FA+
Shop
Uncucked Artists
Posted 8 years agoSo, I made a new group; 
Uncucked_Artists
It's specifically made to recognize artists who are committed to free speech; while there are many SJW's out there who will block you if you're to the right of Lenin, there are also artists who actually support the free expression of ideas - and they deserve recognition for it.
Contact me on that account if you know an artist that is not a cuck - ie, they support free speech in both law and spirit. I'll be adding 'em to the list if I find they are indeed not cucks.
Edit: btw, if you're not an artist, feel free to put 'proud supporter of uncucked_artists into your profile if you support artists who aren't speech-censoring cucks.
Uncucked_ArtistsIt's specifically made to recognize artists who are committed to free speech; while there are many SJW's out there who will block you if you're to the right of Lenin, there are also artists who actually support the free expression of ideas - and they deserve recognition for it.
Contact me on that account if you know an artist that is not a cuck - ie, they support free speech in both law and spirit. I'll be adding 'em to the list if I find they are indeed not cucks.
Edit: btw, if you're not an artist, feel free to put 'proud supporter of
uncucked_artists into your profile if you support artists who aren't speech-censoring cucks.To Cuck a Commie
Posted 8 years agoI've noticed a few things commonly shared among Commie Cucks here on FA; of note,
1. They hate being called commie cucks, even when they actually are commie cucks.
Commies usually come from affluent nations, and are actually living in luxury compared to the rest of the world; indeed, many of them are in the upper-middle-class even by their nation's standards. They don't seem to realize that, if there is a communist revolution, other men will take what is theirs, have their way with it, and leave them to only watch and make do with the work of their own hands - hence the nickname 'commie cuck'. Indeed, they will often claim that calling them a cuck somehow invalidates your argument, as it's an 'Ad Hominem'. Remind them that it's an insult, not an argument, and a well-deserved insult considering they subscribe to an ideology responsible for the death and subjugation of millions of people. Follow this up with a harsh reminder that they have failed to address your *actual* argument, and that it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly to hide from an argument with "BWAAAAH YOU'RE BEING A MEANIE!!!". Ultimately though, you want to attack their pride and sources of pride; it's usually a person's greatest weakness (especially Commies, who often fancy themselves enlightened intellectuals), and it keeps them flustered.
2. They like to use examples of multinational corporations doing evil as a smear against Capitalism.
Let's get a few things clear about definitions; Capitalism, as I and most other libertarians use it at least, is in reference to the concept of government not interfering in the market, and instead leaving it up to individuals and businesses to engage in willing commerce as they see fit. Corporatism, however, is the philosophy of giving businesses greater power and authority than the common man by virtue of their economic success - ie, not Capitalism at all, and in fact contradictory to its principles. At its simplest, Capitalism has nothing to say about personal liberty and is instead entirely focused on economic liberty; to paraphrase Milton Friedman, Capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient, for a free people. Even so, the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism can be easily extended to encompass the idea of self-ownership, and all of the liberties that encompasses. Still, I will discuss Capitalism in its limited, purely economic sense, as that is the essential definition of the word. If you wish to argue in the extended sense - ie, its underpinnings of self-ownership and individual liberty, the foundation of libertarian philosophy - that's fine. But in either case, make sure you stick to whatever definition you use and always bring the argument back to that definition; commies like to redefine it however it suits their purposes, and you must pin them down on that.
The reason you need to keep bringing it back to Capitalism is that Commies will keep bringing up examples of government supported and sponsored Corporatism as examples of Capitalism, and will try to frame the argument in that manner - it's an entirely dishonest argument, and hammer them on that as well. They like to use this strawmen of Corporatism to try to smear Capitalism and paint it as some sort of global conspiracy to oppress the common man - and essentially use the sins of Corporatism as evidence against Capitalism, even though the two philosophies are mutually exclusive. They will claim that multinational corporations often go to third-world countries, collude with the governments there, and basically have the governments of those countries use their militaries to keep the population in line and force them into what amounts to slavery.
Such things are, of course, evil and indefensible, and you must be careful not to defend it when these commies use it as evidence - after all, the most pervasive and enduring lies are often mixed with enough truth to sound good at a glance. Such economic activities are, of course, evil and repugnant, and we should not allow American companies to do it, just as we don't allow individuals to trade in stolen goods (theft, after all, is not part of the Free Market, and slavery is essentially total and sustained theft). Bring it back to what you're actually arguing, and point at what Capitalism is and is not. Anyone capable of critical thinking would see that, of course, such action is not the result of Capitalism. Is the company Capitalist? Of course not; it is just a company, seeking its own benefit in an unscrupulous and immoral manner, behaving in a manner either irrelevant to or or in contradiction with the principles of Capitalism (again, going back to the original definition). Are their actions the fault of Capitalism? Of course not; again, Capitalism either has nothing to say on such things or is against it, and the businessman is the one who made the moral choice to pursue greed over the dignity of his fellow man. Indeed, Capitalism acts as a limit to greed, wherever it is law - after all, in a Capitalist system, you cannot get what someone else has unless you are willing to give them something they want in return. Moreover, the company had to *leave* a Capitalist system and go to some sort of totalitarian system in order to do its evil - evil that the government of that country was equally responsible for, if not moreso. You can no more blame Capitalism for the acts of these companies than you could blame your headlights for failing to prevent your serpentine belt from slipping. This is why it's so important to bring them back to the definition of Capitalism; they will constantly try to take other things, claim they're Capitalism, and use that to push their own ideology.
Likewise, it is good to bring up Communism and how such greedy people would function in a Communist society. Unlike in Capitalism, such greed and evil is actually encouraged by their centrally planned structure. The evil men in a Communist society need not leave their country to find slaves to exploit, as the state has made slaves of all the citizens.
3. They like to use evil things in America's past as smears against Capitalism.
They will also use 'America' and Capitalism interchangeably, another popular strawman. Now, America has been reasonably Capitalist throughout its existence, this is true. And America has committed its own evils, I do not dispute that. However, Commie Cucks will often insist that this is proof of how evil Capitalism is - as if these evils were the fault of Capitalism. They will point to the enslavement of black people, the oppression of gays, internment camps, etc - and these are of course terrible things. When you point out that these things have nothing to do with Capitalism (again, going back to the definition), they will usually ramble on about how some secret cabal of 'Capitalists' actually DON'T want a free market, that you're just brainwashed by this secret cabal, and they really just want to control the country, and are surreptitiously orchestrating these events in order to attain power - nonsense like that.
This, of course, is paranoid horseshit, and deserves no more response than a hearty belly-laugh and directions to the nearest mental hospital. But let's humor the delusional little ingrates for a moment - lets assume that there are indeed a bunch of 'Capitalists' who are trying to control things, people who are secretly feeding the ideas of Capitalism to people as a means of controlling the world. I honestly can't think of a worse way of doing it; after all, the best way to prevent this secret cabal from achieving their goals is by *restricting the power of Government*. If government had no authority to interfere in the market, such an evil cabal wouldn't be able to get anything of significance done through governmental means; they could not use regulation, licensing, taxation, etc, to kill their competition and bolster their allies to further their goals. They would, in short, have to do everything on their own steam - and could at any time be exposed by other people or by the government. A Capitalist system is the worst place to try to implement your plans for world domination, really.
On the other hand, such an evil cabal would be perfectly positioned to achieve all of their goals in a Communist government, as they would go directly for the levers of power within such a society. After all, the government ultimately decides who will do what, and even in a truly democratic communist regime they only need to get 51% of people inflamed about something to push the sort of agenda they want. More likely, though, everything is decided by the party, making such infiltration and control that much simpler. We can see an example of this with the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc; the very worst people rose to the top, and abused governmental power to stay there.
4. They refuse to actually engage in debate, and instead rely purely on dogma.
This is all too common; they like to insist you've been brainwashed by 'Capitalism', as if you were socially pressured into it, or something you believe based on lies. The exact opposite is usually true, of course; the Commies are often made this way during their high school or college years by Marxist professors and by peer pressure - but, of course, it's the Capitalists that are the deluded ones (*snort*). Their assertions are often presented with little or no evidence, and they expect you to take it as fact that what they say is true. Watch out for phrases such as "Exploitation of ___", and pin them down on that - force them to explain exactly what they mean. Often they will cite instances of rights violations unrelated to Capitalism, or they will cite some sort of inequality as if there was something inherently wrong with some people having more than others - and you can easily counter either. At that point they'll usually insist you've just been brainwashed, so toying with them should be simple at this point; mockery of their piss-poor debate skills at this point is proper, as well as evidence for this alleged 'brainwashing' - it usually just amounts to 'you think differently than I and all my other dogmatic brethren do!', and anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid will see how spastic and idiotic they are for making such a ridiculous argument.
5. They will often insist you need to 'get educated', and refuse to provide any actual proof for their claims.
This is all too common; they will make claims about certain historical events from a twisted Communistic perspective, and when you want to know exactly what they're talking about before you tear it to shreds, they will insist you need to 'get educated'. Not does it expose their utter inability to engage in debate with someone who fundamentally disagrees with them, it further reinforces my believe that most Commie Cucks nowadays upper-middle class idiots who were converted in College, and had that bullshit crammed into their skulls by their Marxist professors. In any case, the best course of action, when they refuse to offer evidence for what they claim, is to just call them out on it; tell them that they are incapable of offering material support for their beliefs, and therefore their beliefs aren't worth the breath of explaining them. Once again, attacking their pride in being intellectuals is the most effective way to force them to show their hand.
6. They *never* put their money where their mouth is.
Some Commie Cucks reading this may be thinking that I've portrayed Communism unfairly; after all, using the Soviet Union as an example 'isn't real Communism!'. Well, besides the fact that we can point to plenty of examples that 'Real Communists' used as 'Real Communism' in days past, only to drop them like Hillary dropped her illegal email servers when they eventually collapsed into anarchy or otherwise fell (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union,Venezuela - I'm looking at you!), let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say "Alright, so you're a peaceful commie who doesn't want to force anyone into communism". Well, tell them to put their money where their mouth is, and go make a commune with all their commie pals and leave the rest of us alone. I have yet to see a Commie who doesn't rant and rave about how the Free Market is evil; and yet, they insist they're peaceful and love freedom, and don't want to force anyone into it. This is, of course, a contradiction; there is nothing in the free market to prevent them from forming their own little communes and show us the 'Wonders of Communism', and the fact that they feel the need to get rid of the free market indicates the 'non-government-intervention' principle of the Free Market is a barrier to their goals. They can't have it both ways; force them to either admit they DO want to strip us of our freedoms, and they really are just a bunch of little tyrants who want to control everyone who does not think and believe like them; or that their idiotic Commie dreams can be achieved in a Capitalist system, and they should really stop whining about the one system that would ever permit them to exist in the first place.
Remember, above all, you will likely not change their minds with logic and reason; they did not arrive at Communism in that manner, they will not be led away from it in that manner. No, your goal should be to expose what they really believe, and make mockery of that - show their beliefs as the ludicrous, shameful, and disgusting ideals they are. A Communist, like most leftists, will counter any practical problems with their ideologies with something like "Well at least I care about the poor!" or "At least I believe in fairness and equality!" - etc etc. You cannot leave that as a refuge; people will always choose a foolish idealist over a shrewd miser. Instead, show anyone who reads it that the Communist philosophy is not only unworkable, it is by no means fair, it does nothing to promote equality, it makes the poor into slaves, and that it is the refuge for the lazy, the greedy, and the simple. Tear away the falsehood that Communism is somehow noble or altruistic, and show it for what it really is; just another totalitarian philosophy that wants to control your life.
