FSTDT Forums

Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Lana Reverse on February 04, 2017, 05:53:18 pm

Title: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 04, 2017, 05:53:18 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/ (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/)

BREAKING NEWS: Self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" use fascist tactics to silence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

From what I've heard, Yiannopoulos is a douchebag. But that's nowhere close to a justification for this.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Stormwarden on February 04, 2017, 09:18:35 pm
The people behind the violence weren't part of the original group.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 04, 2017, 09:39:30 pm
The people behind the violence weren't part of the original group.

That's what the article says. I never said otherwise.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Id82 on February 04, 2017, 10:08:56 pm
I hate how these people come along and ruin a peaceful protest. Way to give fuel to the other side.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: dpareja on February 04, 2017, 10:13:12 pm
I'm hesitant to use the term, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if the violence was the result of a false flag operation.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 04, 2017, 10:50:17 pm
I'm hesitant to use the term, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if the violence was the result of a false flag operation.

Mmm... it's possible, but I don't think it's very likely.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 04, 2017, 11:09:39 pm
I heard that it was just a bunch of anarchist twats that started it.  Gotta love how anarchists manage to fuck up everything they touch, the adolescent little cunts.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 05, 2017, 12:22:07 am
Gotta love student protesters. There's nothing quite as delightful as ignorance and arrogance in one loud and obnoxious package.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Askold on February 05, 2017, 02:25:38 am
I heard that it was just a bunch of anarchist twats that started it.  Gotta love how anarchists manage to fuck up everything they touch, the adolescent little cunts.
Same thing happens in Finnish protests. There's a small group of extremely violent anarchists who show up to every protest they can just so that they can scream abot cops being fascist pigs and break other people's property.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 05, 2017, 03:08:57 am
Thing is, Milo loves this sort of shit. It gives credence to his claim to be "dangerous" instead of the little gobshite troll that he is.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 05, 2017, 10:24:09 am
I swear, Jonathan Pie is my fucking spirit animal at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miE-kwQM0mo
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 05, 2017, 12:58:45 pm
And would you look at that, people were cheering them on (https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate-anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/). Not just randos on Twitter, either. This just keeps getting better and better!
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 05, 2017, 04:31:18 pm
And would you look at that, people were cheering them on (https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate-anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/). Not just randos on Twitter, either. This just keeps getting better and better!

Okay, let's break this down. You decry the fact that people are cheering them on, and explicitly say that it's not just "randos on Twitter either". So let's look at who exactly is "cheering them on", shall we? We have... Lexi Alexander, some film director I've never heard of... okay, Sarah Silverman, I have heard of her at least! Too bad she's not really anyone with any real power, so her opinion is kind of irrelevant. Who else? A professor, Angus Johnson. Okay, it might be a little off for a professor to be saying something like this, I'll give you that. I see his point, though. After that, we have Austin Walker, apparently the EIC of a gaming website. Woo, I literally do not care what he thinks. A pair of literally random feminists who don't even seem to have a job title. WHO CARES. A producer of some kid's TV show. Again, WHO CARES. Fucking Laci Green, of all people. The list goes on and on, most of the people after it are Gamergate opponents, noticeably...

What this list is missing is anyone with any real power speaking out in favor of the protests. Where's the head of Berkeley speaking out in favor? Where's the police chief of the city speaking out in favor? Where's LITERALLY ANYONE WITH ANY SORT OF REAL POWER SPEAKING OUT IN FAVOR OF THESE PROTESTS!? Celebrities have no power. And most of these people aren't even real celebrities. C-list at the very best. Who cares what they think? Why does their opinion matter to you? You can find a subset of any population willing to speak out in favor of anything.

And for that matter, where the hell did you even get this source? Do you actually read this dreck or did you just do a google search for "left wing celebrates Berkeley protest"? Because either one is pretty damning, you know. I mean, seriously, did you look at the trending articles? Right at the top is "The Left is living in a Nazi Fever Dream" and "Trump's SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch Fought Social Justice Warriors Before it was Cool". This site is biased to all fuck and back.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 05, 2017, 09:22:43 pm
Personally I was wavering about supporting the 'antifa' movement but now that a gaming journalist has tweeted their support of it. Well sign me up.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 05, 2017, 09:31:06 pm
Personally I was wavering about supporting the 'antifa' movement but now that a gaming journalist has tweeted their support of it. Well sign me up.

So much this
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 05, 2017, 11:17:29 pm
And would you look at that, people were cheering them on (https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate-anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/). Not just randos on Twitter, either. This just keeps getting better and better!

