Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

How nice to see that the alt-right are now stealing memes from the hated SJWs.

I bet they wouldn't be saying it was so 'logical' if it was a meme about men being rapists.

Seriously, it wasn't a good analogy when the radical feminists were using it and it isn't a good analogy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And Skittles are trending.

Seriously, that's actually a pretty good metaphor.

Am I the only person who actually bothered to read the dissenting opinions?

This is kind of funny, because out of your numerous responses to things recently, you still ignore most of what's thrown at you lmao then go off on some completely unrelated tangent.

Would just like to point this out. And he wonders why people only respond to his stuff with snark or outright dismissal.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is kind of funny, because out of your numerous responses to things recently, you still ignore most of what's thrown at you lmao then go off on some completely unrelated tangent.

Would just like to point this out. And he wonders why people only respond to his stuff with snark or outright dismissal.

I think it is a really solid metaphor.

I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does.

Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result.

How dare America be responsible for its own security!

I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a really solid metaphor.

I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does.

Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result.

How dare America be responsible for its own security!

I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

Yes, but the problem with the metaphor is that I could apply it to literally anything. I've already mentioned the men are rapists analogy, but what about all women being gold-diggers who will marry you, and then ruin your life via divorce? Or black people being criminals? Or white people being racists? Or Christians being homophobic? How about people on the right being racist and misogynistic? Or people on the left being racist and misandrist? Or MRMs being neckbeards who want women to stay in the kitchen and rape/beat their wives with no punishment? Or feminists as man-hating harpies who want to strip men of their rights for the sake of 'empowerment'? I could take literally any group of people you care to name and make a poisoned m&ms/skittles analogies, and that's why it isn't a good analogy.

Edited by The Blind Idiot God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a really solid metaphor.

I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does.

Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result.

How dare America be responsible for its own security!

I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

You do realize what this argument was originally used for? I assume you agree with that too, since it's the exact same.

Also, the US has taken in 11,000 Syrian refugees, and that's what Donald Trump Jr. is complaining about. That's opposed to countries like Germany that have taken in a million or so if I'm not mistaken. There was also this hilariously stupid comment in the past from Eric Trump.

https://thinkprogress.org/eric-trump-syria-wages-ec79e8dfe8fa#.nodta94i7

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the US has taken in 11,000 Syrian refugees, and that's what Donald Trump Jr. is complaining about. That's opposed to countries like Germany that have taken in a million or so if I'm not mistaken.

Well yeah, but that hasn't really worked out for them. Even ignoring certain incidents I won't discuss further, taking in such a large amout of people over such a short period of time can't be a good thing.

Seriously, why does it feel like the only two sides are completely open borders or not letting a single one in? Surely a more moderate solution would be best.

EDIT: That comment from Eric though. I mean Jesus, I don't think I've felt so much second-hand embarrassment in my life.

Edited by The Blind Idiot God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but that hasn't really worked out for them. Even ignoring certain incidents I won't discuss further, taking in such a large amout of people over such a short period of time can't be a good thing.

Seriously, why does it feel like the only two sides are completely open borders or not letting a single one in? Surely a more moderate solution would be best.

It's not really, but the idea that the US has open borders in this regard is over exaggerated at best.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it certainly feels like it the way people bang on about it. But yeah, the US is far from open borders.

I meant that it's not a good thing to "be taking in such a large amount of people over such a short period of time" if it wasn't obvious and I should have made that clearer.

I agree that there should be some sort of moderate solution.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant that it's not a good thing to "be taking in such a large amount of people over such a short period of time" if it wasn't obvious and I should have made that clearer.

I agree that there should be some sort of moderate solution.

Nah, it's fine. Not the first thing I've misinterpreted something somebody's said. ._.

A moderate solution would be best, but I fear the other sides are driving each other to further extremes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a really solid metaphor.

I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does.

Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result.

How dare America be responsible for its own security!

I mean, you can apply this logic to gun owners. Can also apply this logic to actual skittles. Any bit of food. This is a really awful analogy that in the end values security over freedom in just about every scenario - which I am sure you as a "righty" are not fond of.

It's not about being political sensitive it's about it being a shitty metaphor to make a point.

I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

lmao apparently this isn't effort or respect

this guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a really solid metaphor.

I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does.

Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result.

How dare America be responsible for its own security!

I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

but logic, bro.

you really are something else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNLEASH IT: Yeah, totally not a Clinton shilling message.

Doesn't come as unexpected though.

Honestly, regarding refugees: As long as a country has citizens that are in poverty due to no fault of their own and have almost no way out by themselves, I don't think it's acceptable for a government to offer aid to people from other countries, or at least if the country doesn't stand to gain from it. A country has to fix its own problems before taking care of whatever is happening in other places. (And yes, even if it's likely that they (in)directly caused the whole problem in the first place).

Edited by tuvarkz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UNLEASH IT: Yeah, totally not a Clinton shilling message.

Doesn't come as unexpected though.

Honestly, regarding refugees: As long as a country has citizens that are in poverty due to no fault of their own and have almost no way out by themselves, I don't think it's acceptable for a government to offer aid to people from other countries, or at least if the country doesn't stand to gain from it. A country has to fix its own problems before taking care of whatever is happening in other places. (And yes, even if it's likely that they (in)directly caused the whole problem in the first place).

