[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1562651137021.png (110.18 KB, 1024x1024, antifa.png)

Anonymous (ID: fa6b6b)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid:   311919[View All]

#Politics
Why do liberals have such a hard time identifying antifascists as the good guys?
311 posts and 203 image replies omitted. Click View to see all.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313336

>>313326
>That's fine. Seems like a valid personal choice then, doesn't it?
Suuuure...

But you should respond with appropriate force. Appropriate. Force.

>What is ineffective or not pragmatic about using a milkshake, to those who would use milkshakes?

Just read the next sentence and you're good.

>Congratufuckinglations, that doesn't mean everyone else you dislike agrees with them. Once people stop labeling their political opponents as fascists, come back to me with this argument.

It's pretty obvious when someone is a fascist and when someone is not.

>A milkshake in a previous incarnation was a rock.

What? Like, spiritually?

>They only tried, so it's ok!

When has an antifa member tried to kill someone at a rally?

>I shouldn't need these examples, but for some reason, people here think it's ok to assault others.

Well, I mean, if it really stood to reason, you'd think you wouldn't have to resort to poor analogies. Either way it's just not convincing.

>In a world where actual fascists are some of the most hated people on the planet, who can lose their jobs and livelihoods for merely being associated with far right groups, isn't it odd that the people who claim to be opposing them are the ones hiding their faces like thieves in the night? Really makes you think.

I mean, these people are actually dangerous, and yeah, they're reviled, but that doesn't make them impotent. Again, I don't know if you know this, but a lot of people are killed by far right extremist terrorism. It's pretty sensible to protect your identity.

Mint horse (ID: fb625b)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313342

File: 1562956829210.png (92.59 KB, 313x284, A80A7759-D851-40BB-BE50-A8A809…)

>>313324
Well at least the punching and screaming is over within a few minutes. Plus by the end of it your head probably won’t be any where near as sore.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313343

File: 1562956883513.png (152.17 KB, 814x1024, 6dnfgbf.png)

>>313336
>Suuuure...
glad that's settled.

>But you should respond with appropriate force. Appropriate. Force.

I agree. What is appropriate force when someone is throwing something at you?

>Just read the next sentence and you're good.

ok.

>It's pretty obvious when someone is a fascist and when someone is not.

If they disagree with you, they're a fascist?
Am I a fascist?

>What? Like, spiritually?

No, literally. If you were part of a mob that hated someone enough that you wanted to cause physical harm without necessarily killing them, you pelted them with rocks. which also provided plausible deniability that you didn't intend to kill them.

>When has an antifa member tried to kill someone at a rally?

every time they've bludgeoned someone in the head with deadly force.

>Well, I mean, if it really stood to reason, you'd think you wouldn't have to resort to poor analogies. Either way it's just not convincing.

And yet you won't admit that assault is bad. Amazing.

>I mean, these people are actually dangerous, and yeah, they're reviled, but that doesn't make them impotent.

Wearing a MAGA hat makes you dangerous. the takes! Incredible.

>Again, I don't know if you know this, but a lot of people are killed by far right extremist terrorism. It's pretty sensible to protect your identity.

Someone shot up a bunch of people at a mosque, therefore someone else who doesn't support his actions is dangerous. Logic!

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: 4246f5)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313345

>>311919
Because they use violence without proper cause.

I love violence. I lie in wait for years for opportunities to use it against those who use it against me.

Beating protesters is bad guy behavior, hence antifa is bad guys.

This isn't complicated.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313348

File: 1562957698579.jpg (Spoiler Image, 34.08 KB, 679x514, 61-UFS1KcCL._UX679_.jpg)

Guns don't kill people.
>
kills people.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313349

>>313343
>I agree. What is appropriate force when someone is throwing something at you?
If it's a milkshake, I would just let it be. It wouldn't bother me enough, personally, that I'd want to get into an altercation about it.

>If they disagree with you, they're a fascist?

>Am I a fascist?
No, I don't have any reason to think you are?

>No, literally. If you were part of a mob that hated someone enough that you wanted to cause physical harm without necessarily killing them, you pelted them with rocks. which also provided plausible deniability that you didn't intend to kill them.

Okay, so I guess you mean that it's like a replacement behavior, but a milkshake isn't equivalent to a rock. It won't case physical trauma. So again, I think these ideas aren't really equivalent where it's relevant to the discussion.

>every time they've bludgeoned someone in the head with deadly force.

You'd think if they were using deadly force, people would have died, right?

>And yet you won't admit that assault is bad. Amazing.

I'm not saying it's not mean or rude, to throw milkshakes at people.

but I think maybe it can be justified sometimes.

>Wearing a MAGA hat makes you dangerous. the takes! Incredible.