Okay, let's break this down. You decry the fact that people are cheering them on, and explicitly say that it's not just "randos on Twitter either". So let's look at who exactly is "cheering them on", shall we? We have... Lexi Alexander, some film director I've never heard of... okay, Sarah Silverman, I have heard of her at least! Too bad she's not really anyone with any real power, so her opinion is kind of irrelevant. Who else? A professor, Angus Johnson. Okay, it might be a little off for a professor to be saying something like this, I'll give you that. I see his point, though. After that, we have Austin Walker, apparently the EIC of a gaming website. Woo, I literally do not care what he thinks. A pair of literally random feminists who don't even seem to have a job title. WHO CARES. A producer of some kid's TV show. Again, WHO CARES. Fucking Laci Green, of all people. The list goes on and on, most of the people after it are Gamergate opponents, noticeably...

What this list is missing is anyone with any real power speaking out in favor of the protests. Where's the head of Berkeley speaking out in favor? Where's the police chief of the city speaking out in favor? Where's LITERALLY ANYONE WITH ANY SORT OF REAL POWER SPEAKING OUT IN FAVOR OF THESE PROTESTS!? Celebrities have no power. And most of these people aren't even real celebrities. C-list at the very best. Who cares what they think? Why does their opinion matter to you? You can find a subset of any population willing to speak out in favor of anything.

And for that matter, where the hell did you even get this source? Do you actually read this dreck or did you just do a google search for "left wing celebrates Berkeley protest"? Because either one is pretty damning, you know. I mean, seriously, did you look at the trending articles? Right at the top is "The Left is living in a Nazi Fever Dream" and "Trump's SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch Fought Social Justice Warriors Before it was Cool". This site is biased to all fuck and back.

Why the hostility?

TBH, I was more irritated than anything.

As for your question about how I found the article, I fail to see how it's relevant. But just for the record, I was linked to it by my sister. You have a point about the website being biased, but I don't know how it invalidates the facts of the article.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 05, 2017, 11:36:01 pm
Is it also correct that a Trump supporter shot a protestor?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 06, 2017, 12:37:53 am
Is it also correct that a Trump supporter shot a protestor?

I hadn't heard that. Mind dropping a link?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 06, 2017, 01:47:38 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/person-shot-anti-donald-trump-protest-wash-state-article-1.2952080 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/person-shot-anti-donald-trump-protest-wash-state-article-1.2952080)

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-supporter-shot-anti-fascist-journalists-inauguration-protest-prison (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-supporter-shot-anti-fascist-journalists-inauguration-protest-prison)

http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/01/21/trump-protester-shot-at-university-washington-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/ (http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/01/21/trump-protester-shot-at-university-washington-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/)


This appears to be a different protest though. Not the Berkley one.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 06, 2017, 03:04:35 am
And would you look at that, people were cheering them on (https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate-anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/). Not just randos on Twitter, either. This just keeps getting better and better!

Okay, let's break this down. You decry the fact that people are cheering them on, and explicitly say that it's not just "randos on Twitter either". So let's look at who exactly is "cheering them on", shall we? We have... Lexi Alexander, some film director I've never heard of... okay, Sarah Silverman, I have heard of her at least! Too bad she's not really anyone with any real power, so her opinion is kind of irrelevant. Who else? A professor, Angus Johnson. Okay, it might be a little off for a professor to be saying something like this, I'll give you that. I see his point, though. After that, we have Austin Walker, apparently the EIC of a gaming website. Woo, I literally do not care what he thinks. A pair of literally random feminists who don't even seem to have a job title. WHO CARES. A producer of some kid's TV show. Again, WHO CARES. Fucking Laci Green, of all people. The list goes on and on, most of the people after it are Gamergate opponents, noticeably...

What this list is missing is anyone with any real power speaking out in favor of the protests. Where's the head of Berkeley speaking out in favor? Where's the police chief of the city speaking out in favor? Where's LITERALLY ANYONE WITH ANY SORT OF REAL POWER SPEAKING OUT IN FAVOR OF THESE PROTESTS!? Celebrities have no power. And most of these people aren't even real celebrities. C-list at the very best. Who cares what they think? Why does their opinion matter to you? You can find a subset of any population willing to speak out in favor of anything.

And for that matter, where the hell did you even get this source? Do you actually read this dreck or did you just do a google search for "left wing celebrates Berkeley protest"? Because either one is pretty damning, you know. I mean, seriously, did you look at the trending articles? Right at the top is "The Left is living in a Nazi Fever Dream" and "Trump's SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch Fought Social Justice Warriors Before it was Cool". This site is biased to all fuck and back.

Why the hostility?

TBH, I was more irritated than anything.

As for your question about how I found the article, I fail to see how it's relevant. But just for the record, I was linked to it by my sister. You have a point about the website being biased, but I don't know how it invalidates the facts of the article.

The facts of the article might be true or not, it doesn't really matter to me because these people don't matter. They have no power, they have no importance. Why, exactly, do we care about their opinions of a protest? How is it even worthy of a news article?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 06, 2017, 09:47:00 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/person-shot-anti-donald-trump-protest-wash-state-article-1.2952080 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/person-shot-anti-donald-trump-protest-wash-state-article-1.2952080)

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-supporter-shot-anti-fascist-journalists-inauguration-protest-prison (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-supporter-shot-anti-fascist-journalists-inauguration-protest-prison)

http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/01/21/trump-protester-shot-at-university-washington-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/ (http://hollywoodlife.com/2017/01/21/trump-protester-shot-at-university-washington-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/)


This appears to be a different protest though. Not the Berkley one.

