FA+
Shop
And the lefties STILL don't get it.
9 years ago
So, some little loonie lefties on Twitter decided to post a screenshot of my journal "Trump Wins; PC Loses", and, wouldn't ya know it, a bunch of SJW furries decided to comment on it - and most of them once again flung the accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, without any actual supporting evidence.
Please, do keep it up - I'd love to see the kind of tantrum your side throws after you lose the next election.
Edit: And I would love to post a link to the twitter post here, but the lefties would almost certainly get butthurt about it. Showing just how nasty they can be - indeed, linking their behavior here - would somehow be considered 'harassment', I'm sure. That's lefties for you; reality offends them.
Edit2: Ah, what the hell? I can't link it directly lest it be considered 'harassment', but why shouldn't I rip these trigglypuffs a metaphorical new one? I'll even modify a few words so you can't direct-text search, as well as spare my readers the pain of having to trudge through their poor phrasing and grammar.
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:@person hate speech shouldn't exist, period. It's not about censoring it or not. Bear in mind hate isn't protected by the Constitution.
Oh? Seems you're the one trying to put things in the Constitution that aren't there. There is no distinction between 'hate speech' and 'regular speech' in the Constitution - indeed, the Founding Fathers were quite firm in believing that unpopular views should NOT be criminalized, and were indeed protected by the Constitution. No; this notion that speech you don't personally like is not protected by the Constitution is nothing more than a little tyrant trying to force others not to offend his delicate sensibilities. Toughen up, princess; your opinion isn't worth that much.
And if anyone thinks he's not using the "SJW" definition of hate-speech, let's look at this little gem. It came after someone else mentioned that 'hate speech' was too vague a term, such that merely being against illegal immigration or thinking the wage gap doesn't exist would often label one as committing 'hate speech';
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:@person that's cognitive dissonance, and you should be intelligent enough to recognize it. I am not obligated to have a discussion that leads to me having to defend my sexuality or my right to have a family.
...Sorry, what's cognitive dissonance? No, cognitive dissonance is thinking that Christians who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings are evil homophobes who need to be shut down, while remaining silent on the night club shooting perpetrated by a Muslim, which left dozens of gay people dead.
Moreover, if you don't want to have a discussion, then don't have a discussion. No one's forcing you to talk. If, however, you don't like the points others are bringing up, perhaps criticizing your lifestyle choices, then you have no right to silence them under the guise of 'hate speech'. This, again, is the action of a little dictator who can't handle the real world, a morally deficient little scumbag who wants to impose his will on others.
A good deal more of this is spent virtue-signalling, talking about how very good persons they are, before I came across this little turd nugget;
"Twidiot 2: The cuckening" wrote:For those of you saying, 'We're tired of being called 'x'' - Maybe you should stop being 'x'?
Alright; you tell me how I'm being racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/etc etc ad-nauseum. Oh, wait, you can't, because that's just a silencing tactic for you leftists; you don't actually have any real arguments, so you must silence those who disagree with you.
And again;
"Twittle-Dee" wrote:We couldn't be hateful under Obama, so now you can't be angry at us for being hateful under Trump
"Twittle-Dumb" wrote:Trump is literally their Trump Card now. They feel powerful under him, and that scares me
Wow, what a couple of morons. We don't feel 'free to be hateful', we feel 'free to not have to worry about baseless accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc', which is exactly what you evil little bastards have been doing for the past several years.
And now, back to Twidiot Prime and one of his sychophantic followers;
"Twidogshit" wrote:It's just like this fucking disgusting filth to post a journal like that.
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:it would. But such is life. We start to rise above after we've mourned a bit.
*tsks* Oh my dears, the only kind of rising you're doing is like floating shit in a toilet. You've yet to make an actual argument; all you've done is flung around nasty names and accusations of ____ism, and you expect that to be enough. Unfortunately for you precious little snowflakes, it's not enough any more. You have to bring something of substance to the table; calling me a homophobe simply because I don't think Christian bakers should be punished by the government for refusing to participate in a gay weddings is now rightly recognized as the inane prattlings of entitled brats.
"Twitter Crybaby" wrote:They are being called those things because they ARE those things.