1. They hate being called commie cucks, even when they actually are commie cucks.
Commies usually come from affluent nations, and are actually living in luxury compared to the rest of the world; indeed, many of them are in the upper-middle-class even by their nation's standards. They don't seem to realize that, if there is a communist revolution, other men will take what is theirs, have their way with it, and leave them to only watch and make do with the work of their own hands - hence the nickname 'commie cuck'. Indeed, they will often claim that calling them a cuck somehow invalidates your argument, as it's an 'Ad Hominem'. Remind them that it's an insult, not an argument, and a well-deserved insult considering they subscribe to an ideology responsible for the death and subjugation of millions of people. Follow this up with a harsh reminder that they have failed to address your *actual* argument, and that it's intellectually dishonest and cowardly to hide from an argument with "BWAAAAH YOU'RE BEING A MEANIE!!!". Ultimately though, you want to attack their pride and sources of pride; it's usually a person's greatest weakness (especially Commies, who often fancy themselves enlightened intellectuals), and it keeps them flustered.
2. They like to use examples of multinational corporations doing evil as a smear against Capitalism.
Let's get a few things clear about definitions; Capitalism, as I and most other libertarians use it at least, is in reference to the concept of government not interfering in the market, and instead leaving it up to individuals and businesses to engage in willing commerce as they see fit. Corporatism, however, is the philosophy of giving businesses greater power and authority than the common man by virtue of their economic success - ie, not Capitalism at all, and in fact contradictory to its principles. At its simplest, Capitalism has nothing to say about personal liberty and is instead entirely focused on economic liberty; to paraphrase Milton Friedman, Capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient, for a free people. Even so, the philosophical underpinnings of Capitalism can be easily extended to encompass the idea of self-ownership, and all of the liberties that encompasses. Still, I will discuss Capitalism in its limited, purely economic sense, as that is the essential definition of the word. If you wish to argue in the extended sense - ie, its underpinnings of self-ownership and individual liberty, the foundation of libertarian philosophy - that's fine. But in either case, make sure you stick to whatever definition you use and always bring the argument back to that definition; commies like to redefine it however it suits their purposes, and you must pin them down on that.
The reason you need to keep bringing it back to Capitalism is that Commies will keep bringing up examples of government supported and sponsored Corporatism as examples of Capitalism, and will try to frame the argument in that manner - it's an entirely dishonest argument, and hammer them on that as well. They like to use this strawmen of Corporatism to try to smear Capitalism and paint it as some sort of global conspiracy to oppress the common man - and essentially use the sins of Corporatism as evidence against Capitalism, even though the two philosophies are mutually exclusive. They will claim that multinational corporations often go to third-world countries, collude with the governments there, and basically have the governments of those countries use their militaries to keep the population in line and force them into what amounts to slavery.
Such things are, of course, evil and indefensible, and you must be careful not to defend it when these commies use it as evidence - after all, the most pervasive and enduring lies are often mixed with enough truth to sound good at a glance. Such economic activities are, of course, evil and repugnant, and we should not allow American companies to do it, just as we don't allow individuals to trade in stolen goods (theft, after all, is not part of the Free Market, and slavery is essentially total and sustained theft). Bring it back to what you're actually arguing, and point at what Capitalism is and is not. Anyone capable of critical thinking would see that, of course, such action is not the result of Capitalism. Is the company Capitalist? Of course not; it is just a company, seeking its own benefit in an unscrupulous and immoral manner, behaving in a manner either irrelevant to or or in contradiction with the principles of Capitalism (again, going back to the original definition). Are their actions the fault of Capitalism? Of course not; again, Capitalism either has nothing to say on such things or is against it, and the businessman is the one who made the moral choice to pursue greed over the dignity of his fellow man. Indeed, Capitalism acts as a limit to greed, wherever it is law - after all, in a Capitalist system, you cannot get what someone else has unless you are willing to give them something they want in return. Moreover, the company had to *leave* a Capitalist system and go to some sort of totalitarian system in order to do its evil - evil that the government of that country was equally responsible for, if not moreso. You can no more blame Capitalism for the acts of these companies than you could blame your headlights for failing to prevent your serpentine belt from slipping. This is why it's so important to bring them back to the definition of Capitalism; they will constantly try to take other things, claim they're Capitalism, and use that to push their own ideology.
Likewise, it is good to bring up Communism and how such greedy people would function in a Communist society. Unlike in Capitalism, such greed and evil is actually encouraged by their centrally planned structure. The evil men in a Communist society need not leave their country to find slaves to exploit, as the state has made slaves of all the citizens.
3. They like to use evil things in America's past as smears against Capitalism.
They will also use 'America' and Capitalism interchangeably, another popular strawman. Now, America has been reasonably Capitalist throughout its existence, this is true. And America has committed its own evils, I do not dispute that. However, Commie Cucks will often insist that this is proof of how evil Capitalism is - as if these evils were the fault of Capitalism. They will point to the enslavement of black people, the oppression of gays, internment camps, etc - and these are of course terrible things. When you point out that these things have nothing to do with Capitalism (again, going back to the definition), they will usually ramble on about how some secret cabal of 'Capitalists' actually DON'T want a free market, that you're just brainwashed by this secret cabal, and they really just want to control the country, and are surreptitiously orchestrating these events in order to attain power - nonsense like that.
This, of course, is paranoid horseshit, and deserves no more response than a hearty belly-laugh and directions to the nearest mental hospital. But let's humor the delusional little ingrates for a moment - lets assume that there are indeed a bunch of 'Capitalists' who are trying to control things, people who are secretly feeding the ideas of Capitalism to people as a means of controlling the world. I honestly can't think of a worse way of doing it; after all, the best way to prevent this secret cabal from achieving their goals is by *restricting the power of Government*. If government had no authority to interfere in the market, such an evil cabal wouldn't be able to get anything of significance done through governmental means; they could not use regulation, licensing, taxation, etc, to kill their competition and bolster their allies to further their goals. They would, in short, have to do everything on their own steam - and could at any time be exposed by other people or by the government. A Capitalist system is the worst place to try to implement your plans for world domination, really.
On the other hand, such an evil cabal would be perfectly positioned to achieve all of their goals in a Communist government, as they would go directly for the levers of power within such a society. After all, the government ultimately decides who will do what, and even in a truly democratic communist regime they only need to get 51% of people inflamed about something to push the sort of agenda they want. More likely, though, everything is decided by the party, making such infiltration and control that much simpler. We can see an example of this with the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc; the very worst people rose to the top, and abused governmental power to stay there.
4. They refuse to actually engage in debate, and instead rely purely on dogma.
This is all too common; they like to insist you've been brainwashed by 'Capitalism', as if you were socially pressured into it, or something you believe based on lies. The exact opposite is usually true, of course; the Commies are often made this way during their high school or college years by Marxist professors and by peer pressure - but, of course, it's the Capitalists that are the deluded ones (*snort*). Their assertions are often presented with little or no evidence, and they expect you to take it as fact that what they say is true. Watch out for phrases such as "Exploitation of ___", and pin them down on that - force them to explain exactly what they mean. Often they will cite instances of rights violations unrelated to Capitalism, or they will cite some sort of inequality as if there was something inherently wrong with some people having more than others - and you can easily counter either. At that point they'll usually insist you've just been brainwashed, so toying with them should be simple at this point; mockery of their piss-poor debate skills at this point is proper, as well as evidence for this alleged 'brainwashing' - it usually just amounts to 'you think differently than I and all my other dogmatic brethren do!', and anyone who hasn't drunk the koolaid will see how spastic and idiotic they are for making such a ridiculous argument.
5. They will often insist you need to 'get educated', and refuse to provide any actual proof for their claims.
This is all too common; they will make claims about certain historical events from a twisted Communistic perspective, and when you want to know exactly what they're talking about before you tear it to shreds, they will insist you need to 'get educated'. Not does it expose their utter inability to engage in debate with someone who fundamentally disagrees with them, it further reinforces my believe that most Commie Cucks nowadays upper-middle class idiots who were converted in College, and had that bullshit crammed into their skulls by their Marxist professors. In any case, the best course of action, when they refuse to offer evidence for what they claim, is to just call them out on it; tell them that they are incapable of offering material support for their beliefs, and therefore their beliefs aren't worth the breath of explaining them. Once again, attacking their pride in being intellectuals is the most effective way to force them to show their hand.
6. They *never* put their money where their mouth is.
Some Commie Cucks reading this may be thinking that I've portrayed Communism unfairly; after all, using the Soviet Union as an example 'isn't real Communism!'. Well, besides the fact that we can point to plenty of examples that 'Real Communists' used as 'Real Communism' in days past, only to drop them like Hillary dropped her illegal email servers when they eventually collapsed into anarchy or otherwise fell (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union,Venezuela - I'm looking at you!), let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say "Alright, so you're a peaceful commie who doesn't want to force anyone into communism". Well, tell them to put their money where their mouth is, and go make a commune with all their commie pals and leave the rest of us alone. I have yet to see a Commie who doesn't rant and rave about how the Free Market is evil; and yet, they insist they're peaceful and love freedom, and don't want to force anyone into it. This is, of course, a contradiction; there is nothing in the free market to prevent them from forming their own little communes and show us the 'Wonders of Communism', and the fact that they feel the need to get rid of the free market indicates the 'non-government-intervention' principle of the Free Market is a barrier to their goals. They can't have it both ways; force them to either admit they DO want to strip us of our freedoms, and they really are just a bunch of little tyrants who want to control everyone who does not think and believe like them; or that their idiotic Commie dreams can be achieved in a Capitalist system, and they should really stop whining about the one system that would ever permit them to exist in the first place.
Remember, above all, you will likely not change their minds with logic and reason; they did not arrive at Communism in that manner, they will not be led away from it in that manner. No, your goal should be to expose what they really believe, and make mockery of that - show their beliefs as the ludicrous, shameful, and disgusting ideals they are. A Communist, like most leftists, will counter any practical problems with their ideologies with something like "Well at least I care about the poor!" or "At least I believe in fairness and equality!" - etc etc. You cannot leave that as a refuge; people will always choose a foolish idealist over a shrewd miser. Instead, show anyone who reads it that the Communist philosophy is not only unworkable, it is by no means fair, it does nothing to promote equality, it makes the poor into slaves, and that it is the refuge for the lazy, the greedy, and the simple. Tear away the falsehood that Communism is somehow noble or altruistic, and show it for what it really is; just another totalitarian philosophy that wants to control your life.
Double-Standards on FA
Posted 8 years agoThere is a journal here on FA, one titled something like "How gullible are Christians?". I will not post the exact name, or a link to it, as the user has me blocked. However, the name and content of the journal give the clear implication that Christians are gullible, easily taken in, will believe anything, etc - clearly a disparaging remark to an entire religious group. And that violates section 1.8;
Do not engage in malicious speech.
This includes bigotry and disparaging remarks or content about anyone's race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. This does not apply to fictional works.
Now, some of you may remember I've had had my own run-ins with the moderators, and may recall an incident where I used the word 'Tranny*' in reference to Trans people - not in a malicious way, mind, just as an identifier. I had said,
"Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent [TRANS PERSON] progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not [TRANS PEOPLE] in general."
And that's it. There was no implication of hatred there, there was no disparagement or bigotry; shoot, many trans people are perfectly fine being called by that identifier, so long as it's not being used as an epithet - ie, 'Fucking [TRANS PERSON], gtfo'. In short, taking offense at the word and feeling that one's identity group is maligned or disparaged is the choice of the listener, as they must attach all sorts of meanings that the user has not conveyed. It's micro-aggression culture at its finest.
So, in one case we have a clear disparagement of people of a religious group, and the moderators say "Eh, no issue". On the other case, we have someone use a common identifier phrase in a non-malicious manner, but because some people find the word offensive, ALL must find the word offensive - and therefore it's somehow bigoted or maligning towards that group, and must go down the memory hole.
Welcome to Furry Tumblr; your speech stops where other's feelings begin.
