop 8 and nothing else has really been said about him on the subject.

Unlike opinions. There is no comparison between the two. You cannot claim that there is hypocrisy when a person supports one and derides the other when the two are entirely unalike.
2014-04-17 02:47:29 PM  
1 vote:
I actually don't really agree with what happened to the Firefox CEO, but stuff like that has been happening since free markets began.

Anytime a brand is associated with a violation of societies' norms it hurts business.  Think about it, if the same CEO was taking a stand against mixed race marriages or a women's right to vote there would be no butthurt from the right, they accept those things as norms now (in general of course).  Most people would say the CEO was racist and sexist and probably will run the business that way.  I know I would avoid that CEOs products until he was let go.

The only controversy in this case is because gay right/marriage is not accepted at that level yet.  Things sometimes happen faster than we think.

But make no mistake, this is less a function of liberal power than a function of the free market.
2014-04-17 02:47:26 PM  
1 vote:

Infernalist: Debate is all well and good, but the idea that every idea is valid and worthwhile is preposterous and utterly retarded.  We don't debate the merits of some things and ideas.  Which ones?  Well, society decides that and society has largely concluded that bigotry is a bad thing and not to be condoned and to be openly discouraged through social consequences.

In short, bigotry is not a valid stance to take in society any longer and those that cling to it openly will suffer for it.


So let me get this straight - the black atheist lesbian undocumented-immigrant victim of genital mutilation calls out the theocratic medieval fark-knobs for their seventh-century drooling gibberish, and  she's the one to be denounced as a bigot.

Why, yes, that most certainly IS preposterous and utterly retarded.
2014-04-17 02:45:17 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: In California, Mozilla's chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


I'm sure they feel the exact same way when Family Research Council (or other Conservative entities) boycott some company over abortion, homosexual rights, or 'fer the chilldrun' complaints to the FCC, et al. There is no way they would have a double-standard. Double-standards are for liebruls and MSM Lamestream media.

/snicker
2014-04-17 02:28:46 PM  
1 vote:
Dafuq happened in 1770? Saint Reagan holy essence spawned the seed of 'Merica?
2014-04-17 02:23:11 PM  
1 vote:

TheBlackrose: This reeks of the ol' "I like [the free market || freedom of speech] until it comes back to fark me" song and dance.

Sounds like someone is trying to argue for a moral bailout.


Nah, it's that society is turning on the social conservatives and they don't really know how to deal with it.  It's mind-blowing to them that their reactionary actions and words can come back to haunt them.

Basically, they're irate that they're not able to be hateful to others without others coming down on them for it in meaningful ways that they can't ignore.
2014-04-17 02:22:07 PM  
1 vote:

Dr Dreidel: qorkfiend: Jjaro: And Cheney, and other Republicans, supported Gay Mariage before Obama or Clinton "came around."

[i.imgur.com image 562x437]

IIRC, Dick Cheney didn't "support" marriage equality so much as "didn't join the Republican fight against it". Privately, I think it's clear he does support it, but publicly, it was "No comment. We love our daughters" for Junior's whole tenure in office.

And LOL "other Republicans supported gay marriage". Yeah - supported it so hard they kicked the LCR out of CPAC, what, 3 years running? And made "maridge = 1 hoohoodilly + one cha-cha" an official part of the Party Platform.


And pushed for a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage.
2014-04-17 02:19:20 PM  
1 vote:

Jjaro: I didn't know critcizing a stance is the same as trying to get someone fired.