That would explain it.

And would you look at that, people were cheering them on (https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate-anti-milo-yiannopoulos-violence-at-berkeley/). Not just randos on Twitter, either. This just keeps getting better and better!

Okay, let's break this down. You decry the fact that people are cheering them on, and explicitly say that it's not just "randos on Twitter either". So let's look at who exactly is "cheering them on", shall we? We have... Lexi Alexander, some film director I've never heard of... okay, Sarah Silverman, I have heard of her at least! Too bad she's not really anyone with any real power, so her opinion is kind of irrelevant. Who else? A professor, Angus Johnson. Okay, it might be a little off for a professor to be saying something like this, I'll give you that. I see his point, though. After that, we have Austin Walker, apparently the EIC of a gaming website. Woo, I literally do not care what he thinks. A pair of literally random feminists who don't even seem to have a job title. WHO CARES. A producer of some kid's TV show. Again, WHO CARES. Fucking Laci Green, of all people. The list goes on and on, most of the people after it are Gamergate opponents, noticeably...

What this list is missing is anyone with any real power speaking out in favor of the protests. Where's the head of Berkeley speaking out in favor? Where's the police chief of the city speaking out in favor? Where's LITERALLY ANYONE WITH ANY SORT OF REAL POWER SPEAKING OUT IN FAVOR OF THESE PROTESTS!? Celebrities have no power. And most of these people aren't even real celebrities. C-list at the very best. Who cares what they think? Why does their opinion matter to you? You can find a subset of any population willing to speak out in favor of anything.

And for that matter, where the hell did you even get this source? Do you actually read this dreck or did you just do a google search for "left wing celebrates Berkeley protest"? Because either one is pretty damning, you know. I mean, seriously, did you look at the trending articles? Right at the top is "The Left is living in a Nazi Fever Dream" and "Trump's SCOTUS Pick Neil Gorsuch Fought Social Justice Warriors Before it was Cool". This site is biased to all fuck and back.

Why the hostility?

TBH, I was more irritated than anything.

As for your question about how I found the article, I fail to see how it's relevant. But just for the record, I was linked to it by my sister. You have a point about the website being biased, but I don't know how it invalidates the facts of the article.

The facts of the article might be true or not, it doesn't really matter to me because these people don't matter. They have no power, they have no importance. Why, exactly, do we care about their opinions of a protest? How is it even worthy of a news article?

I think it's because, while these people don't have much in the way of authority, they do have significant influence as celebs, journos, profs, etc.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Eiki-mun on February 06, 2017, 03:40:20 pm
But I really don't see how they do. I really doubt anyone's going to see Sarah Silverman supporting the tactics of the anarchists and go "well, I wasn't sure, but now I see Sarah Silverman supporting it, so I'm gonna go do that now". If someone does, then it will be worthy of a news article, but as it is, spreading this kind of information just falsely spreads the idea, all too common among the right, that the left wing of the country is okay with violence. Well, I'm not okay with violence, and I don't think anyone else here is, and I sure don't care if Sarah Silverman is.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 06, 2017, 04:48:40 pm
Ah Heat St. Murdoch's Brietbart knockoff. The right wings Raw Story.

Seems legit.

Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 06, 2017, 05:00:56 pm
But I really don't see how they do. I really doubt anyone's going to see Sarah Silverman supporting the tactics of the anarchists and go "well, I wasn't sure, but now I see Sarah Silverman supporting it, so I'm gonna go do that now". If someone does, then it will be worthy of a news article, but as it is, spreading this kind of information just falsely spreads the idea, all too common among the right, that the left wing of the country is okay with violence. Well, I'm not okay with violence, and I don't think anyone else here is, and I sure don't care if Sarah Silverman is.

And I'm not o.k. with it either. No group deserves to be judged based on the actions of a few malefactors.

Ah Heat St. Murdoch's Brietbart knockoff. The right wings Raw Story.

Seems legit.



I don't like Murdoch either, but I believe in judging articles by merit, rather than by platform. I'm not going to automatically dismiss a Buzzfeed article just because it's on Buzzfeed.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 06, 2017, 08:32:16 pm
Well I'll double check anything I read at Buzzfeed because they're Buzzfeed. Ditto Fox News, even with RS I'll try to find out where they sourced it first.

Regardless, it does rather look like HS is nutpicking here.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 05:48:18 pm
Turns out not all the rioters were outsiders (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/black-bloc-campus/). Looks like the initial reporting was incorrect.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 08, 2017, 09:32:23 pm
Turns out not all the rioters were outsiders (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/black-bloc-campus/). Looks like the initial reporting was incorrect.

Um, what are you talking about? The initial report  (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/)quoted the university as saying this.