*note: this is not a case of me using that word in reference to trans people, but in reference to the word itself. It's therefore just as permitted as saying 'tranny' to refer to a 'transmission', or a 'transformer', etc.
Do not engage in malicious speech.
This includes bigotry and disparaging remarks or content about anyone's race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc. This does not apply to fictional works.
Now, some of you may remember I've had had my own run-ins with the moderators, and may recall an incident where I used the word 'Tranny*' in reference to Trans people - not in a malicious way, mind, just as an identifier. I had said,
"Now, I've checked with several people, including an ardent [TRANS PERSON] progressive who doesn't agree politically with me on anything, and they all said that my journal was exactly what I stated above; it mocked people who made certain choices, but not [TRANS PEOPLE] in general."
And that's it. There was no implication of hatred there, there was no disparagement or bigotry; shoot, many trans people are perfectly fine being called by that identifier, so long as it's not being used as an epithet - ie, 'Fucking [TRANS PERSON], gtfo'. In short, taking offense at the word and feeling that one's identity group is maligned or disparaged is the choice of the listener, as they must attach all sorts of meanings that the user has not conveyed. It's micro-aggression culture at its finest.
So, in one case we have a clear disparagement of people of a religious group, and the moderators say "Eh, no issue". On the other case, we have someone use a common identifier phrase in a non-malicious manner, but because some people find the word offensive, ALL must find the word offensive - and therefore it's somehow bigoted or maligning towards that group, and must go down the memory hole.
Welcome to Furry Tumblr; your speech stops where other's feelings begin.
*note: this is not a case of me using that word in reference to trans people, but in reference to the word itself. It's therefore just as permitted as saying 'tranny' to refer to a 'transmission', or a 'transformer', etc.
Trump lost the popular vote... or possibly not.
Posted 8 years agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBS2dI5Cou8
So, how about this; we simply require a picture ID to vote. Yes, voting is a right; but, as the Supreme Court has ruled, there can be 'reasonable restrictions' put in place for other rights, such as the first and second amendments. It certainly seems like taking steps to prevent illegal activity in voting is a 'reasonable restriction' - after all, if you can be restricted from self-defense by not having an ID (among a huge list of other things), why not be restricted from voting by not having an ID?
So, how about this; we simply require a picture ID to vote. Yes, voting is a right; but, as the Supreme Court has ruled, there can be 'reasonable restrictions' put in place for other rights, such as the first and second amendments. It certainly seems like taking steps to prevent illegal activity in voting is a 'reasonable restriction' - after all, if you can be restricted from self-defense by not having an ID (among a huge list of other things), why not be restricted from voting by not having an ID?
Takin' Out the Garbage
Posted 8 years agoSo, I found something good to talk about! Namely, a petition to Revoke CNN's White House Press Pass. What with having been allegedly caught interfering in the Democratic primaries and more recently having allegedly staged a "Muslims Against Terrorism" sort of protest in the UK, as well as generally being histrionic and trying to impede Conservatives at every turn, it seems like a good idea to revoke their special privileges granted by White House press passes.
I'm particularly looking forward to the sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ensue, and the continued drop in salt prices.
I'm particularly looking forward to the sort of wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ensue, and the continued drop in salt prices.
Top Ten Reasons LGBTQ-Nation Has Lost Its Mind
Posted 8 years agoSo, I saw this delightful little article elsewhere, and... well, feel free to read the article, it'll give you an idea of the kind of people who run that place.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02.....-lgbtq-people/
Are you done with that... Well, let's call it a 'special' collection of words. Yes, 'collection of words' is the highest compliment I can give it. I mean, I can't call it the usual things, as the moderators would probably cite me for hate-speech - no matter how apt or appropriate they are. So, I'll have to settle for 'special', and assume you guys know what I'm referring to.
So, let's review their reasons, in order;
10. "REEEEEE HE DIDN'T USE A PREFERRED PRONOUN!" - wow, strong start. Already insisting that if you don't speak and think as they do, you are apparently a homophobe.
9. They're annoyed that Trump is annoyed at the NFL for fining a player for saying allegedly 'homophobic' comments... But, given the article is so vague about the incident, I expect it's more bullshit like the rest of the list. The only thing I could find was some other player saying something like "you shouldn't be fucking making out with your boyfriend on national television, kids could be watching", and they think Trump is basically Hitler for saying that the NFL crossed the line for fining the player for that tweet. Oh, and the best part? The tweet may have been a 'social experiment' to see how people reacted, and he was trying to expose anti-LGBT bias.
8. Sick burn = anti-LGBT hate-speech, apparently - even though the insult was to the straight woman rather than the gay man that left her. Yeah, try wrapping your head around that twisted reasoning.
7. He supports "H.R.2802 - First Amendment Defense Act" - the full text can be found here; https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02.....-lgbtq-people/
- but basically, it prevents the federal government from discriminating against religious people in the same way they're already prevented from discriminating against homosexuals. They're complaining about equal treatment, in other words.
6. Believe it or not, you can be against discrimination against gays and against gay marriage. In the first place, you can be against ALL government-recognized marriage. In the second, if you believe marriage is by definition something between a man and a woman, that does not preclude, say, a gay man marrying a lesbian - ie, they still have the right. You may not care to, but if we're already talking about specially set-up legal privileges provided by government that grant benefits to one group at the expense of others, it's a bit rich to be complaining about 'discrimination'.
5. He believes same-sex-marriage should be an issue decided by the states. SO HOMOPHOBIC ZOMG
4. Trump DARES to say he'd disapprove of a hypothetical grandchild being gay, but would still love and cherish them - don't you KNOW it's HOMOPHOBIA unless you totally and completely support someone's sexuality?! Fucking hell, the pearl-clutching is real XD
3. He used a poor golf metaphor to explain why he disagrees with homosexuality. Seriously? This is what you're worried about?
2. Trump was apparently absolutely evil for not condemning another person as the antichrist when they dared to say that marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman.
And their number one reason is, in 1999, he said that equal treatment for LGBT people "Isn't something he's given a lot of thought to". That's right; their biggest reason for saying Trump is a homophobe is he didn't really care much about the issue in 1999. Since he was not for them, he must have obviously been against them.
Please, LGBTQ-Nation and groups/people like this, PLEASE keep this up; this sort of histrionic pearl-clutching is the shit that got Trump elected in the first place. It'll make Christmas in 2020 all the more precious - except instead of visions of sugarplums dancing in my head, it'll be SJWs bawling their eyes out as they gibber incoherently about homophobia and muh-sojiny.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02.....-lgbtq-people/
Are you done with that... Well, let's call it a 'special' collection of words. Yes, 'collection of words' is the highest compliment I can give it. I mean, I can't call it the usual things, as the moderators would probably cite me for hate-speech - no matter how apt or appropriate they are. So, I'll have to settle for 'special', and assume you guys know what I'm referring to.
So, let's review their reasons, in order;
10. "REEEEEE HE DIDN'T USE A PREFERRED PRONOUN!" - wow, strong start. Already insisting that if you don't speak and think as they do, you are apparently a homophobe.
9. They're annoyed that Trump is annoyed at the NFL for fining a player for saying allegedly 'homophobic' comments... But, given the article is so vague about the incident, I expect it's more bullshit like the rest of the list. The only thing I could find was some other player saying something like "you shouldn't be fucking making out with your boyfriend on national television, kids could be watching", and they think Trump is basically Hitler for saying that the NFL crossed the line for fining the player for that tweet. Oh, and the best part? The tweet may have been a 'social experiment' to see how people reacted, and he was trying to expose anti-LGBT bias.
8. Sick burn = anti-LGBT hate-speech, apparently - even though the insult was to the straight woman rather than the gay man that left her. Yeah, try wrapping your head around that twisted reasoning.
7. He supports "H.R.2802 - First Amendment Defense Act" - the full text can be found here; https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/02.....-lgbtq-people/
- but basically, it prevents the federal government from discriminating against religious people in the same way they're already prevented from discriminating against homosexuals. They're complaining about equal treatment, in other words.
6. Believe it or not, you can be against discrimination against gays and against gay marriage. In the first place, you can be against ALL government-recognized marriage. In the second, if you believe marriage is by definition something between a man and a woman, that does not preclude, say, a gay man marrying a lesbian - ie, they still have the right. You may not care to, but if we're already talking about specially set-up legal privileges provided by government that grant benefits to one group at the expense of others, it's a bit rich to be complaining about 'discrimination'.
5. He believes same-sex-marriage should be an issue decided by the states. SO HOMOPHOBIC ZOMG
4. Trump DARES to say he'd disapprove of a hypothetical grandchild being gay, but would still love and cherish them - don't you KNOW it's HOMOPHOBIA unless you totally and completely support someone's sexuality?! Fucking hell, the pearl-clutching is real XD
3. He used a poor golf metaphor to explain why he disagrees with homosexuality. Seriously? This is what you're worried about?
2. Trump was apparently absolutely evil for not condemning another person as the antichrist when they dared to say that marriage was meant to be between one man and one woman.
And their number one reason is, in 1999, he said that equal treatment for LGBT people "Isn't something he's given a lot of thought to". That's right; their biggest reason for saying Trump is a homophobe is he didn't really care much about the issue in 1999. Since he was not for them, he must have obviously been against them.
Please, LGBTQ-Nation and groups/people like this, PLEASE keep this up; this sort of histrionic pearl-clutching is the shit that got Trump elected in the first place. It'll make Christmas in 2020 all the more precious - except instead of visions of sugarplums dancing in my head, it'll be SJWs bawling their eyes out as they gibber incoherently about homophobia and muh-sojiny.
A Most Triggering Quandry
Posted 8 years agoSo, a hypothetical scenario. A 'fictional context', if you will. Let's say a trans-man (ie, a woman who identifies as a man), takes hormones, undergoes surgery, etc. She also insists she's a gay trans-man - ie, she is still attracted to men. There's also a normal gay man, one who was born a man and identifies as a man and is attracted to men. The trans-gay-man is attracted to the gay-man, but the gay-man does not reciprocate - he's only attracted to 'actual, biological men', according to his words.
Is he being a bigot, or does she have unreasonable expectations?
*sits back, ready to scoop up all the delicious salt*
Is he being a bigot, or does she have unreasonable expectations?
*sits back, ready to scoop up all the delicious salt*
Antifa Hypocrisy
Posted 8 years agoI've noticed a growing trend used by Antifa and similar groups as justification for their hate; specifically, they cite isolated examples as proof that the Alt-Right are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. For instance, they'll bring up;
-their family being _ist and hateful;
-news stories of people allegedly committing violent acts while saying _ist things.
-Individual _ists on record saying _ist things.
They then use this to justify their violent attitudes to those on the right (ie, conservatives, libertarians, alt-right, etc). Of course, anyone with any reasoning capacity whatsoever can see the problem with this. Yes, it's terrible if their family was genuinely a bunch of racist scumbags; and it's horrible when people commit acts of violence just because of someone's race/sex/sexuality/etc. Yes, it's evil for people to spout hateful and bigoted things. Most people on the right think these things are evil, and that those who commit evil acts should be prosecuted while the people who say evil things should be laughed at and ignored. None of that matters to Antifa, however; the simple fact that there are white-supremacists and neo-nazis who identify as 'Right' or 'alt-Right' or whatever is justification enough for them to advocate for physically assaulting anyone on the Right.
This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, and they are practicing the very same thing that they accuse their opponents of. They hate White-Supremacists and Neo-Nazis for painting other races with too broad a brush, yet they paint everyone on the Right as racists/nazis by the exact same reasoning. Actual racists are not bred in a vacuum; they usually experience some sort of evil from the race(s) they hate (or see reports of it), and paint the entire race with the same brush. Antifa members may experience or see incidents of horrible ___ism, but then they go on and paint the entire Right as racists/Nazis.