...but then when it comes time to actually help said own people you aren't prepared to do welfare, because, you know, fuck those lazy moochers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but then when it comes time to actually help said own people you aren't prepared to do welfare, because, you know, fuck those lazy moochers?

I was more thinking of give them cheap housing (build some minimalist looking stuff) and/or meals, and either help them find a minimal-skill job or create some for them to do (Maybe help clean up in the streets or something, varying depending on the place). Once they find a job, part of that income goes to paying for said housing/meals until they can save enough/manage to find something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was more thinking of give them cheap housing (build some minimalist looking stuff) and/or meals, and either help them find a minimal-skill job or create some for them to do (Maybe help clean up in the streets or something, varying depending on the place). Once they find a job, part of that income goes to paying for said housing/meals until they can save enough/manage to find something better.

So essentially welfare, but with a touch of Keynes. In other words, essentially how the US solved the Great Depression. Now it would be nice if a government that wasn't taking refugees actually did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So essentially welfare, but with a touch of Keynes. In other words, essentially how the US solved the Great Depression. Now it would be nice if a government that wasn't taking refugees actually did that.

Well, you can call it functionally welfare, but without the (as you called it) 'lazy moochers' aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hear Hillary Clinton call into the Steve Madden show?

Hey Hillary, fuck you. How dare you pretend that you are the only altruistic person out there and the rest of us "whites" really just harbour deep racism for blacks.

I've never felt so insulted in my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hear Hillary Clinton call into the Steve Madden show?

Hey Hillary, fuck you. How dare you pretend that you are the only altruistic person out there and the rest of us "whites" really just harbour deep racism for blacks.

I've never felt so insulted in my life.

No, and I'm to lazy to look it up. Link or summary please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Steve Harvey.

Should be easy to find. Here's the quote that pissed me off.

"Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, look, this is not who we are."

No, we just can't help ourselves from shooting blacks. It's like eating Pringles, betcha can't have just one.

Fuck you, you race baiting cunt. Pretty much every single person even on the right has admitted that it was a bad shoot and we want the full extent of the law to come down on the officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you can call it functionally welfare, but without the (as you called it) 'lazy moochers' aspect.

So isn't it just SPLENDID that every single country not taking in refugees is doing a program exactly like what you proposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, regarding refugees: As long as a country has citizens that are in poverty due to no fault of their own and have almost no way out by themselves, I don't think it's acceptable for a government to offer aid to people from other countries, or at least if the country doesn't stand to gain from it. A country has to fix its own problems before taking care of whatever is happening in other places. (And yes, even if it's likely that they (in)directly caused the whole problem in the first place).

Doesn't that mean that literally no country should even concider taking in refugees? Has there ever been a society completely without (non-selfinflicted) poverty? Do you honestly think that at some point such a society will be remotely realistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So isn't it just SPLENDID that every single country not taking in refugees is doing a program exactly like what you proposed?

Yes, countries that aren't taking in refugees aren't necessarily doing so to spend money on helping their poor. That is not my point, but that countries that ARE taking refugees aren't doing the other thing first and foremost.

Doesn't that mean that literally no country should even concider taking in refugees? Has there ever been a society completely without (non-selfinflicted) poverty? Do you honestly think that at some point such a society will be remotely realistic?

I said only when the country doesn't stand to gain from it. Whether it be from a treaty of mutual aid of sorts signed before or because there are people with valuable skills (scientists or such) that can be of worth to a country that takes them in, or any other way where an advantage can be obtained, there can be reasons for taking refugees. Or, of course, if the whole thing balances out in net cost-benefit. And regarding societies without poverty, the incas actually got pretty close to achieving such a thing. While I see it as something that would require extraordinary amounts of coordinated effort, I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that such a society can be achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Steve Harvey.

Should be easy to find. Here's the quote that pissed me off.

"Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, look, this is not who we are."

No, we just can't help ourselves from shooting blacks. It's like eating Pringles, betcha can't have just one.

Fuck you, you race baiting cunt. Pretty much every single person even on the right has admitted that it was a bad shoot and we want the full extent of the law to come down on the officer.

What the fuck does that mean and how did it piss you off

Wut

EDIT: I have significantly more to say on this because you're a hypocrite. Here's the full thing she said:

We have to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. There are good, honorable, cool-headed police officers. We've seen them in action in New York in the last, you know, 48 hours because of the terrorist attacks. We can do better. We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable and we have got to have law enforcement respect communities and communities respect law enforcement because they have to work together.

You know how you said Muslims should take responsibility for people in their religion? This is "white people should take responsibility for their racism," and the point was especially poignant because the cop in question was white.

She's not saying at all that white people can't help but shoot black people; she's saying that the majority of white people do not and they should make efforts to improve the police forces by protesting with the black people to make changes, since when faced with a cop the white person is much more privileged.

Whether or not you agree with these facts is irrelevant; it's the same shit you preached in the other thread, you're just pissed that you're being singled out as a demographic. Having that said, I don't think she needs to really say stuff like this at all, because everyone should be held equally accountable for the actions of other people regardless of race, but your view on these things is hypocritical.

Having that said, she could've easily compared things to skittles here. Besides the full force of the law hasn't come down on some of these cases in the past, so it's also not helpful to say "guess what we agree too!"

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...