I'm not talking about people wearing MAGA hats Boat. Why are you pulling a motte and bailey here? I mean Fascists, obviously. Can't you tell I mean fascists, when I'm responding to your sentence, in which you're talking about fascists?

>Someone shot up a bunch of people at a mosque, therefore someone else who doesn't support his actions is dangerous. Logic!

When you expose your identity as someone who resists fascism, actual fascists, who do tend to hold genocidal views, will have a chance of responding to that.

You see, just because there are people in a crowd that the mask isn't needed to protect you from, doesn't mean that the mask can't be effective in protecting you from some people.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous (ID: b1ed87)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313350

File: 1562957720849.jpg (11.8 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg)

>>313343
>I agree. What is appropriate force when someone is throwing something at you?

Pull out a gun and say"do you really want to test me?"

a lost pony !piNKiEPie. (ID: 4246f5)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313352

>>313350
Guns aren't for pointing, they are for putting holes in people.

>>313348
Guns dont kill people, maga hats do
This post was edited by its author on .

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313353

>>313348
This is just a Motte and Bailey.

It's kinda sad you do this.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313356

File: 1562958465211.jpg (15.47 KB, 236x377, ac38872882a1c26bf397e78516e060…)

>>313349
>If it's a milkshake, I would just let it be. It wouldn't bother me enough, personally, that I'd want to get into an altercation about it.
Admirable of you, but have you ever been bullied? Do you know what happens when you just let bullies walk all over you? You keep getting bullied.

>No, I don't have any reason to think you are?

I'm shocked!

>Okay, so I guess you mean that it's like a replacement behavior, but a milkshake isn't equivalent to a rock. It won't case physical trauma. So again, I think these ideas aren't really equivalent where it's relevant to the discussion.

It demonstrates that the meme of throwing nonlethal things at your rivals, to hurt and humiliate them, goes back thousands of years.

>You'd think if they were using deadly force, people would have died, right?

There's a reason this is called "attempted murder" and not "murder".

>I'm not saying it's not mean or rude, to throw milkshakes at people.

>but I think maybe it can be justified sometimes.
/sigh

>I'm not talking about people wearing MAGA hats Boat. Why are you pulling a motte and bailey here? I mean Fascists, obviously. Can't you tell I mean fascists, when I'm responding to your sentence, in which you're talking about fascists?

My apologies. Even so, I would have to disagree. Perhaps you could say a greater proportion are dangerous, which is fair. This assumes we're talking about real terms and not wishy-washy policy position versions of presumed "danger".

>When you expose your identity as someone who resists fascism, actual fascists, who do tend to hold genocidal views, will have a chance of responding to that.

>You see, just because there are people in a crowd that the mask isn't needed to protect you from, doesn't mean that the mask can't be effective in protecting you from some people.
I know why they claim to wear them. And I could accept that reasoning, if not for the fact that people use the anonymity to assault others with impunity.

>>313350 farther than I would go, but also not entirely unreasonable in principle. e.g. you don't have to necessarily point the gun at them, but it gets the point across.

>>313352 the horror!

>>313353 I thought it was pretty funny.

Mk17(p-hone)!!Trixie (ID: e62389)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313358

File: 1562958862960.png (627.28 KB, 896x947, Screenshot_20190610-120428_1.p…)

>>313342
>Plus by the end of it your head probably won’t be any where near as sore
LOL. Mint made a funny.

Seriously. Idk, maybe I just don't see the significance of what these people do in the broader context.
I feel like it's the political equivalent of fighting over which sports team is better.
Their actions are of no real consequence, any more than soccer hooligans actions really matter unless your directly involved.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313360

>>313356
>Admirable of you, but have you ever been bullied? Do you know what happens when you just let bullies walk all over you? You keep getting bullied.
Maybe what you need to do is start an anti-antifa. Or you can call it the anti-bully patrol.

I joke of course, but can you see how your exact logic here can be used to justify antifascistic action?

>It demonstrates that the meme of throwing nonlethal things at your rivals, to hurt and humiliate them, goes back thousands of years.

Sure, and a milkshake definitely humiliates. But that's kind of the point of a lot of political action. Like your MAGA hats don't kill people joke right now, for example.

>My apologies. Even so, I would have to disagree. Perhaps you could say a greater proportion are dangerous, which is fair.

I think it's possible to be a trump supporter and also be a good person.

My grandma for example, is a single issue abortion voter, so she voted for trump, but she's actually super sweet.

That came out wrong. Good person is such a subjective judgement. It's possible for me to like trump voters, let's say.
This post was edited by its author on .

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313361

File: 1562959392794.png (378 KB, 680x740, 67806779_p5.png)

What kind of person do you imagine when you hear someone condemn civilian violence, but defend the police that protect the status quo and their right to harmful speech? Probably a very small, pathetic, evil, effeminate Asian faggot, right?