There is, however, a big difference between Antifa and even the actual racists I've seen; the racists are by-and-large non-violent, and don't want to achieve their goals through violence. They seem to want legally-enforced segregation, where the various races have their own countries and self-govern, and think this will lead to peace - I disagree, and I think it's coercive to separate the races in such a manner, but at the very least they actually want peace. Antifa, however, does not; every Antifa member I've seen not only condones violence, but encourages it - you can scarcely see someone in 'Antifa' without seeing something like 'punch a nazi', 'bash the fash', etc.
I suspect that's why we're seeing more people being sympathetic with white-nationalism and those who advocate it; not because white-nationalism has good ideas, but because those who actually believe it are being physically attacked for their beliefs, and the attackers paint the rest of us with a broad brush unless we fully and completely condone stripping the rights away from that political minority. The anti-fascists, in other words, are the actual fascists.
-their family being _ist and hateful;
-news stories of people allegedly committing violent acts while saying _ist things.
-Individual _ists on record saying _ist things.
They then use this to justify their violent attitudes to those on the right (ie, conservatives, libertarians, alt-right, etc). Of course, anyone with any reasoning capacity whatsoever can see the problem with this. Yes, it's terrible if their family was genuinely a bunch of racist scumbags; and it's horrible when people commit acts of violence just because of someone's race/sex/sexuality/etc. Yes, it's evil for people to spout hateful and bigoted things. Most people on the right think these things are evil, and that those who commit evil acts should be prosecuted while the people who say evil things should be laughed at and ignored. None of that matters to Antifa, however; the simple fact that there are white-supremacists and neo-nazis who identify as 'Right' or 'alt-Right' or whatever is justification enough for them to advocate for physically assaulting anyone on the Right.
This is, of course, intellectually dishonest, and they are practicing the very same thing that they accuse their opponents of. They hate White-Supremacists and Neo-Nazis for painting other races with too broad a brush, yet they paint everyone on the Right as racists/nazis by the exact same reasoning. Actual racists are not bred in a vacuum; they usually experience some sort of evil from the race(s) they hate (or see reports of it), and paint the entire race with the same brush. Antifa members may experience or see incidents of horrible ___ism, but then they go on and paint the entire Right as racists/Nazis.
There is, however, a big difference between Antifa and even the actual racists I've seen; the racists are by-and-large non-violent, and don't want to achieve their goals through violence. They seem to want legally-enforced segregation, where the various races have their own countries and self-govern, and think this will lead to peace - I disagree, and I think it's coercive to separate the races in such a manner, but at the very least they actually want peace. Antifa, however, does not; every Antifa member I've seen not only condones violence, but encourages it - you can scarcely see someone in 'Antifa' without seeing something like 'punch a nazi', 'bash the fash', etc.
I suspect that's why we're seeing more people being sympathetic with white-nationalism and those who advocate it; not because white-nationalism has good ideas, but because those who actually believe it are being physically attacked for their beliefs, and the attackers paint the rest of us with a broad brush unless we fully and completely condone stripping the rights away from that political minority. The anti-fascists, in other words, are the actual fascists.
The Left's New Shadow-Blocking, Here on FA
Posted 8 years agoI've come across a new form of 'shadow-banning' that seems to be gaining traction on the left; as most of my readers are well-aware, the Regressive Left are absolutely terrified of free speech, and seek to undermine it in any way they can. They rarely engage in any form of material debate; when they do respond, however, it is usually to fling a few buzzwords at you and call you various nasty things, impugning your character, etc.
Now, this new form of 'shadow banning' consists of not blocking the person directly, but simply deleting every one of their posts. This grants them the capacity (at least on their own pages) to continue to delete your posts, while preventing you from even knowing what they are doing - moreover, it prevents that last clause of 1.6, "Also do not contact users whom you have blocked", from applying.
See, this is the problem with the 'Regressive Left' nowadays - the Social Justice Warriors, the Antifa and BLM protestors, etc; they do not question their own beliefs, not one bit, and refuse to answer when questioned. For example, a user who was engaging in this sort of 'shadow-banning' (I managed to catch this one) insisted that we move it to notes; so I did that, asking,
"Why do you have a grievance with me? I posted nothing offensive to your posts, and I think they're damn adorable. So, why do you keep deleting my posts?"
The user replied thusly;
Hello,
The ideolegy that support to a delusional degree directly threatens my own existence, that of my friends, that of my career, and that of my passion. You are owed no right to my work, and I must ensure that you constantly understand that your ideolegy is not supported here. You insulted some of my friends in your comically delusional November journal, and the only reason I have not blocked you is that you have nor been antagonistic directly towards me. The response you provide will be taken into consideration.
As an aside, you seem to think removing a deliberate and antagonistic politocal icon from a fetish image is immature, not the initial antagonistic inciting incident on your part.
Thank you for your time,
(User)
Now, I thought this was silly, so I intended to break it down step-by-step and see if we could come to an understanding. Of note, I would have proceeded to inform the user that I identify deeply with 'Pepe' and 'Kek', especially the free-speech and humor associated with it, and value it strongly; it would be no different from, say, using the trans-symbol for your icon if you were trans, or Hillary's symbol if you voted for Hillary. But, leaving that aside, I wanted to address the person's fears directly, rather than try to climb up on my high-horse and accuse the user of bigotry against a strongly held identity.
Exactly how do I support an ideology that directly threatens your existence, your friends' existence, your career, your passion, etc? What ideology, exactly, do you think I support?
Unfortunately, that's where it ended. I received no response for several hours, and so I sent another note to ask them if they had received my previous note; that likewise received no other note, and indeed the user had made more art since then, so I replied again via a comment; this was simply deleted.
So, this is where we're at; they wish to abuse the deletion ability to ensure they have complete control over their own safe space, without ever being found out and without the restrictions that come with blocking. So, I encourage you all, do as Bearing is doing; kill 'em with kindness. Tell them just how nice their art is; respond with positive comments that would be reasonably liked. I know not all of you are Christian, but the Bible has wise words on this matter;
(Romans 12:17-20)
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
So, again, I urge you not to block a single person, no matter how odious, or hypocritical, or bigoted. Let them speak; if they delete everything you say, pour out kindness and uplifting words. If they continue to delete your posts, they'll only be deleting kind words to themselves.
...Oh dammit, I'm becoming a hippy. Well fuck.
Now, this new form of 'shadow banning' consists of not blocking the person directly, but simply deleting every one of their posts. This grants them the capacity (at least on their own pages) to continue to delete your posts, while preventing you from even knowing what they are doing - moreover, it prevents that last clause of 1.6, "Also do not contact users whom you have blocked", from applying.
See, this is the problem with the 'Regressive Left' nowadays - the Social Justice Warriors, the Antifa and BLM protestors, etc; they do not question their own beliefs, not one bit, and refuse to answer when questioned. For example, a user who was engaging in this sort of 'shadow-banning' (I managed to catch this one) insisted that we move it to notes; so I did that, asking,
"Why do you have a grievance with me? I posted nothing offensive to your posts, and I think they're damn adorable. So, why do you keep deleting my posts?"
The user replied thusly;
Hello,
The ideolegy that support to a delusional degree directly threatens my own existence, that of my friends, that of my career, and that of my passion. You are owed no right to my work, and I must ensure that you constantly understand that your ideolegy is not supported here. You insulted some of my friends in your comically delusional November journal, and the only reason I have not blocked you is that you have nor been antagonistic directly towards me. The response you provide will be taken into consideration.
As an aside, you seem to think removing a deliberate and antagonistic politocal icon from a fetish image is immature, not the initial antagonistic inciting incident on your part.
Thank you for your time,
(User)
Now, I thought this was silly, so I intended to break it down step-by-step and see if we could come to an understanding. Of note, I would have proceeded to inform the user that I identify deeply with 'Pepe' and 'Kek', especially the free-speech and humor associated with it, and value it strongly; it would be no different from, say, using the trans-symbol for your icon if you were trans, or Hillary's symbol if you voted for Hillary. But, leaving that aside, I wanted to address the person's fears directly, rather than try to climb up on my high-horse and accuse the user of bigotry against a strongly held identity.
Exactly how do I support an ideology that directly threatens your existence, your friends' existence, your career, your passion, etc? What ideology, exactly, do you think I support?
Unfortunately, that's where it ended. I received no response for several hours, and so I sent another note to ask them if they had received my previous note; that likewise received no other note, and indeed the user had made more art since then, so I replied again via a comment; this was simply deleted.
So, this is where we're at; they wish to abuse the deletion ability to ensure they have complete control over their own safe space, without ever being found out and without the restrictions that come with blocking. So, I encourage you all, do as Bearing is doing; kill 'em with kindness. Tell them just how nice their art is; respond with positive comments that would be reasonably liked. I know not all of you are Christian, but the Bible has wise words on this matter;
(Romans 12:17-20)
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
So, again, I urge you not to block a single person, no matter how odious, or hypocritical, or bigoted. Let them speak; if they delete everything you say, pour out kindness and uplifting words. If they continue to delete your posts, they'll only be deleting kind words to themselves.
...Oh dammit, I'm becoming a hippy. Well fuck.
How Not To Debate
Posted 8 years agoSJWs, Leftists, Antifa, etc; I've noticed a trend in your manner of debate, to the point that it appears to be an epidemic. Specifically, you do *not* debate; I've found that at the best of times you assume motive for your opponents, assert various types of _isms as an ad-hominem attack, and refuse to back up your statements with even a modicum of evidence; at the worst, you ban and block, insisting that our words aren't worth anything because we're 'racist nazi trolls from 4chan and our statements are automatically invalid' or similar.
Of course, this is not universal; but I've seen very few exceptions in my own personal interactions with Leftists and in watching interactions online. Moreover, I do not expect any Leftists will actually heed this; indeed, I find it deeply humorous that I can tell you exactly what moves I intend to use, and you'll still behave exactly as I predict. But that's just the icing on top; the meat of it is that I know that several people across the political spectrum will see this, and those who are undecided will hopefully be swayed away from your toxic ideologies.
Now, I replied to another person's journal entry - a long dissertation, railing against Trump and his supporters, and I posted a thoughtful response - mostly because I knew it would be absolutely ignored, and once again prove my point that Leftists of all stripes are losing the capacity to engage in any meaningful debate. Lo-and-behold, this was the response I got after my comment was deleted;
"I didn't even read a single word of what you wrote. The icon you are using makes it too obvious. You are a troll from 4chan, and that automatically invalidates anything you write. You are just mad because your troll friend got banned."
It should be clear to anyone with the capacity for critical thought that this is not an argument. My icon is irrelevant, as it is not my argument; I am simply amused at how offended people are by a frog in a toupee, and wear it as a statement both in favor of free speech and in protest of their language-policing. Moreover, not only is "You are a troll from 4chan" irrelevant, it's also untrue; I can count the number of times I've been there on one hand, and it's been months since I've even seen it. Even if I were, however, that is simply an ad-hominem attack used to avoid having to counter what I was actually saying; they had nothing to say about my argument, so they had to try to attack my character. And regarding the troll - once again, they are ascribing motive. I have no idea who this troll is, and have no idea what they're talking about - indeed, I don't think I even mentioned the troll in my post to that person's journal. Yet, rather than engage in meaningful debate, the person just flings insults and accusations and deletes my post - in other words, they are engaging the same trollish, hateful behavior they decry.
But, again, I don't expect any different. And again, I don't expect to change the minds of any Social Justice Warriors, Antifa, Black Lives Matter activists, or indeed Leftists in general; I expect they'll fling the same accusations of being a 'Nazi supporter', or a 'Racist', or a 'Homophobe', all without any supporting evidence, or with twisted identity-politics 'logic' and whatever word-salad they can muster. They don't appear to be interested in debate; they wish to use the same old tactics of slandering and shaming, hoping that they'll win through bullying and hatred.