You go ahead and keep that up, sweetie; just keep calling us those nasty things. I'd love to see Trump as a two-term president.
"Twittilated Vagina" wrote:We're tired of being called [x], we just want to be [x] and not be made to feel bad about it. Being [x] is fine.
Accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia? CHECK!
No actual evidence to support those accusations? CHECK!
CONFIRMED TRIGGERED SJW!
Seriously, I can't make this shit up. The sheer stupidity and lack of self-awareness in that post just boggles the mind.
Please, do keep it up - I'd love to see the kind of tantrum your side throws after you lose the next election.
Edit: And I would love to post a link to the twitter post here, but the lefties would almost certainly get butthurt about it. Showing just how nasty they can be - indeed, linking their behavior here - would somehow be considered 'harassment', I'm sure. That's lefties for you; reality offends them.
Edit2: Ah, what the hell? I can't link it directly lest it be considered 'harassment', but why shouldn't I rip these trigglypuffs a metaphorical new one? I'll even modify a few words so you can't direct-text search, as well as spare my readers the pain of having to trudge through their poor phrasing and grammar.
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:@person hate speech shouldn't exist, period. It's not about censoring it or not. Bear in mind hate isn't protected by the Constitution.
Oh? Seems you're the one trying to put things in the Constitution that aren't there. There is no distinction between 'hate speech' and 'regular speech' in the Constitution - indeed, the Founding Fathers were quite firm in believing that unpopular views should NOT be criminalized, and were indeed protected by the Constitution. No; this notion that speech you don't personally like is not protected by the Constitution is nothing more than a little tyrant trying to force others not to offend his delicate sensibilities. Toughen up, princess; your opinion isn't worth that much.
And if anyone thinks he's not using the "SJW" definition of hate-speech, let's look at this little gem. It came after someone else mentioned that 'hate speech' was too vague a term, such that merely being against illegal immigration or thinking the wage gap doesn't exist would often label one as committing 'hate speech';
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:@person that's cognitive dissonance, and you should be intelligent enough to recognize it. I am not obligated to have a discussion that leads to me having to defend my sexuality or my right to have a family.
...Sorry, what's cognitive dissonance? No, cognitive dissonance is thinking that Christians who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings are evil homophobes who need to be shut down, while remaining silent on the night club shooting perpetrated by a Muslim, which left dozens of gay people dead.
Moreover, if you don't want to have a discussion, then don't have a discussion. No one's forcing you to talk. If, however, you don't like the points others are bringing up, perhaps criticizing your lifestyle choices, then you have no right to silence them under the guise of 'hate speech'. This, again, is the action of a little dictator who can't handle the real world, a morally deficient little scumbag who wants to impose his will on others.
A good deal more of this is spent virtue-signalling, talking about how very good persons they are, before I came across this little turd nugget;
"Twidiot 2: The cuckening" wrote:For those of you saying, 'We're tired of being called 'x'' - Maybe you should stop being 'x'?
Alright; you tell me how I'm being racist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic/etc etc ad-nauseum. Oh, wait, you can't, because that's just a silencing tactic for you leftists; you don't actually have any real arguments, so you must silence those who disagree with you.
And again;
"Twittle-Dee" wrote:We couldn't be hateful under Obama, so now you can't be angry at us for being hateful under Trump
"Twittle-Dumb" wrote:Trump is literally their Trump Card now. They feel powerful under him, and that scares me
Wow, what a couple of morons. We don't feel 'free to be hateful', we feel 'free to not have to worry about baseless accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc', which is exactly what you evil little bastards have been doing for the past several years.
And now, back to Twidiot Prime and one of his sychophantic followers;
"Twidogshit" wrote:It's just like this fucking disgusting filth to post a journal like that.
"Twidiot Prime" wrote:it would. But such is life. We start to rise above after we've mourned a bit.
*tsks* Oh my dears, the only kind of rising you're doing is like floating shit in a toilet. You've yet to make an actual argument; all you've done is flung around nasty names and accusations of ____ism, and you expect that to be enough. Unfortunately for you precious little snowflakes, it's not enough any more. You have to bring something of substance to the table; calling me a homophobe simply because I don't think Christian bakers should be punished by the government for refusing to participate in a gay weddings is now rightly recognized as the inane prattlings of entitled brats.