Quote
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Which was saying that rioters were outsiders and now you are saying they were correct in claiming some rioters were not outsiders...What?

In any case I'm officially done with pearl-clutching over fascists getting stuff chucked at them. Fascism is on the march in America, Europe, Asia and Down Under. Every time it's had it's way with countries it's left piles of mutilated corpses and survivors scarred by torture, rapine and trauma. It's a clear and present danger, much more so to me than the frigging black bloc. 

Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 09:36:16 pm
Turns out not all the rioters were outsiders (http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/black-bloc-campus/). Looks like the initial reporting was incorrect.

Um, what are you talking about? The initial report  (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/)quoted the university as saying this.

Quote
The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Which was saying that rioters were outsiders and now you are saying they were correct in claiming some rioters were not outsiders...What?

In any case I'm officially done with pearl-clutching over fascists getting stuff chucked at them. Fascism is on the march in America, Europe, Asia and Down Under. Every time it's had it's way with countries it's left piles of mutilated corpses and survivors scarred by torture, rapine and trauma. It's a clear and present danger, much more so to me than the frigging black bloc.

Do you really think the people who got hurt were all fascists?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 08, 2017, 09:45:06 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 08, 2017, 09:59:03 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

You intolerant ass, fascists are people too. We must respect their fee-fees.

ETA: Stop triggering the snowflake fascists who just want to turn America into their safe space by killing everyone not like them.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 10:06:00 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

I think you misunderstood me. I said that the original article blamed the riots on outside agitators, but now one of the people who formed the Black Bloc says he and comrades were students.

BTW, do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

You intolerant ass, fascists are people too. We must respect their fee-fees.

ETA: Stop triggering the snowflake fascists who just want to turn America into their safe space by killing everyone not like them.

Did you know one of the rioters attacked a Syrian Muslim because they thought he "looked like a Nazi"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 08, 2017, 10:27:53 pm
I'm getting a really strong sense of deja vu here.

Yes, some innocents were harmed and that's bad. No, I don't think that rioting or Nazi punching should be legal and yes I think that declaring someone to be a Nazi based on their clothing or hair alone is dumb as rocks.

Am I going to get all outragey because some of the anti Nazis are turning violent, no because the end result of Nazis getting power is this. (http://www.nowyouknowfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Auschwitz-1.jpg) That is objectively worse than Antifa no matter how you slice it.

Also you contradicted yourself when you stated that the original article argued that the riot wasn't caused by outside agitators when in fact they were arguing the precise opposite. Reading links. Helps.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 10:38:48 pm
I'm getting a really strong sense of deja vu here.

Yes, some innocents were harmed and that's bad. No, I don't think that rioting or Nazi punching should be legal and yes I think that declaring someone to be a Nazi based on their clothing or hair alone is dumb as rocks.

Am I going to get all outragey because some of the anti Nazis are turning violent, no because the end result of Nazis getting power is this. (http://www.nowyouknowfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Auschwitz-1.jpg) That is objectively worse than Antifa no matter how you slice it.

Also you contradicted yourself when you stated that the original article argued that the riot wasn't caused by outside agitators when in fact they were arguing the precise opposite. Reading links. Helps.

When did I say that? I said the initial reporting was wrong when it said the rioters were outsiders (which it did).
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 08, 2017, 10:47:15 pm
The CNN report was reporting what others said, not making a positive claim that it was true. If you were claiming that the university officials were incorrect then you might have a point. You are claiming CNN's reporting was incorrect.

Report =/= Op Ed. Quoting =/= believing in the quote in question. "Someone said X" =/= "I think X is true".
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 08, 2017, 10:50:49 pm
I'm getting a really strong sense of deja vu here.

Yes, some innocents were harmed and that's bad. No, I don't think that rioting or Nazi punching should be legal and yes I think that declaring someone to be a Nazi based on their clothing or hair alone is dumb as rocks.

Am I going to get all outragey because some of the anti Nazis are turning violent, no because the end result of Nazis getting power is this. (http://www.nowyouknowfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Auschwitz-1.jpg) That is objectively worse than Antifa no matter how you slice it.

Also you contradicted yourself when you stated that the original article argued that the riot wasn't caused by outside agitators when in fact they were arguing the precise opposite. Reading links. Helps.

When did I say that? I said the initial reporting was wrong when it said the rioters were outsiders (which it did).

Outsiders? or  "150 masked agitators"  - who had "come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest."
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 08, 2017, 10:59:43 pm
The CNN report was reporting what others said, not making a positive claim that it was true. If you were claiming that the university officials were incorrect then you might have a point. You are claiming CNN's reporting was incorrect.

Report =/= Op Ed. Quoting =/= believing in the quote in question. "Someone said X" =/= "I think X is true".

You're right, I was wrong to say that. Thanks for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 08, 2017, 11:10:46 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

I think you misunderstood me. I said that the original article blamed the riots on outside agitators, but now one of the people who formed the Black Bloc says he and comrades were students.