Unless you can substantiate it with evidence, the accusation you made that those petitioners "didn't care about their team's stance" (that is what you said) is a lie.
2014-04-17 02:10:03 PM  
1 vote:
"How the Left..."

images.starcraftmazter.net
2014-04-17 02:08:45 PM  
1 vote:
There were a lot of words in that article but for some reason it all read like

i371.photobucket.com
2014-04-17 01:49:32 PM  
1 vote:
"Debate" "Climate Change". Yeah. There IS no debate.
2014-04-17 01:46:49 PM  
1 vote:
Hey!  Want to claim righteous indignation, but don't want to defend your vile, disgusting views?  Just claim that everybody who disagrees with you is somehow infringing on your free speech by exercising their own!  Works every time!
2014-04-17 01:45:13 PM  
1 vote:
I go through this with conservative friends of my family on a small scale all the time. It works thusly:

1. They make a predictable right-wing assertion
2. I respond with facts and reason, providing citations using multiple sources and even math where necessary
3. They tell me I'm using "liberal talking points" and "political rhetoric" to shut down anyone who disagrees.
2014-04-17 01:42:43 PM  
1 vote:
In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of 'farking Zionist, farking pricks... Get the fark off our campus.'

Someone else exercised their right to free speech? Nobody got arrested for talking? Executed by the government? Exiled to Siberia? Someone just decided to be an asshole?

Get over it, you whiny twit.
2014-04-17 01:41:55 PM  
1 vote:

Mentat: Take the Mozilla CEO for instance. Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?


   Only when those views harm the organization. Mozilla doesn't have money to spare. Those who's rights he would restrict, and their advocates, are free to not support the foundation he manages.
   Sucks to be a CEO but SingTFU is the one of the sacrifices.
2014-04-17 01:41:36 PM  
1 vote:
img.fark.net
2014-04-17 01:41:07 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that


You're the only person I know who's said that

Nabb1: there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public


A hue and cry from a few bloggers.  There has been a "hue and cry" about all things Obama for several years by far more people for far less significant (or even non-existent) reasons.  So what?  It is what it is - it may suck, but it's not like one "side" is being unfairly targeted.  Ridiculous shiat flies in from all directions - no particular group is free of assholes, or free from attack by assholes.

Nabb1: one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever


Which is why I thought calls for his firing/resignation were ridiculous
2014-04-17 01:39:39 PM  
1 vote:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


The thing is, corporations have a vested interest in having the appearance of being a desirable company to do business with.  Whether or not a person's views have anything to do with their listed job function, if they are a high-profile member of a company, they represent the company, and the company has every right to decide whether or not they want an employee with odious views to represent them.  After all, "It's nothing personal, it's just business."
2014-04-17 01:38:20 PM  
1 vote:

Dimensio: This country has come to a sad state of affairs when homosexualist advocates are allowed to freely advocate a boycott of a private company.


i.imgur.com
2014-04-17 01:34:20 PM  
1 vote:

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".


That's what I came to point out.  This has always been the case.  Today, people boycott you if you're openly racist or homophobic.  60 years ago, people would boycott you if you were openly a communist.

The article seems to be little more than a pedestal for the author to whine about being on the unpopular side of an opinion.  Welcome to popular opinion.


/is glad that the US doesn't have the same free speech laws as Canada
//you have to put up with arseholes like Westboro
///in return, you don't get the disaster which is their human rights tribunal
2014-04-17 01:33:50 PM  
1 vote:

Lionel Mandrake: SauronWasFramed: stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences". I wonder if he would like his home address published with a target painted over his face and the words "America's Biggest Pedophile" written under it.  If he's all about free speech, then he should be totes OK with that, right?

/ because the left holds democrats to such stringent standards

// Remembers that Obama and Clinton both opposed ssm until they were for it and nary a discouraging word was uttered.

Aw, poor baby...the left is clearly keep you and all freedom-loving Americans down.

Seriously, dude, that was some weak-ass "b-b-b-b-but" shiat




Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter what your ideology is. And if you are a democrat, it must be hurt straining your neck looking the other way.


lol
2014-04-17 01:31:40 PM  
1 vote:

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.

I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.