"Twitter Crybaby" wrote:They are being called those things because they ARE those things.
You go ahead and keep that up, sweetie; just keep calling us those nasty things. I'd love to see Trump as a two-term president.
"Twittilated Vagina" wrote:We're tired of being called [x], we just want to be [x] and not be made to feel bad about it. Being [x] is fine.
Accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia? CHECK!
No actual evidence to support those accusations? CHECK!
CONFIRMED TRIGGERED SJW!
Seriously, I can't make this shit up. The sheer stupidity and lack of self-awareness in that post just boggles the mind.
There's a youtuber called Bearing who makes hilarious videos roasting SJW's.
His channel was recently terminated due to youtube's guilty before proven innocent policy.
He's a funny guy and I think he deserves some support.
Here's a video on the subject by another anti-SJW youtuber Undoomed.
https://youtu.be/tYT5If1rvJo
Once again, triggered SJW's are ruining things for everyone else.
This wasn't an SJW attack after all.
Turns out that the cartoon avatar he was using actually belonged to Fresh TV.
Both the bears he and Sugar Tits were using as avatars were copyrighted characters in the cartoon Total Drama Island.
Dammit Bearing!
For such a smart guy you really are stupid!
Oh, if you watch the TealDeer video, I'm the second name down when he lists those asking him to weigh in on it. So... Wooo, internet famous? =p
I do know this is a minority of people, but this doesn't look good at all.
You'd think that people who follow youtubers like Bearing would be smarter than that.
Also, it's common for lefties to go to rallies and pretend to be the people they hate, and act up. It would not surprise me if this was happening here as well.
But the best response is to laugh at them. Second best is "fuck you, you lost!"
God Bless Sam Hyde.
See, for the longest time, the Right has been engaging the Left in the wrong manner. We've argued for how their policies don't work, for how it's counterproductive, and made very practical arguments against what they have to say. The left, meanwhile, has argued that the people on the Right are evil evil people who basically want to eat babies. Yes, that was hyperbole.
Ultimately, what people come away with when they see this is a coldhearted, evil person versus a kindhearted, foolish person - and, 9 times out of 10, they'll choose the kindhearted fool. It's why Romney lost in 2012; he argued that Obama was a nice guy but that his policies were ultimately a failure and didn't do good for the country, while the leftists and Obama argued that Romney was essentially Satan incarnate. Again, the public saw it as a choice between a goodhearted fool against a greedy and savvy businessman, and they voted for the fool.
Therefore, I'm done pulling punches and acting like there's any merit to what they're arguing. If it's from a friend, sure, I'll quietly discuss it with them on the side, but I'm still going to be brutally honest - and I'm going to call evil ideologies and programs evil. If it's not a friend - if it's some little shit-head calling me out publicly - well, I'm going to do my best to publicly humiliate them for their vile ideologies and tyrannical desires. I want people to see Leftist ideologies for exactly what they are - evil. It is evil to want to control the private business of others, it is evil to try to control the speech of others, it is evil to try to deny people the right to defend themselves... Leftist ideologies are just plain evil.
So, yes; moving forward, it is my hope that the Right starts treating the Left just as horribly as the Left has been treating the Right - the big difference being, the Right's criticism will actually be truthful, unlike the endless cries of 'racism-sexism-homophobia-transphobia-islamophobia' coming from the Left when they can't be arsed to come up with a valid defense for their evil ideology.
Used to be you could argue with folks and not resort to name calling or painting them as "evil" but I guess times have changed. I don't see the Left as evil, just as misguided and dead wrong on most policy and I don't go around slandering them with insults or getting down to their level.
And let's be honest, trusting the Right to be fair in its criticisms is foolhardy. Why present a valid position when you can argue using ad hominem and appealing to emotion?
There are people here who blocked me without having talked to me once.
Which makes zero sense, like why bother saying anything to me if they don't want a response.
And after making a response, just 1 response btw, through somebody else's comment, the admins suspended my account for "circumventing a block".
If they're willing to talk peacefully and not throw a tantrum like a six year old whenever somebody disagrees with them,
I'd be more than happy to have a peaceful conversation.
I'm not saying that all leftists are assholes, of course, just that these non-assholes are a rare bunch.