BTW, do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

You intolerant ass, fascists are people too. We must respect their fee-fees.

ETA: Stop triggering the snowflake fascists who just want to turn America into their safe space by killing everyone not like them.

Did you know one of the rioters attacked a Syrian Muslim because they thought he "looked like a Nazi"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0)

Humor, is it entirely lost on you Dynamic "Reverse Anal" Paragon?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 10, 2017, 05:03:59 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

I think you misunderstood me. I said that the original article blamed the riots on outside agitators, but now one of the people who formed the Black Bloc says he and comrades were students.

BTW, do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

You intolerant ass, fascists are people too. We must respect their fee-fees.

ETA: Stop triggering the snowflake fascists who just want to turn America into their safe space by killing everyone not like them.

Did you know one of the rioters attacked a Syrian Muslim because they thought he "looked like a Nazi"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0)

Humor, is it entirely lost on you Dynamic "Reverse Anal" Paragon?

I got the joke, I just didn't think it reflected reality.

And I care about this because I'm scared. Not of the anarchists themselves, I doubt I'd be one of their victims, but of the impact they might have. I'm afraid they might delegitimize the anti-Trump movement, like they did to Occupy (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206). Afraid that they might normalize political violence. Afraid that they might give Trump an excuse to abuse his executive powers.

But I'm not asking you to care. I couldn't care less about some of the things you talk about, such as the you-know-what controversy. If you don't want to talk about this, I won't try to make you. If you do, however, then I'd like to talk to you.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 11, 2017, 01:43:49 am
Frankly, Trump himself mitigates any effect a few black blockers might have. When he declared war on the media he pulled large sections of them over to the anti Trump movement.

And it's those guys that usually start having kittens when a minority of protesters on the left get punchy.

EDIT: As to the left getting punchy, I approve of this (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206) statement.

Quote
"I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through."

So yeah, I don't think that nonviolence is an end in itself. I can't make myself feel bad that a Nazi was punched. That said, a lot of the black blockers are just politicized casuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_(subculture)) who are there for a punch-up.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 12, 2017, 06:55:34 pm
Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

I think you misunderstood me. I said that the original article blamed the riots on outside agitators, but now one of the people who formed the Black Bloc says he and comrades were students.

BTW, do you realize you just contradicted yourself?

Nope.

Now, what was your point about what the original article was supposed to prove again?

You intolerant ass, fascists are people too. We must respect their fee-fees.

ETA: Stop triggering the snowflake fascists who just want to turn America into their safe space by killing everyone not like them.

Did you know one of the rioters attacked a Syrian Muslim because they thought he "looked like a Nazi"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/how-violence-undermined-the-berkeley-protest.html?_r=0)

Humor, is it entirely lost on you Dynamic "Reverse Anal" Paragon?

I got the joke, I just didn't think it reflected reality.

And I care about this because I'm scared. Not of the anarchists themselves, I doubt I'd be one of their victims, but of the impact they might have. I'm afraid they might delegitimize the anti-Trump movement, like they did to Occupy (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_cancer_of_occupy_20120206). Afraid that they might normalize political violence. Afraid that they might give Trump an excuse to abuse his executive powers.

But I'm not asking you to care. I couldn't care less about some of the things you talk about, such as the you-know-what controversy. If you don't want to talk about this, I won't try to make you. If you do, however, then I'd like to talk to you.

Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 12, 2017, 09:53:01 pm
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 12, 2017, 10:21:36 pm
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?
Doesn't the phrase "actually opposed" indicate that he wasn't calling them one and the same?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 12, 2017, 10:46:46 pm
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?
Doesn't the phrase "actually opposed" indicate that he wasn't calling them one and the same?

I wasn't saying he was, I was asking if anybody did.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 12, 2017, 11:14:24 pm
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?

You did. Hence the direct question.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 13, 2017, 12:21:20 am
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?

You did. Hence the direct question.

No, I didn't. I said their actions discredited Occupy. That doesn't require the two "groups" (I use that term loosely, because Black Bloc actually refers to a tactic, not a group) to be synonymous.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 13, 2017, 12:31:48 am
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?

You did. Hence the direct question.

No, I didn't. I said their actions discredited Occupy. That doesn't require the two "groups" (I use that term loosely, because Black Bloc actually refers to a tactic, not a group) to be synonymous.

Ok so the answer to my first question: "So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?" - Is: yes I am worried about groups (or two groups using different tactics) discrediting/ delegitimizing groups that they are not a part of.

Is the answer to the second question yes as well?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 13, 2017, 06:31:12 am
No, I didn't. I said their actions discredited Occupy. That doesn't require the two "groups" (I use that term loosely, because Black Bloc actually refers to a tactic, not a group) to be synonymous.
Dunno what protests you've been going to but the Black Blockers are usually the same gang of kids that took their punk rock way to seriously and wanna get to the Anarchy and petrol bombs part while skipping all of that boring politics adult shit. They only call it a "tactic" because they're part of a subculture that has no rules man, or tactics. Shit, it's better than being called an "organisation" or worse yet, a party.