Sure, I mean, but he's an easy target - big CEO, go home and cry himself to sleep in big piles of money, and all that - but breaking it down to the essential elements, there was a hue and cry for a guy to lose his job over expressing a personal political belief in public, one that seemingly had no affect on his job whatsoever. He'll be fine, I am sure, but I just don't know if that's something we want to see on a regular basis.
2014-04-17 01:31:39 PM  
1 vote:

Mentat: Once you cut through the levels of derp, there is a valid debate topic here.  Take the Mozilla CEO for instance.  Does his personal views, no matter how reprehensible, disqualify him from a job that has nothing to do with those views?  If so, do his views disqualify him from every job?  Does the right of customers to boycott a product extend to denying someone their livelihood because we disagree with them?  These aren't easy questions to answer which is why we've been dealing with them for 240 years.  Moreover, we on the left sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of bigotry as a zero sum game, that because there's so much bigotry on the right that there's a corresponding lack of bigotry on the left, and that's not necessarily true.  One of the struggles I face as a liberal is distinguishing between the views which I find odious and the people who hold those views whom I call friends and family(red state Oklahoma y'all).


I'm still confused about him resigning.  He didn't even try to do any damage control.  It was just a few whiny bloggers and one dating site that was freaking out.

There had to be something else going on.
2014-04-17 01:28:08 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Didn't President Obama himself once say he held the view that he believe in "traditional marriage" as a Christian, but was fine with civil unions for same sex partners? People can be persuaded to change their views on what the law should be, notwithstanding their moral or religious reservations. Many people may subscribe to the personal view that same sex marriages are not "marriage" in the traditional sense but decide the law should recognize them.


I don't disagree.  I don't think the guy should have been forced to resign, and I realize that the pressure to do so is often unfairly and unevenly applied.  The President would have to be impeached and convicted to lose his job - a much higher standard than the business world.  I did not boycott Mozilla and I thought to do so was silly, but, nevertheless, weighing in (one way or the other) on controversial issues as a public figure carries with it certain risks.  The guy miscalculated, and lost his job.  It's neither a great injustice nor a great victory for the vast majority, however one feels about gay marriage.
2014-04-17 12:57:37 PM  
1 vote:
Like a virulent disease, Baathist political methodology and ideology has reached the West, and it has, hydra-like, been grafted onto socialist ideologies like liberation theology.  Baathist techniques involve swarming, supressive thuggery and brute intellectual and physical silencing of dissenting opinion.  If the rule of law were not so completely and effectively ensconced in U.S. legal systems, the thuggery, dogma, and ideological suppression of this gross, sick political movement would move forward in the West.  It is a very good thing that the system of checks and balances are in place to stop this type of political machine.  Be aware of it:  It is real.  And, man, it is one dirty, sucky political movement.  No  wonder it finds a home grafted onto collectivism and excessive socialist posturing.

Personally, I'd really like to see da Mooslins adopt a friendliness to "beer."  "Beer" is a great and beautiful substance, and can sweep away the bad craziness of hysterical intellectual and political obsessiveness.  Alcohol!  The cause of and the answer to all of life's problems.
2014-04-17 12:12:17 PM  
1 vote:

Nabb1: Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.

Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?


I disagree with Pizza Hut's definition of "pizza" so I don't eat there and dissuade others from eating there as well.

How is that different from the Mozilla thing? Because it isn't such a hot-button issue?

(OK, maybe pizza is a bad example around here.)
2014-04-17 12:08:34 PM  
1 vote:

Infernalist: Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences.  It just means the government can't retaliate against you for speaking your mind in public with a few legal requirements.  No inciting riot or panic or inciting violence against someone.

Other than that, that's all 'free speech' means.


Sure, but as a society, do their have to be "consequences" for merely disagreeing with each other? Is that what we want?
2014-04-17 12:04:50 PM  
1 vote:

stpauler: It seems the author doesn't understand the often repeated "free speech doesn't mean free from consequences".


By and large these aren't cases of businesses doing as they see fit - these are governments cracking down on a free press, and even supposedly liberal journalists asking governments to crack down on those who disagree with them.
2014-04-17 11:53:11 AM  
1 vote:
3.bp.blogspot.com

He's like the anti-Seth Rogen.
2014-04-17 11:51:53 AM  
1 vote:
The Spectator: The Anal Beads of Britain's Asshole.
2014-04-17 11:49:19 AM  
1 vote:
Whining, apparently, is free enough

/and in abundant supply
 
Displayed 272 of 272 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report