Also, I don't believe that they are "misguided" like you say.
I don't think it's possible to spew such incredible insanity and not see it as such.
But like I said, find me a lefty willing to chat and we'll see how it goes.
The Left has been painting conservatives as evil for decades now. If you disagree with welfare and entitlement programs, it's not because you don't think they're effective or you don't think government should have that power, it's because you hate minorities. If you don't think abortion should be legal, it's not because you believe that a child in the womb is fully endowed by the Creator with all the rights of a person, but because you're a misogynist. If you don't think government should be restricting firearms, and that the laws on the books should be repealed, it's not because you think people have a fundamental right to self defense, but because you like violence.
That is the narrative the Left has constructed. What those on the Right believe isn't merely a difference of worldview, but a deficiency of character - so says the Left. I would love it if we could simply debate the left on the facts and treat them as simply flawed people with poor ideas, to be gently coaxed into a better track; but that doesn't win elections, and it doesn't win hearts.
As for how fair the Right will be in its criticism, well, I've seen the Right's criticism. It is factually accurate, if oftentimes brutal. Again, the difference between the Right and the Left in this is that the Right is telling the truth in its criticisms, while the Left is trotting out the same tired old lies.
He couldn't even debate about gay marriage without using the massively irrelevant slippery slope that it will lead into bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc. Even tried to support it using faulty logic and weak points (again, no sources). I mean, have you read it? As someone who actually ENJOYS good debates (and have been debating for over 12 years now), I was disappointed to see that most of his stuff is just fanatical drivel backed up by absolutely nothing, just personal opinions and twisting facts to fit said opinions. Just talking down to the extreme leftist SJWs when he's in fact the counterpart to that. Deleting comments and blocking those that disagree with you is also a sin of debate, and pretty much a surrender right there.
I don't care if you're left or right. I think both side have their correct points and that both are also dead stupid in some of their beliefs. Any intelligent person would know how to pick and choose between both sides, it's about not being brainwashed. I care if you simply have a decent head on your shoulders and can have a conversation as an adult and debate like one without breaking fallacy after fallacy (straw man, ad hominem, slippery slope...). Debate is using facts, raw numbers, and sources to fortify your opinion, not layering personal opinion on top of each other and presenting them as fact.
As for gay marriage - how do you justify not extending marriage to, say, a man wanting to marry his daughter, if both are of a legal age to consent? They might have a kid? Well, if one or both are sterile - or if it's a father and son instead - there is no good argument against it, not when the argument for it was 'equality' and such. And what about polygamy - how do you justify not extending the definition of 'marriage' to include several people, when the left has constantly justified its actions under the guise of 'equal rights'?
Moreover, this is not a 'slippery slope', there are growing factions that are already pushing for it. It used to be that gay marriage was 'never gonna happen', that the left insisted they just wanted homosexuality legal and didn't want to infringe on your rights. Then, when they began pushing for gay marriage, they insisted it wouldn't take away the rights of others - despite the fact that any Christian in the wedding business is now at risk of lawsuit if they dare commit the 'crime' of refusing to participate in a gay wedding! Shoot, the left is already pushing for polygamy, and glorifying pedophilia. You can't say I'm making the 'slippery slope' argument when we're already sliding down the hill - to do so is to deny reality and to ignore history.
Regarding the person you brought up; you know the rules of FA. It is a cowardly and dishonest tactic for you to bring him up, as I am prohibited by the rules to talk about people who have blocked me. You yourself are clearly a troll, however, and I have no time for the likes of you.
When Obama won, the Right by-and-large accepted it. Sure, they looked into his birth certificate; but they sought out *legal* means to counter him, and were peaceful.
When Trump won, well... You can see this unending stream of violent protests since he was elected, and hadn't even done anything yet.
You can see it at all manner of conservative events; when Milo Yiannopolous or Ben Shapiro show up on campus, there are violent riots and death threats and constant interruptions to peaceful talks, with attempts to forcibly silence the speakers by the students, and bureaucratic red tape to prevent the event from even happening from the administration. The reason you don't see the left and right talking peacefully is most often because the left refuses to talk.
From the looks of your profile, you appear to be a big babby - are you on Skype or Discord?
It is? Good... Good...