Your socialist, green and anarchists who actually read books grouplets don't use the "tactic" because the people doing it are the same bunch of idiots that show up and every demo.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 13, 2017, 04:21:13 pm
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?

Who said they were one and the same?

You did. Hence the direct question.

No, I didn't. I said their actions discredited Occupy. That doesn't require the two "groups" (I use that term loosely, because Black Bloc actually refers to a tactic, not a group) to be synonymous.

Ok so the answer to my first question: "So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?" - Is: yes I am worried about groups (or two groups using different tactics) discrediting/ delegitimizing groups that they are not a part of.

Is the answer to the second question yes as well?

Yes. Should I not be?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 13, 2017, 05:42:29 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 13, 2017, 10:18:15 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 13, 2017, 10:45:03 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.

So you are back to saying they are one and the same? OK fine.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 13, 2017, 11:15:16 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.

So you are back to saying they are one and the same? OK fine.

Why does it have to be one or the other?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 13, 2017, 11:23:50 pm
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 13, 2017, 11:42:20 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 12:39:56 am
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.

WHO KILLED BIGGIE AND TUPAC?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 12:40:50 am
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.

WHO KILLED BIGGIE AND TUPAC?

WHERE IS WALDO?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 14, 2017, 01:00:15 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 01:10:23 am
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.

WHO KILLED BIGGIE AND TUPAC?

WHERE IS WALDO?

Why do you think Tupac's dead?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 01:19:19 am
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.

WHO KILLED BIGGIE AND TUPAC?

WHERE IS WALDO?

Why do you think Tupac's dead?
Why do you think Waldo is hiding?

What do you have against Waldo?
I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

And if convincing people you are on their side under false pretenses isn't infiltration I don't know what is!
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 01:20:56 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Askold on February 14, 2017, 01:39:05 am
Not content with just moving the goalposts now you try to rewrite the history as well?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 01:39:28 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 01:41:46 am
Webster, Waldo and Willis secretly control the World.

WWW should have tipped you off!
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 01:42:10 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 01:43:00 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 01:50:11 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 01:59:55 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTcHpPDCu8
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 02:20:18 am
Fuck I love that clip
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 02:22:37 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 03:18:30 am
I want the alternative truth!
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 14, 2017, 03:54:10 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 04:22:56 am
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2017, 03:51:10 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 04:22:00 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: dpareja on February 14, 2017, 04:31:09 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 04:54:54 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

What becomes of the broken hearted?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Skybison on February 14, 2017, 05:40:32 pm
If a tree falls in the forest when no-one's around, and it lands on a mime, does it make a sound?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 05:53:28 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

What becomes of the broken hearted?

What is the meaning of life?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 05:57:11 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

What becomes of the broken hearted?

What is the meaning of life?

Why do doves cry?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: ironbite on February 14, 2017, 06:11:45 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

What becomes of the broken hearted?

What is the meaning of life?

Why do doves cry?

How high does the sycamore grow?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 14, 2017, 06:55:15 pm
Sounds like handwringing to me. What are feminists, for instance, meant to do about misogynists delegitimizing their movement? What are/ were civil rights activists meant to do about Black Separatists?

Seems to me that the biggest problem they face is simple-minded or ill-intentioned people lumping them all together.

AFAIK, there aren't any misogynists trying to infiltrate feminist groups. The article is titled "The Cancer In Occupy", after all.
Someone has never heard of free bleeding. (http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/free-bleeding-is-a-4chan-hoax/)

Hm, I think I've seen this use of the Socratic Method as a purely defensive tactic to fend off unwanted conversations before.

You have a rather... loose definition of infiltration. I don't think tricking people into doing gross things is necessarily infiltration.

On a side note, I just realized I had a gigantic brain fart regarding Dave's second question. Just to clear up any confusion: no, I'm not really concerned about misogynists discrediting feminism. Too bad I didn't realize that earlier. With that in mind, I also realize I could have been a little more forthcoming with my responses.

WHAT YOU TALKING BOUT, WILLIS?

Who are you? WEBSTER?

Why do fools fall in love?

Why do fools rush in?
Why do we love the sea?

You want the Truth?

Why do birds suddenly appear?
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Why does anything we do matter?

Is that you, mother?

Are you there, God? It's me, Margaret.

What becomes of the broken hearted?

What is the meaning of life?

Why do doves cry?