Well, *chuckles* sorry dearies, it's not going to work. Those very tactics are what turned the more level-headed liberals against you. This is what made millions of people across the country, people who usually vote Democrat, vote instead for an admittedly shady and unsavory Republican. And I intend to keep telling you exactly why you lost, because it amuses me to no end, handing you the key to your self-inflicted prison over and over again, knowing full well you'll just keep throwing it away and rattling the bars of your self-inflicted cages. Ah, but anyway.
I don't think I'll be blocking anyone; you are free to say what you want on my journals. Indeed, I encourage it, just as I encouraged rational, reasonable debate in that deleted comment of mine. See, I'm confident that I am correct, and I am confident that the cores of my beliefs will stand up in the free market of ideas - and on minor issues, I'm willing to shift my position a bit if I find good reason to do so.
If you share this confidence and a love for free speech and free expression, I encourage you to do the same - delete your block lists. Let the anti-free-speech crowd put their own hateful, bigoted rhetoric on display for all to see - don't delete a single comment. Simply ask *why* they believe what they believe, demanding evidence for their assertions, and most of the time you will find them unable to do so - all you'll get is more empty rhetoric, more accusations of ___ism, more non-arguments and fallacies. Point them out and ask again; and again; and again. Sometimes you'll get some actual debates - great! There may be hope for them to move to a less radical position - perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but someday. But most of the time I expect they'll just continue to make their side look more ridiculous, more extreme, more tyrannical - and that will be their downfall.
Edit: A minor update; the same user that deleted my post and blocked me decided to respond to me in another shout. That is, the user wishes to prevent me from speaking at all on any of their posts, while still being allowed to talk about me. I think this pretty well puts their moral character on display, does it not?
Praise kek, and Shadilay. I leave you with this rather appropriate video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhGYo9TExU
Of course, this is not universal; but I've seen very few exceptions in my own personal interactions with Leftists and in watching interactions online. Moreover, I do not expect any Leftists will actually heed this; indeed, I find it deeply humorous that I can tell you exactly what moves I intend to use, and you'll still behave exactly as I predict. But that's just the icing on top; the meat of it is that I know that several people across the political spectrum will see this, and those who are undecided will hopefully be swayed away from your toxic ideologies.
Now, I replied to another person's journal entry - a long dissertation, railing against Trump and his supporters, and I posted a thoughtful response - mostly because I knew it would be absolutely ignored, and once again prove my point that Leftists of all stripes are losing the capacity to engage in any meaningful debate. Lo-and-behold, this was the response I got after my comment was deleted;
"I didn't even read a single word of what you wrote. The icon you are using makes it too obvious. You are a troll from 4chan, and that automatically invalidates anything you write. You are just mad because your troll friend got banned."
It should be clear to anyone with the capacity for critical thought that this is not an argument. My icon is irrelevant, as it is not my argument; I am simply amused at how offended people are by a frog in a toupee, and wear it as a statement both in favor of free speech and in protest of their language-policing. Moreover, not only is "You are a troll from 4chan" irrelevant, it's also untrue; I can count the number of times I've been there on one hand, and it's been months since I've even seen it. Even if I were, however, that is simply an ad-hominem attack used to avoid having to counter what I was actually saying; they had nothing to say about my argument, so they had to try to attack my character. And regarding the troll - once again, they are ascribing motive. I have no idea who this troll is, and have no idea what they're talking about - indeed, I don't think I even mentioned the troll in my post to that person's journal. Yet, rather than engage in meaningful debate, the person just flings insults and accusations and deletes my post - in other words, they are engaging the same trollish, hateful behavior they decry.
But, again, I don't expect any different. And again, I don't expect to change the minds of any Social Justice Warriors, Antifa, Black Lives Matter activists, or indeed Leftists in general; I expect they'll fling the same accusations of being a 'Nazi supporter', or a 'Racist', or a 'Homophobe', all without any supporting evidence, or with twisted identity-politics 'logic' and whatever word-salad they can muster. They don't appear to be interested in debate; they wish to use the same old tactics of slandering and shaming, hoping that they'll win through bullying and hatred.
Well, *chuckles* sorry dearies, it's not going to work. Those very tactics are what turned the more level-headed liberals against you. This is what made millions of people across the country, people who usually vote Democrat, vote instead for an admittedly shady and unsavory Republican. And I intend to keep telling you exactly why you lost, because it amuses me to no end, handing you the key to your self-inflicted prison over and over again, knowing full well you'll just keep throwing it away and rattling the bars of your self-inflicted cages. Ah, but anyway.
I don't think I'll be blocking anyone; you are free to say what you want on my journals. Indeed, I encourage it, just as I encouraged rational, reasonable debate in that deleted comment of mine. See, I'm confident that I am correct, and I am confident that the cores of my beliefs will stand up in the free market of ideas - and on minor issues, I'm willing to shift my position a bit if I find good reason to do so.
If you share this confidence and a love for free speech and free expression, I encourage you to do the same - delete your block lists. Let the anti-free-speech crowd put their own hateful, bigoted rhetoric on display for all to see - don't delete a single comment. Simply ask *why* they believe what they believe, demanding evidence for their assertions, and most of the time you will find them unable to do so - all you'll get is more empty rhetoric, more accusations of ___ism, more non-arguments and fallacies. Point them out and ask again; and again; and again. Sometimes you'll get some actual debates - great! There may be hope for them to move to a less radical position - perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but someday. But most of the time I expect they'll just continue to make their side look more ridiculous, more extreme, more tyrannical - and that will be their downfall.
Edit: A minor update; the same user that deleted my post and blocked me decided to respond to me in another shout. That is, the user wishes to prevent me from speaking at all on any of their posts, while still being allowed to talk about me. I think this pretty well puts their moral character on display, does it not?
Praise kek, and Shadilay. I leave you with this rather appropriate video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhGYo9TExU
What is, and is not, homophobia.
Posted 8 years agoAnother user engaged me in what we'll call a 'lively debate' via notes. I have removed their name, as they blocked me from their replies. Even so, I think this is a valuable lesson in exactly what is wrong with the Regressive Left;
(Me)
I do not believe [Anti-Discrimination laws for businesses] should be on the books in the first place, tbh. A private business owner should be allowed to serve whoever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.
But, even assuming such laws are OK for basic services, there's an argument to be made for not being forced to take additional measures and/or participate in something you find morally wrong. Indeed, such protection against forced labor would fall under the 18th amendment's protection against slavery and involuntary servitude - to say nothing of equal protection under the law, under which consumers and employees are free to discriminate however they wish, but employers and producers are not.
Those are my views; is that homophobic?
(Anon)
The problem is that no one has those views of finding something "morally wrong" in isolation. Communities find things "morally wrong", and then practice systematic discrimination against those they've decided on an excuse to marginalize. This isn't theory. This is a phenomenon that's been observed again and again. Look at the American south after the Civil War. You'd have entire towns where no stores, restaurants, or hotels would serve black customers. Without the kind of laws you're talking about, people wind up completely excluded from even the most basic participation in society for things that have since been determined to be unjust to hold against them.
When one does business in the public square, we have laws that seek to protect any who are observed to be discriminated against, for what has been determined to be no just reason. If you say a business owner has the right to refuse me service solely based on my sexuality, then as a matter of self-preservation, I assume you also think my sexuality is just cause for my landlord to evict me, and my employer to fire me. You consider it just that I potentially be shunned from participating in society with no recourse, because of my sexuality.
Which is inherently, vehemently, homophobic.
(Me)
It's also not a theory that people can and will adapt and make their own products and services. Even if you think it's oh-so-terrible that a Christian baker won't make a cake for a gay couple, that's now a potential market - and the free market will combat foolish bigotry far more effectively than any laws, as there is now a cost to actually being hateful and bigoted rather than simply having to hide it.
Now, if a landlord wanted to evict someone simply for being gay, I would absolutely believe the landlord is being wrongfully bigoted, but there's a BIG difference between believing something is bigoted and believing something should be illegal.
It's for the same reason, for instance, I tolerate your speech - bigoted though it may be towards people who politically disagree with you, there is no just cause to condemn you by force of law. Likewise, there is no just cause, in my mind, to legally punish someone who simply does not wish to engage in economic activities with another, no matter how bigoted the reason.
(Anon)
It does not matter whether you think gay people are bad. It matters that you think it should be legal for gay people to be fired, evicted, and denied health care if the landlord, or employer, or healthcare provider in question thinks gay people are bad. We're not talking about fucking wedding cakes, as you keep trying to reduce the problem to, we're talking about things that can kill people.
You. Are. A. Homophobe.
And we have nothing more to discuss.
(I intended to post the following, but he blocked me before I could reply)
Is legally allowing something - that is, not wanting to make something illegal and punishing it by law - the same as fully supporting and endorsing it? Of course not; I do not endorse your speech, but I think it should be absolutely legal for a person to express their views and opinions. I don't endorse barring gay people from healthcare, employment, etc, just for being gay, but I think it should be absolutely legal for a person to engage or not engage economically however they see fit. You may think it will have negative repercussions, and we can debate that; but you can't claim that such views are homophobic. Permitting discrimination based on sexuality is not the same thing as discriminating based on sexuality.
I think this is the real disconnect, here; it's why Leftists are so eager to call us 'Deplorables' every foul thing under the sun. We're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphonic, bigoted, etc, not because we believe those things should be enshrouded in law, but because we don't wish to make racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, illegal. It's an intellectual dishonesty we need to understand going into it, so we can better confront it.
Edit: Another wall-o-text, demonstrating the same thing.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:10 PM
Since I can't reply in that journal, I'll ask here; exactly why do you think I'm any of those things? [Racist, sexist, homohpobic, bigoted, etc]
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:43 PM
"I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners..."
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:44 PM
Also the satirical and asinine way that you approach the subject of gender pronouns and gender choice.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:45 PM
Also the groups you choose to represent in your profile page.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:45 PM
Also your fucking Trump-pepe icon. Trump is the GOP's death rattle: in fifty years' time, his, yours and the entire right's brand of alt-politics will not exist.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:52 PM
So, you think I'm transphobic because I don't believe in the 1000+ genders on Tumblr?
You think I'm... what, because I don't like the leftist idea of 'tolerance', and I'm against SJWs?
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:53 PM
You think I'm what, exactly, because I have PepeTrump as my icon?
Dude, do you even hear yourself? You're frothing at the mouth, accusing me of every leftist transgression under the sun without any actual proof.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:54 PM
To sum it up, you think I'm a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc, because of one thing;
'Wrongthink'.
Please, 1984 was a warning, not a manifesto.
(Me, on my own page)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:56 PM
See below's page shouts for rebuttals, if he hasn't deleted them yet.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:56 PM
The proof is in your profile. It's plainly evident. You're determined to make anybody who disagrees with you out to be inflammatory leftist scum. Remember, you approached me seeking an explanation.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:58 PM
My dear, you called me a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe (etc etc ad nauseum) without offering any actual evidence, and you still have not. "Look at your profile" is not evidence; if it's bigoted, you can say how it is.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:58 PM
I'm entirely entitled to my opinion of you, based on both your profile and your reaction to my distaste for it.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:59 PM
You are indeed entitled to your opinion; and I'm entitled to calling you an SJW for calling someone all sorts of nasty things for what amounts to a political disagreement.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:01 PM
I've read 1984 twice. It's a fantastic work of dystopian fiction, not a dissertation on the current state of world politics. Be realistic. Own what you believe instead of coyly trying to make me force it out of you.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:02 PM
And what, exactly, do you think I believe? Own what you're accusing me of and provide evidence, rather than trying to make me force it out of you.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:06 PM
On a scale from zero to ten, tell me how many grades of high school you completed. Did you glean anything from 1984 other than ALT RIGHT 4 EVA? Or did you just read the SparkNotes 'cause the words were too big?