How high does the sycamore grow?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 14, 2017, 08:57:33 pm
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 14, 2017, 08:59:49 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 14, 2017, 09:35:19 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Art Vandelay on February 14, 2017, 11:04:30 pm
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzbmIKVAHo
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 14, 2017, 11:34:13 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 15, 2017, 12:24:42 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 15, 2017, 12:46:08 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 15, 2017, 01:12:55 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Askold on February 15, 2017, 01:21:58 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 15, 2017, 01:25:52 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 15, 2017, 02:14:28 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke
TO THE BOLLOCKADES!!!
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 15, 2017, 02:17:37 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Askold on February 15, 2017, 04:05:04 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 15, 2017, 04:49:04 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Askold on February 15, 2017, 06:50:18 am
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 15, 2017, 03:23:22 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Bullocks/bollocks wordplay maybe?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 15, 2017, 04:46:16 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Bullocks/bollocks wordplay maybe?

Quit dicking around you wankers
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 15, 2017, 05:12:17 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Bullocks/bollocks wordplay maybe?

Quit dicking around you wankers

Keep your eye on the ball
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: dpareja on February 15, 2017, 07:12:25 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Bullocks/bollocks wordplay maybe?

Quit dicking around you wankers

Keep your eye on the ball

Just don't handle it or hit it twice.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 15, 2017, 09:57:44 pm
What is the sound of me using Nair on my balls?
Ow.

Would you turtle wax them after they are silky smooth?

Of course.  Gotta keep that nice, shiny sheen, after all.  If I can't whip my balls out in broad daylight and risk blinding passersby, what's the point?
Self-proclaimed "pro balls" people use bollock-hurty tactics to unsilence people they don't like. Irony completely lost.

Look I'm scared. I'm worried that the anitba are going to undermine the ballista movement

First of all, it's not anti-balls, it's pro-neutering and misnaming the movement like that to focus only on the negative aspects is hate-speech.

/joke

To be fair the black balls are not so much a movement or a group but a tactic. But why would you say they are one and the same?
Now that's just nuts.

I was going to comment on why not call themselves the black bulls rather than black balls as it sounds cooler but then I remembered that the Härkä / Bull / Ox naming does not translate 100% correctly from Finnish (because bullfighting is called härkätaistelu when it should be sonnitaistelu) and it's the Ox that are castrated, not the bulls and I keep confusing the English terms because some stupid Finns didn't translate the name of a sport properly more than a century ago.

Mainly because it was a joke about testicles and not cucks. Is that a bottle of vodka in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

I was going to make a point about how the  bulls  are castrated so it woukd still fit the theme but then I realized that I got bulls and oxen mixed up and the joke wouldn't work in English.
Bullocks/bollocks wordplay maybe?

Quit dicking around you wankers

Keep your eye on the ball

Just don't handle it or hit it twice.
Keep your eyes on the road and your hand on the gearstick.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: The_Queen on February 15, 2017, 10:50:49 pm
I'm just trying to understand your alleged fears but you keep answering questions with irrelevant questions.

Before the quote pyramids about questions and bollocks, there was this quote. And, I wanted to point out to Dave "lord of the crackers" Dan that this was simply Reverse Anal's attempt at the socratic method.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 15, 2017, 11:45:34 pm
I thought it was an attempt to dodge the question.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: TheContrarian on February 18, 2017, 04:21:07 am
I'm hesitant to use the term, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if the violence was the result of a false flag operation.

Of course.  It's obviously an NWO globalist illuminati reptilian conspiracy.

Do  you have any multivitamins or survivalist accessories for sale?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 20, 2017, 11:10:47 pm
I thought it was an attempt to dodge the question.

I wasn't. I thought you were basing your line of questioning on false assumptions, and I was trying to help you see my perspective. But you're right, I should have been more straightforward with you. And from now on, that's exactly what I'm gonna do.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: davedan on February 21, 2017, 01:01:59 am
I thought it was an attempt to dodge the question.

I wasn't. I thought you were basing your line of questioning on false assumptions, and I was trying to help you see my perspective. But you're right, I should have been more straightforward with you. And from now on, that's exactly what I'm gonna do.

This was my first question - what did you think the false assumption was?

Quote
Your link goes to an article about how the 'black block anarchists' were actually opposed to the Occupy movement. So you are worried that groups are going to be delegitimized by other people who aren't part of them?

Are you worried about misogynists delegitimatizing the feminist movement?
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: SCarpelan on February 21, 2017, 08:23:48 pm
So, no worry about the expressed worry that Milo was planning to out undocumented students (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-warns-campus-group-Yiannopoulos-event-could-10901517.php) just to fuck with them and ruin their lives? Like he did to a trans student in a previous speech? This is a rare occasion where I fully agree with rioting to prevent him from speaking. He is simply prepared to go so far that the damage the rioting did and the benefit he gained PR-wise is the lesser of two evils.

Edit:

Moved to the appropriate thread.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: RavynousHunter on February 21, 2017, 08:53:21 pm
Shit.  In that light...yer not wrong.  Better to protect a few and slightly inflate a lunatic's ego than risk the safety of multiple people.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 21, 2017, 09:17:49 pm
So, no worry about the expressed worry that Milo was planning to out undocumented students (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-warns-campus-group-Yiannopoulos-event-could-10901517.php) just to fuck with them and ruin their lives? Like he did to a trans student in a previous speech? This is a rare occasion where I fully agree with rioting to prevent him from speaking. He is simply prepared to go so far that the damage the rioting did and the benefit he gained PR-wise is the lesser of two evils.