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:07 PM
And if you haven't realized, I've resorted to fucking with you because I realized trying to have a reasonable conversation would never result in anything other than your vapid talking in circles.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:07 PM
Fuck off, fuck you. Don't post to my page any more and I won't post to yours.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:18 PM
Let's review;
Allegation without proof ("I read two journals of yours" != proof I'm ___ist).
A rather lame attempt to insult my intelligence.
Another lame insult.
An assertion that I should stop posting shouts to your page
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:19 PM
You've accomplished a lot here today. I feel so changed and enlightened. Thanks for coming.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:20 PM
Sorry, but I'm afraid at no point did you provide any actual evidence that I'm ___ist, and in the process all you've shown is that you are the one intolerant to other ideologies.
So, posts deleted, and down the memory hole they go. It's an odd combination of sad and amusing.
(Me)
I do not believe [Anti-Discrimination laws for businesses] should be on the books in the first place, tbh. A private business owner should be allowed to serve whoever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.
But, even assuming such laws are OK for basic services, there's an argument to be made for not being forced to take additional measures and/or participate in something you find morally wrong. Indeed, such protection against forced labor would fall under the 18th amendment's protection against slavery and involuntary servitude - to say nothing of equal protection under the law, under which consumers and employees are free to discriminate however they wish, but employers and producers are not.
Those are my views; is that homophobic?
(Anon)
The problem is that no one has those views of finding something "morally wrong" in isolation. Communities find things "morally wrong", and then practice systematic discrimination against those they've decided on an excuse to marginalize. This isn't theory. This is a phenomenon that's been observed again and again. Look at the American south after the Civil War. You'd have entire towns where no stores, restaurants, or hotels would serve black customers. Without the kind of laws you're talking about, people wind up completely excluded from even the most basic participation in society for things that have since been determined to be unjust to hold against them.
When one does business in the public square, we have laws that seek to protect any who are observed to be discriminated against, for what has been determined to be no just reason. If you say a business owner has the right to refuse me service solely based on my sexuality, then as a matter of self-preservation, I assume you also think my sexuality is just cause for my landlord to evict me, and my employer to fire me. You consider it just that I potentially be shunned from participating in society with no recourse, because of my sexuality.
Which is inherently, vehemently, homophobic.
(Me)
It's also not a theory that people can and will adapt and make their own products and services. Even if you think it's oh-so-terrible that a Christian baker won't make a cake for a gay couple, that's now a potential market - and the free market will combat foolish bigotry far more effectively than any laws, as there is now a cost to actually being hateful and bigoted rather than simply having to hide it.
Now, if a landlord wanted to evict someone simply for being gay, I would absolutely believe the landlord is being wrongfully bigoted, but there's a BIG difference between believing something is bigoted and believing something should be illegal.
It's for the same reason, for instance, I tolerate your speech - bigoted though it may be towards people who politically disagree with you, there is no just cause to condemn you by force of law. Likewise, there is no just cause, in my mind, to legally punish someone who simply does not wish to engage in economic activities with another, no matter how bigoted the reason.
(Anon)
It does not matter whether you think gay people are bad. It matters that you think it should be legal for gay people to be fired, evicted, and denied health care if the landlord, or employer, or healthcare provider in question thinks gay people are bad. We're not talking about fucking wedding cakes, as you keep trying to reduce the problem to, we're talking about things that can kill people.
You. Are. A. Homophobe.
And we have nothing more to discuss.
(I intended to post the following, but he blocked me before I could reply)
Is legally allowing something - that is, not wanting to make something illegal and punishing it by law - the same as fully supporting and endorsing it? Of course not; I do not endorse your speech, but I think it should be absolutely legal for a person to express their views and opinions. I don't endorse barring gay people from healthcare, employment, etc, just for being gay, but I think it should be absolutely legal for a person to engage or not engage economically however they see fit. You may think it will have negative repercussions, and we can debate that; but you can't claim that such views are homophobic. Permitting discrimination based on sexuality is not the same thing as discriminating based on sexuality.
I think this is the real disconnect, here; it's why Leftists are so eager to call us 'Deplorables' every foul thing under the sun. We're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphonic, bigoted, etc, not because we believe those things should be enshrouded in law, but because we don't wish to make racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, illegal. It's an intellectual dishonesty we need to understand going into it, so we can better confront it.
Edit: Another wall-o-text, demonstrating the same thing.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:10 PM
Since I can't reply in that journal, I'll ask here; exactly why do you think I'm any of those things? [Racist, sexist, homohpobic, bigoted, etc]
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:43 PM
"I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners..."
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:44 PM
Also the satirical and asinine way that you approach the subject of gender pronouns and gender choice.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:45 PM
Also the groups you choose to represent in your profile page.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:45 PM
Also your fucking Trump-pepe icon. Trump is the GOP's death rattle: in fifty years' time, his, yours and the entire right's brand of alt-politics will not exist.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:52 PM
So, you think I'm transphobic because I don't believe in the 1000+ genders on Tumblr?
You think I'm... what, because I don't like the leftist idea of 'tolerance', and I'm against SJWs?
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:53 PM
You think I'm what, exactly, because I have PepeTrump as my icon?
Dude, do you even hear yourself? You're frothing at the mouth, accusing me of every leftist transgression under the sun without any actual proof.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:54 PM
To sum it up, you think I'm a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, etc, because of one thing;
'Wrongthink'.
Please, 1984 was a warning, not a manifesto.
(Me, on my own page)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:56 PM
See below's page shouts for rebuttals, if he hasn't deleted them yet.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:56 PM
The proof is in your profile. It's plainly evident. You're determined to make anybody who disagrees with you out to be inflammatory leftist scum. Remember, you approached me seeking an explanation.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:58 PM
My dear, you called me a racist, sexist, bigoted homophobe (etc etc ad nauseum) without offering any actual evidence, and you still have not. "Look at your profile" is not evidence; if it's bigoted, you can say how it is.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:58 PM
I'm entirely entitled to my opinion of you, based on both your profile and your reaction to my distaste for it.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 09:59 PM
You are indeed entitled to your opinion; and I'm entitled to calling you an SJW for calling someone all sorts of nasty things for what amounts to a political disagreement.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:01 PM
I've read 1984 twice. It's a fantastic work of dystopian fiction, not a dissertation on the current state of world politics. Be realistic. Own what you believe instead of coyly trying to make me force it out of you.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:02 PM
And what, exactly, do you think I believe? Own what you're accusing me of and provide evidence, rather than trying to make me force it out of you.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:06 PM
On a scale from zero to ten, tell me how many grades of high school you completed. Did you glean anything from 1984 other than ALT RIGHT 4 EVA? Or did you just read the SparkNotes 'cause the words were too big?
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:07 PM
And if you haven't realized, I've resorted to fucking with you because I realized trying to have a reasonable conversation would never result in anything other than your vapid talking in circles.
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:07 PM
Fuck off, fuck you. Don't post to my page any more and I won't post to yours.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:18 PM
Let's review;
Allegation without proof ("I read two journals of yours" != proof I'm ___ist).
A rather lame attempt to insult my intelligence.
Another lame insult.
An assertion that I should stop posting shouts to your page
(Leftist)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:19 PM
You've accomplished a lot here today. I feel so changed and enlightened. Thanks for coming.
(Me)
Apr 21st, 2017 10:20 PM
Sorry, but I'm afraid at no point did you provide any actual evidence that I'm ___ist, and in the process all you've shown is that you are the one intolerant to other ideologies.
So, posts deleted, and down the memory hole they go. It's an odd combination of sad and amusing.
Unblocking Users - aka, Jubilee
Posted 8 years agoEvery 7 years, iirc, it is the Jewish tradition to forgive the debts of your fellow Jews; this tradition (again, IIRC) is called 'Jubilee'. While I may not be Jewish, I do like several aspects of their culture, and in this case I'm forgiving whatever transgressions those on my block list may have committed against me (or I imagined they committed against me) and opening the flood-gates.
Bear in mind, this must be reciprocal; if you do post here (or reply to me anywhere else) and still have me blocked, I will block you again and delete the comment if possible. Shitposting is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
Shadilay, my brothers, and may his cheeto grease anoint and protect you.
Bear in mind, this must be reciprocal; if you do post here (or reply to me anywhere else) and still have me blocked, I will block you again and delete the comment if possible. Shitposting is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
Shadilay, my brothers, and may his cheeto grease anoint and protect you.
Removed Journals talking about FA's policies
Posted 8 years agoSorry guys, but I'm currently having issues with the site staff. CoC 1.5 has had the following appended to it:
"Do not misrepresent site policies or any actions staff have made.
Given how I believe that the administration has been dishonest multiple times in their handling of my journals, I will not risk further strikes by leaving old journals critical of their actions up on FA; you can instead see them on my SoFurry account.
"Do not misrepresent site policies or any actions staff have made.
Given how I believe that the administration has been dishonest multiple times in their handling of my journals, I will not risk further strikes by leaving old journals critical of their actions up on FA; you can instead see them on my SoFurry account.
Comprehensive FA User Block?
Posted 8 years agoI'm surprised this hasn't become a 'thing' yet. We can block users, sure, but if we go to another page we still have to see their comments, and we can still see the things they post to the main page. Why not add a secondary block list, a content block? I can think of a few artists I never want to see, and some commenters that are just too annoying to bother with and don't want to even see elsewhere.
It wouldn't be terribly hard to implement, either; it could be implemented server-side by simply replacing any comments or images with [BLOCKED] or something similar, or it could be Javascript based and hide/show the relevant items dynamically (with only the list being passed from the server).
I would make my own custom script to do it, but any FA layout updates could break it entirely.
For example, let's take this 'gem' I made ages ago.
<figure id="sid-13585678" class="r-mature t-image u-maulkin"><b><u><a href="/view/13585678/"><img alt="" src="//t.facdn.net/13585678@300-1401359718.jpg" data-width="236.967" data-height="200" style="width:236.967px; height:200px"/><i title="Click for description"></i></a></u></b><figcaption><p><a href="/view/13585678/" title="My Little Pants-Filler">My Little Pants-Filler</a></p><p><i>by</i> <a href="/user/maulkin/" title="Maulkin">Maulkin</a></p></figcaption></figure>
Now, the only real identifier here is the 'Figure' tag, which contains the property 'class="r-mature t-image u-maulkin"'. If you wanted to block my oh-so-triggering comments and avatar, for instance, you'd need to either find or develop something to break the string into nested HTML elements, identify the nested elements you want and replace it with a generic [BLOCKED USER X] or something similar, and then re-insert it. That's one way, anyway.
Thoughts?
It wouldn't be terribly hard to implement, either; it could be implemented server-side by simply replacing any comments or images with [BLOCKED] or something similar, or it could be Javascript based and hide/show the relevant items dynamically (with only the list being passed from the server).
I would make my own custom script to do it, but any FA layout updates could break it entirely.
For example, let's take this 'gem' I made ages ago.
<figure id="sid-13585678" class="r-mature t-image u-maulkin"><b><u><a href="/view/13585678/"><img alt="" src="//t.facdn.net/13585678@300-1401359718.jpg" data-width="236.967" data-height="200" style="width:236.967px; height:200px"/><i title="Click for description"></i></a></u></b><figcaption><p><a href="/view/13585678/" title="My Little Pants-Filler">My Little Pants-Filler</a></p><p><i>by</i> <a href="/user/maulkin/" title="Maulkin">Maulkin</a></p></figcaption></figure>
Now, the only real identifier here is the 'Figure' tag, which contains the property 'class="r-mature t-image u-maulkin"'. If you wanted to block my oh-so-triggering comments and avatar, for instance, you'd need to either find or develop something to break the string into nested HTML elements, identify the nested elements you want and replace it with a generic [BLOCKED USER X] or something similar, and then re-insert it. That's one way, anyway.