Edit:

Moved to the appropriate thread.
That's the thing about Milo's speech. He really is the guy who yells "fire" in a crowded theatre, he does it for shits anf giggles and defends himself by saying "well, I didn't trample anyone!"
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 21, 2017, 11:51:42 pm
So, no worry about the expressed worry that Milo was planning to out undocumented students (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-warns-campus-group-Yiannopoulos-event-could-10901517.php) just to fuck with them and ruin their lives? Like he did to a trans student in a previous speech? This is a rare occasion where I fully agree with rioting to prevent him from speaking. He is simply prepared to go so far that the damage the rioting did and the benefit he gained PR-wise is the lesser of two evils.

Edit:

Moved to the appropriate thread.

Okay, you think he was planning to reveal the identities of illegal immigrants. Where's the proof? The UC Berkeley letter only said that he might have been planning to do so. And nowhere in the Breitbart article does it say Yiannopoulos was actually planning to expose them. We can speculate about what he was planning to do until the cows come home, but unless and until I see some hard evidence, I'm not going to believe it.

And why, exactly, did he have to be on campus to out them? Maybe there's some context I'm missing, but I'm thinking if he really wanted to out them, he would have made a video and uploaded it to YouTube after his event was cancelled.

I might give credence to this claim if he actually did out Kramer. But he didn't. Not only had she already been public with her identity for months, she was at the center of a well-publicized controversy. The picture of her he showed was actually a screenshot from a TV news story about her. (http://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/uwm-student-says-shes-been-discriminated-against-at-the-klotsche-center) What he said about Ms. Kramer was disgusting, but in no way did he out her. Yiannopoulos is a tool, and I don't like him at all. But I will dislike him for what he's actually said and done, not for the unsubstantiated or outright false stories about him.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on February 22, 2017, 01:10:45 am
Well it's not like the festering wound has used his platform to identify and harass anyone before...oh wait he totally did! (http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html)

In any case, since he's been outed as totally in favor of adult men getting their dicks sucked by children  (http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/its-still-vile-milo-offers-tepid-apology-for-pedophile-tape-but-jake-tapper-isnt-buying-it/?comments=disqus)his career is over. Fuck the pestilent little toerag, he's done.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: SCarpelan on February 22, 2017, 01:50:47 am
Thanks for correcting the mistake but as far as I'm concerned the difference between outing and public humiliation for its own sake is almost zero when it comes to this issue. After that I support denying him any platform as long as it does not involve violence towards him (even with mild violence I wouldn't support it but I would give zero shits à la Spencer punching). He is maliciously abusing the notions of free speech and high moral ground and is only reaping what he sows. I am well aware about the lack of concrete evidence behind the suspicion of outing undocumented students but this is not a court of law and Milo has pretty much given up his right for any benefit of a doubt in these matters with his own actions.

I'm not going to bother debating this issue. I know the counterarguments that you are going to present; there is a certain logic behind them but it boils down to playing the game with the rules Milo wants to abuse.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Even Then on February 22, 2017, 04:25:01 am
https://i.imgur.com/JRfWCGU.jpg

Wow just look at this lack of evidence. Wowee I am just flabbergasted at this complete lack of evidence that Milo Yiannopoulos advocates for the mistreatment of illegal immigrants
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: SCarpelan on February 22, 2017, 05:39:38 am
But there is no written and signed confession with him saying he definitely is planning to out certain particular individuals at that particular time in the university in question. We should give him the benefit of a doubt that he is there to make a political point and not planning to abuse vulnerable people he openly hates.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Even Then on February 22, 2017, 07:34:23 am
And we must also remember that expressing a desire to abuse vulnerable people, and encouraging the same in your large audience, is not an act of abuse. It's just a political point that exists away from reality in the mystical otherworld of Politics, and doesn't affect reality whatsoever.
Title: Re: Violence at Berkeley
Post by: Lana Reverse on February 22, 2017, 09:53:43 am
Thanks for correcting the mistake but as far as I'm concerned the difference between outing and public humiliation for its own sake is almost zero when it comes to this issue. After that I support denying him any platform as long as it does not involve violence towards him (even with mild violence I wouldn't support it but I would give zero shits à la Spencer punching). He is maliciously abusing the notions of free speech and high moral ground and is only reaping what he sows. I am well aware about the lack of concrete evidence behind the suspicion of outing undocumented students but this is not a court of law and Milo has pretty much given up his right for any benefit of a doubt in these matters with his own actions.

I'm not going to bother debating this issue. I know the counterarguments that you are going to present; there is a certain logic behind them but it boils down to playing the game with the rules Milo wants to abuse.

I wasn't planning to start a debate. I just wanted to point out the truth. This isn't the hill I want to die on.