Thoughts?
And the lefties STILL don't get it.
Posted 9 years agoSo, 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.
Mike Pence at the Theater...
Posted 9 years ago...And why the Left still doesn't get it.
See, just because they weren't starting fires and breaking windows doesn't mean their speech was acceptable - the best can be said of it is that they perhaps didn't break any laws doing so (though that may not be the case, depending on the details; more below), and thus it was technically not legally actionable. That does not mean, however, that it was appropriate, good, or truthful. See, there's something called 'time and place'. Pence was not playing 'politician' there, he was just being a regular person wanting to watch a play. He likely paid to see it. He was not going to speak, and had no platform in which to do so; no way to address the problems people had with him in any meaningful way. In short, this was certainly NOT the time to shout and boo at him as he entered. There will be plenty of times to do that, either at press conferences or when he is doing Congressional work, etc. Just imagine if, instead, Obama or Biden had gone to a play of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", and were boo'd by the audience and railed for their anti-Christian stances; the shrieks of 'RACISM' would still be going on to this day!
Even less appropriate - indeed, downright unprofessional - was the behavior of the cast. I keep hearing people say that the play was about diversity, but I'm looking into it and I'm not seeing it - certainly, 'diversity' does not come to mind when I hear the name "Alexander Hamilton".
Now, let's to a thought experiment; I've edited the little speech from the cast to Pence, so it would fit the same scenario with Obama.
The clear implication of this is that Obama is out to get Christians, and outright anti-Christian and seeking to harm Christians' inalienable rights and liberties. Likewise, the assertion against Pence was that he was out to get people of other races and homosexuals, as well as harm their inalienable rights and liberties - which, simply put, is not true. Let's ignore for a moment that Pence has no intention of doing any of that, while Obama has done EXACTLY that;
These are ACTORS, paid to ACT in a PLAY. People do not expect to be singled out when they go to any form of entertainment; at best, it was deceptive and scurrilous to pull that kind of stunt, assuming Pence or his team did not pay for a ticket and was invited. At worst (that is, if he paid for tickets, which was likely) this was an act of fraud. He paid to watch them act. It is true that they have free speech; but they sold their speech when they took the job and got on stage. By the same token that they are paid for their talent of speech, they cannot then use that speech against the one who paid for it. Nor can they accept other members of the audience acting out and verbally harassing other members of the crowd; those that do so need to be kicked out, as they are materially ruining the experience for others.
Oh, and don't get me started on the accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia (implied, but still quite clear from their little speech); they were ridiculous before the election, and they're even more ridiculous now that the lefties have lost and shown just what kind of violent, intolerant bigots they are by rioting because their candidate didn't get elected.
Keep it up, lefties. I look forward to you winning us the next election with these kind of underhanded, tactless, and dishonest antics.
See, just because they weren't starting fires and breaking windows doesn't mean their speech was acceptable - the best can be said of it is that they perhaps didn't break any laws doing so (though that may not be the case, depending on the details; more below), and thus it was technically not legally actionable. That does not mean, however, that it was appropriate, good, or truthful. See, there's something called 'time and place'. Pence was not playing 'politician' there, he was just being a regular person wanting to watch a play. He likely paid to see it. He was not going to speak, and had no platform in which to do so; no way to address the problems people had with him in any meaningful way. In short, this was certainly NOT the time to shout and boo at him as he entered. There will be plenty of times to do that, either at press conferences or when he is doing Congressional work, etc. Just imagine if, instead, Obama or Biden had gone to a play of "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", and were boo'd by the audience and railed for their anti-Christian stances; the shrieks of 'RACISM' would still be going on to this day!
Even less appropriate - indeed, downright unprofessional - was the behavior of the cast. I keep hearing people say that the play was about diversity, but I'm looking into it and I'm not seeing it - certainly, 'diversity' does not come to mind when I hear the name "Alexander Hamilton".
Now, let's to a thought experiment; I've edited the little speech from the cast to Pence, so it would fit the same scenario with Obama.
"Thank you so much for joining us tonight. You know, we had a guest in the audience this evening. And President Obama, I see you're walking out but I hope you will hear us just a few more moments. There's nothing to boo here ladies and gentlemen. There's nothing to boo here, we're all here sharing a story of love.
We have a message for you, sir. We hope that you will hear us out. And I encourage everybody to pull out your phones and tweet and post because this message needs to be spread far and wide, OK?
President Obama, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at Hamilton: An American Musical, we really do. We, sir, we are the united America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us — our rights, our liberties, our way of life — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.
Again, we truly thank you for sharing this show. This wonderful American story told by a group of men [and] women of all different races, united in Christ."The clear implication of this is that Obama is out to get Christians, and outright anti-Christian and seeking to harm Christians' inalienable rights and liberties. Likewise, the assertion against Pence was that he was out to get people of other races and homosexuals, as well as harm their inalienable rights and liberties - which, simply put, is not true. Let's ignore for a moment that Pence has no intention of doing any of that, while Obama has done EXACTLY that;
These are ACTORS, paid to ACT in a PLAY. People do not expect to be singled out when they go to any form of entertainment; at best, it was deceptive and scurrilous to pull that kind of stunt, assuming Pence or his team did not pay for a ticket and was invited. At worst (that is, if he paid for tickets, which was likely) this was an act of fraud. He paid to watch them act. It is true that they have free speech; but they sold their speech when they took the job and got on stage. By the same token that they are paid for their talent of speech, they cannot then use that speech against the one who paid for it. Nor can they accept other members of the audience acting out and verbally harassing other members of the crowd; those that do so need to be kicked out, as they are materially ruining the experience for others.
Oh, and don't get me started on the accusations of racism, sexism, and homophobia (implied, but still quite clear from their little speech); they were ridiculous before the election, and they're even more ridiculous now that the lefties have lost and shown just what kind of violent, intolerant bigots they are by rioting because their candidate didn't get elected.
Keep it up, lefties. I look forward to you winning us the next election with these kind of underhanded, tactless, and dishonest antics.
Trump Wins; PC Loses
Posted 9 years agoSo, Trump won. I'm sure many of you are less than happy about it – and, honestly, that's the real 'savor' of it. See, there's something liberals, you SJWs, you 'progressives' never quite grasped;
We're tired of being called racists.
We're tired of being called misogynists.
We're tired of being called homophobes.
We're tired of being called bigots.
And above all, we're tired of being called all of the above simply because we disagree with you.
But you said it too often and too shrilly; you said it about Bush, you said it about McCain, you said it about Romney, and when you said it about Trump it fell on deaf ears. Those of you who are wailing and crying and gnashing your teeth, you've brought this on yourself. No one is buying it any longer, no one is listening. The American people at large have caught on to your petty games. We no longer need to waste our breath explaining to you exactly how your arguments are fallacious, how calling us names doesn't affect the truth of the matter; we can simply laugh it off, and tell you that you are a twat. It's up to you to form a logical argument to support your accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever the term is for the day... But you can't. Because those accusations have never been about bringing facts to the table, it's been about silencing accusations.
Now, Trump has his own issues – and I'll be watching him closely to see what he does. But you SJWs, you liberals, you little tyrants... You've lost. Not because Trump is President, no; that is merely a flowering of what is growing in America, the first blossom. We no longer have to fight on your turf; you have to fight on ours.
We're tired of being called racists.
We're tired of being called misogynists.
We're tired of being called homophobes.
We're tired of being called bigots.
And above all, we're tired of being called all of the above simply because we disagree with you.
But you said it too often and too shrilly; you said it about Bush, you said it about McCain, you said it about Romney, and when you said it about Trump it fell on deaf ears. Those of you who are wailing and crying and gnashing your teeth, you've brought this on yourself. No one is buying it any longer, no one is listening. The American people at large have caught on to your petty games. We no longer need to waste our breath explaining to you exactly how your arguments are fallacious, how calling us names doesn't affect the truth of the matter; we can simply laugh it off, and tell you that you are a twat. It's up to you to form a logical argument to support your accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever the term is for the day... But you can't. Because those accusations have never been about bringing facts to the table, it's been about silencing accusations.
Now, Trump has his own issues – and I'll be watching him closely to see what he does. But you SJWs, you liberals, you little tyrants... You've lost. Not because Trump is President, no; that is merely a flowering of what is growing in America, the first blossom. We no longer have to fight on your turf; you have to fight on ours.
MLP Diapers
Posted 9 years agoSince several people have been interested, I might as well just point to this journal from now on when they ask about my idea for MLP themed RP diapers. There are six of them, one for each of the Mane Six. They each have the associated 'Cutie Mark' on the rump, and have their main body colored like their associated pony's coat, and their trim like the pony's mane. The real fun, however, is in their effects. For instance,
Twilight Diaper: the wearer is kept to a strict messing and wetting schedule, with a voice encouraging them to use their pampers when told. Should they fail to produce the desired result, or should they have an unscheduled accident, they will be left incontinent for several hours. If they succeed, all solid and liquid waste will be magically cleaned away, leaving them in a fresh, clean diaper.
Pinkie Pie Diaper: the wearer is forced at random times to wet and/or mess their pampers, with each accident accompanied by confetti and cheers from the diaper. The waste is cleaned up within a reasonable, though variable, amount of time.
Rarity Diaper: should the wearer use the diaper, all waste will be immediately and magically cleaned up; however, the diaper will grow more and more fillyish with each subsequent wetting. The user is likewise made more sissyish, with stallions gaining softer features and a more effeminate appearance.
Fluttershy Diaper: like the Rarity diaper, the wearer can use the diaper and all waste will be immediately cleaned up. Unlike the Rarity diaper, however, this will *regress* the wearer for each accident they have, with the diaper turning more and more foalish with each use.
Applejack Diaper: This diaper gradually changes the mental state of the wearer, making them value hard work and desire to be thickly diapered as they do so. Moreover, hard work is exactly what it takes to get the diaper back to its clean state. Note that the effects of the Applejack diaper are significantly magnified when the wearer is in close proximity to a Rainbow Dash Diaper wearer, essentially putting each wearer in a competitive state.
Rainbow Dash Diaper: Like the Applejack diaper, the Rainbow Dash diaper alters the wearer's mental state - but in this case they desire to do public stunts and dares in diapers rather than hard work. The same amplification of effect occurs when the wearer is in close proximity with an Applejack Diaper wearer.
Note - none of these diapers can be taken off by the wearer; they are locked on, and another pony must remove them.
Twilight Diaper: the wearer is kept to a strict messing and wetting schedule, with a voice encouraging them to use their pampers when told. Should they fail to produce the desired result, or should they have an unscheduled accident, they will be left incontinent for several hours. If they succeed, all solid and liquid waste will be magically cleaned away, leaving them in a fresh, clean diaper.
Pinkie Pie Diaper: the wearer is forced at random times to wet and/or mess their pampers, with each accident accompanied by confetti and cheers from the diaper. The waste is cleaned up within a reasonable, though variable, amount of time.
Rarity Diaper: should the wearer use the diaper, all waste will be immediately and magically cleaned up; however, the diaper will grow more and more fillyish with each subsequent wetting. The user is likewise made more sissyish, with stallions gaining softer features and a more effeminate appearance.
Fluttershy Diaper: like the Rarity diaper, the wearer can use the diaper and all waste will be immediately cleaned up. Unlike the Rarity diaper, however, this will *regress* the wearer for each accident they have, with the diaper turning more and more foalish with each use.
Applejack Diaper: This diaper gradually changes the mental state of the wearer, making them value hard work and desire to be thickly diapered as they do so. Moreover, hard work is exactly what it takes to get the diaper back to its clean state. Note that the effects of the Applejack diaper are significantly magnified when the wearer is in close proximity to a Rainbow Dash Diaper wearer, essentially putting each wearer in a competitive state.
Rainbow Dash Diaper: Like the Applejack diaper, the Rainbow Dash diaper alters the wearer's mental state - but in this case they desire to do public stunts and dares in diapers rather than hard work. The same amplification of effect occurs when the wearer is in close proximity with an Applejack Diaper wearer.
Note - none of these diapers can be taken off by the wearer; they are locked on, and another pony must remove them.
On Friedrich Nietzsche, regarding God
Posted 9 years ago"I cannot believe in a god who wants to be praised all the time."
~Friedrich Nietzsche
There are two large problems with this quote. I'll start with the more minor of the two, and more readily apparent to anyone who is honest; what is and is not has nothing to do with our preferences. If God is the ultimate reality, the Thing behind it all, then we must accept it as it is - and in this manner, such an attitude is unhelpful and pointless, more likely to hide the truth than reveal it. It is no more logical than a person saying "I cannot believe I came from monkeys", and equally unhelpful - and both are motivated by pride.
More importantly, it gives the entirely wrong impression of God according to Christian ideology. To give you an idea of how silly the notion is, it would be like complaining about someone reflecting all that light off their skin, casting their images everywhere. 'Casting one's image' and 'reflecting light' are, after all, simply an aspect of being visible - an essential part of being seen. In the same way, worshiping God is just an aspect of what getting close to God involves. To demand that we not need to worship God is like saying we shouldn't need to get the dirt off our clothes in order to properly wash them; it's a contradiction to what is.
And what is the reality of the situation, according to Christian theology? CS Lewis puts it well in Mere Christianity, explaining the difference between the kind of life we have ('Bios') and the kind of life God has ('Zoe');
"And the present state of things is this. The two kinds of life are now not only different (they would always have been that) but actually opposed. The natural life in each of us is something self-centred, something that wants to be petted and admired, to take advantage of other lives, to exploit the whole universe. And especially it wants to be left to itself: to keep well away from anything better or stronger or higher than it, anything that might make it feel small. It is afraid of the light and air of the spiritual world, just as people who have been brought up to be dirty are afraid of a bath. And in a sense it is quite right. It knows that if the spiritual life gets hold of it, all its self-centredness and self-will are going to be killed and it is ready to fight tooth and nail to avoid that. "
That is the state we are in. For this new sort of life to 'infect' us (as he puts it later in the chapter, iirc), that self-will and pride must be killed. To worship Him is, at first, a way to start killing that self-will - to put into practice something that has not yet taken root, just as a child will play at being an adult before they really start to grow up. This grows, in time and through the Holy Spirit, into something more and more central to our being, more natural, an expression of our love for Him. The old man dies, and the new comes to life in Christ.
Worship is not something God demands of us out of pride or vanity, as if He were proud or vain; it is something He demands as part of our treatment.
~Friedrich Nietzsche
There are two large problems with this quote. I'll start with the more minor of the two, and more readily apparent to anyone who is honest; what is and is not has nothing to do with our preferences. If God is the ultimate reality, the Thing behind it all, then we must accept it as it is - and in this manner, such an attitude is unhelpful and pointless, more likely to hide the truth than reveal it. It is no more logical than a person saying "I cannot believe I came from monkeys", and equally unhelpful - and both are motivated by pride.
More importantly, it gives the entirely wrong impression of God according to Christian ideology. To give you an idea of how silly the notion is, it would be like complaining about someone reflecting all that light off their skin, casting their images everywhere. 'Casting one's image' and 'reflecting light' are, after all, simply an aspect of being visible - an essential part of being seen. In the same way, worshiping God is just an aspect of what getting close to God involves. To demand that we not need to worship God is like saying we shouldn't need to get the dirt off our clothes in order to properly wash them; it's a contradiction to what is.
And what is the reality of the situation, according to Christian theology? CS Lewis puts it well in Mere Christianity, explaining the difference between the kind of life we have ('Bios') and the kind of life God has ('Zoe');
"And the present state of things is this. The two kinds of life are now not only different (they would always have been that) but actually opposed. The natural life in each of us is something self-centred, something that wants to be petted and admired, to take advantage of other lives, to exploit the whole universe. And especially it wants to be left to itself: to keep well away from anything better or stronger or higher than it, anything that might make it feel small. It is afraid of the light and air of the spiritual world, just as people who have been brought up to be dirty are afraid of a bath. And in a sense it is quite right. It knows that if the spiritual life gets hold of it, all its self-centredness and self-will are going to be killed and it is ready to fight tooth and nail to avoid that. "
That is the state we are in. For this new sort of life to 'infect' us (as he puts it later in the chapter, iirc), that self-will and pride must be killed. To worship Him is, at first, a way to start killing that self-will - to put into practice something that has not yet taken root, just as a child will play at being an adult before they really start to grow up. This grows, in time and through the Holy Spirit, into something more and more central to our being, more natural, an expression of our love for Him. The old man dies, and the new comes to life in Christ.
Worship is not something God demands of us out of pride or vanity, as if He were proud or vain; it is something He demands as part of our treatment.
Saying the truth with love.
Posted 10 years agoI have told the truth, as far as I can, but I did not always do it in love - particularly the deleted journal. I apologize for the anger in which I replied to a snub to my pride. As often as I insist that pride must die, I find myself succumbing to it... I can't undo it, but I can mitigate it.
1If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13, 1-2.
1If I speak in the tonguesa of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Corinthians 13, 1-2.
Bigotry and the Gay Rights Movement
Posted 11 years agoSomeone has all but banned me from their page - they requested that I not post there, because, I quote,
"Yo, I don't want bigoted icons on my page so I'd prefer it if you just refrained from commenting on my stuff."
Now, I went ahead and looked up the definition of "bigotry", and here's what Google has to say on it;
"Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Now, I have not banned people from my page for simply holding different views. I've banned them for slandering me, yes, but not for just dissenting opinions. But this guy decided that he didn't like my speech, my opinion, and so he refused to tolerate it.
I responded by explaining to him the meaning of bigotry, and how his actions were much closer to it than my own; his response?
"I'm not debating semantics with you, Maulkin, nor do I have any desire to discuss anything with you regarding my drawings. Conversation over."
So, to summarize, we have someone who;
1. Uses a word word improperly for the sake of emotional appeal through the negative connotation of the word, and when called on it gets snippy and refuses to retract those remarks;
2. Behaves in a manner that he condemns others for - ie, hypocrisy.
3. Refuses to actually engage in any sort of reasonable debate, and instead uses technical powers to shut down dissenting opinions.
I wish I could say this is a rare occurrence, but I'm afraid it's all too common. Any time I get into a debate with a leftist, they use 'hot button words' - words like 'discrimination' and 'denying equality' and 'attacking basic rights' and other such bullshit. And, when I call them on it, or break it down in a manner they don't like, they refuse to actually acknowledge the holes in their argument and just use more emotional appeal and hot button words. Shoot, someone tried to use the fact that gay people are sometimes attacked (illegally) as a justification for gay marriage, as well as several other fallacies and non-sequiturs designed to twist the emotions rather than provide a logical reason for his position. The harder one pushes them, it seems, the more emotional manipulation comes to the forefront.
Because, in the end... that's all most of them really have. Emotion rather than reason, dogma rather than consideration, hot-button words rather than arguments.
Oh, and by the way, before anyone screeches about how hateful and bigoted and discriminatory I am towards gay people... I'm not. I'm gay myself - I just detest the gay movement, and what its apparent (rather than stated) goals are, and how it goes about achieving them.
Edit: I don't think this should be necessary, but in case it's not apparent, I'm speaking in generalities. While I've found that this is true for the vast majority of those who are in or support the gay right's movement (at least, enough to be vocal about it), I admit it may not be true for all of them. But, bear in mind - if you post a comment here accusing me of bigotry, discrimination, hate, stifling rights, etc, without a logical backing, I will delete your post and ban you from my page. I have limited time, and I won't spend it endlessly rebutting fools.
"Yo, I don't want bigoted icons on my page so I'd prefer it if you just refrained from commenting on my stuff."
Now, I went ahead and looked up the definition of "bigotry", and here's what Google has to say on it;
"Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
Now, I have not banned people from my page for simply holding different views. I've banned them for slandering me, yes, but not for just dissenting opinions. But this guy decided that he didn't like my speech, my opinion, and so he refused to tolerate it.
I responded by explaining to him the meaning of bigotry, and how his actions were much closer to it than my own; his response?
"I'm not debating semantics with you, Maulkin, nor do I have any desire to discuss anything with you regarding my drawings. Conversation over."
So, to summarize, we have someone who;
1. Uses a word word improperly for the sake of emotional appeal through the negative connotation of the word, and when called on it gets snippy and refuses to retract those remarks;
2. Behaves in a manner that he condemns others for - ie, hypocrisy.
3. Refuses to actually engage in any sort of reasonable debate, and instead uses technical powers to shut down dissenting opinions.
I wish I could say this is a rare occurrence, but I'm afraid it's all too common. Any time I get into a debate with a leftist, they use 'hot button words' - words like 'discrimination' and 'denying equality' and 'attacking basic rights' and other such bullshit. And, when I call them on it, or break it down in a manner they don't like, they refuse to actually acknowledge the holes in their argument and just use more emotional appeal and hot button words. Shoot, someone tried to use the fact that gay people are sometimes attacked (illegally) as a justification for gay marriage, as well as several other fallacies and non-sequiturs designed to twist the emotions rather than provide a logical reason for his position. The harder one pushes them, it seems, the more emotional manipulation comes to the forefront.
Because, in the end... that's all most of them really have. Emotion rather than reason, dogma rather than consideration, hot-button words rather than arguments.
Oh, and by the way, before anyone screeches about how hateful and bigoted and discriminatory I am towards gay people... I'm not. I'm gay myself - I just detest the gay movement, and what its apparent (rather than stated) goals are, and how it goes about achieving them.
Edit: I don't think this should be necessary, but in case it's not apparent, I'm speaking in generalities. While I've found that this is true for the vast majority of those who are in or support the gay right's movement (at least, enough to be vocal about it), I admit it may not be true for all of them. But, bear in mind - if you post a comment here accusing me of bigotry, discrimination, hate, stifling rights, etc, without a logical backing, I will delete your post and ban you from my page. I have limited time, and I won't spend it endlessly rebutting fools.
Answer Meme
Posted 13 years agoSince Broggy apparently wants me to do this =p
What if?~
● I died:
● I kissed you:
● I fell:
● I lived next door to you:
● I showed up at your house
unexpectedly:
● I stole something:
● I was murdered:
● I cried:
● I asked you to marry me:
● I was hospitalized:
~Would you~
● Trust me enough to sleep in the same bed as me?
● Keep a secret if i told you one?
● Hold my hand?
● Study with me?
● Cook for me?
● Love me?
● Date me?
● Have sex with me?
~More ~
● When and how did we meet?
● Describe me in three words.
● What was your first impression of me?
● What do you think of me now?
● What reminds you of me?
● Could you see us together forever?
● When's the last time you saw me?
● Are you gonna re-post this to see what I say about you? (I really won't mind if you don't =p )
What if?~
● I died:
● I kissed you:
● I fell:
● I lived next door to you:
● I showed up at your house
unexpectedly:
● I stole something:
● I was murdered:
● I cried:
● I asked you to marry me:
● I was hospitalized:
~Would you~
● Trust me enough to sleep in the same bed as me?
● Keep a secret if i told you one?
● Hold my hand?
● Study with me?
● Cook for me?
● Love me?
● Date me?
● Have sex with me?
~More ~
● When and how did we meet?
● Describe me in three words.
● What was your first impression of me?
● What do you think of me now?
● What reminds you of me?
● Could you see us together forever?
● When's the last time you saw me?
● Are you gonna re-post this to see what I say about you? (I really won't mind if you don't =p )