🐓 (ID: 6e5905)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313367

>>313361
>[that non-sequitur]
Are you role-playing as Steam Twist?

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313368

File: 1562959903123.jpg (100.79 KB, 900x1173, 816993__safe_solo_equestria+gi…)

>>313360
>Maybe what you need to do is start an anti-antifa. Or you can call it the anti-bully patrol.
>I joke of course, but can you see how your exact logic here can be used to justify antifascistic action?
You might think it's funny, but there actually have been groups like this, which have come out to protests and rallies since at least 4 years ago. I'm sure you can guess what they have been labeled as a result?

>Sure, and a milkshake definitely humiliates. But that's kind of the point of a lot of political action. Like your MAGA hats don't kill people joke right now, for example.

True, but I'm also not assaulting anyone by posting that.

>I think it's possible to be a trump supporter and also be a good person.

>My grandma for example, is a single issue abortion voter, so she voted for trump, but she's actually super sweet.
>That came out wrong. Good person is such a subjective judgement. It's possible for me to like trump voters, let's say.
If someone wants to promote their socialist utopia, I'll disagree with them on policy but support their right to be heard. If they want to come out and protest or counterprotest to spread their message, I'll support their rights to do so. But once they start assaulting others and taking steps to shut down other people's free speech, that's when they completely lose me, regardless of who they are or what they claim to stand for.

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313369

File: 1562959984247.png (366.96 KB, 527x729, 65722137_p6.png)

The rules in military school were simple: if you threw the first punch, you got in trouble. This resulted in an extremely skewed culture where the most pathetic little shitbugs would constantly instigate the biggest and strongest guys for no reason, hiding behind the consequences of action with their false sense of power. It wasn't a very good system, I feel like it encouraged a very specific behavior in a lot of boys that kept them from becoming men.

The people who try to deny the fact that speech is an action that warrants a consequence are always the most pathetic, slimy little beta males who want to abuse freedom of speech to harm people they otherwise couldn't. False information can be much more harmful than a punch to the face.

>>313367
You're struggling to join the conversation because of your own mental and social shortcomings, but it's expected of you to blame someone else.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313371

>>313368
>I'm sure you can guess what they have been labeled as a result
Fash-adjacent?

>True, but I'm also not assaulting anyone by posting that.

Is it assault? Maybe by some legal definitions.

But it seems the harm done is minimal. The aim is humiliation, as you so aptly pointed out.

>But once they start assaulting others and taking steps to shut down other people's free speech, that's when they completely lose me, regardless of who they are or what they claim to stand for.

I agree partially I suppose. Antifa individuals that actively instigate physical violence shouldn't be regarded kindly.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313372

File: 1562960432544.jpg (147.86 KB, 392x670, asasafafafafaf.jpeg)

>>313369 back to the Wild West it is, then! Fighting Words. Disparage someone's honor, expect to get shot. I'm ok with this. The only people whose honor I disparage are pathetic, slimy beta males, anyway. Like Antifa.

>>313371
>Fash-adjacent?
alt-right primarily. whatever the hell that means.

>Is it assault? Maybe by some legal definitions.

yes.

>But it seems the harm done is minimal. The aim is humiliation, as you so aptly pointed out.

I'm not disputing that.

>I agree partially I suppose. Antifa individuals that actively instigate physical violence shouldn't be regarded kindly.

Once Antifa weeds these people out and stops both covering for and supporting them, I'll consider taking them seriously.
This post was edited by its author on .

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313373

File: 1562960558880.jpg (155.92 KB, 720x1110, furry--furry-art-furry-feline-…)

>>313372
Hey, we did it!

We're de-escalating.

Anonymous (ID: b1ed87)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313374

File: 1562960595860.jpg (11.8 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg)

>>313358
How would you feel if someone splash animal blood on you?

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313375

File: 1562960606993.png (161.38 KB, 757x1024, asasadafaff.png)

>>313373 that's no fun

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313376

File: 1562960728146.png (507.78 KB, 600x598, sly orange.png)

>>313375
Being responsible is rarely fun.

Except when you manage to pick the exact right sized leftovers container for your leftovers and it perfectly lines up with the edge.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313377

File: 1562960822796.png (302.45 KB, 1200x1023, 5761450.png)

>>313376 I've heard legends of such containers, but I'm not sure they really exist.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313381

>>313377
You don't have leftovers containers in your state?

Tupperware?

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313385

File: 1562962118148.png (379.04 KB, 1280x720, Maud_Pie_with_Gummy_biting_on_…)

>>313381 Nah. We use garbage disposal alligators.
I just watched this editorial, and it pretty well matches my stance on current politics:
I Think "The Left" Is Dead Or Dying, The Democrats Might As Well Be Two Different Parties

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313388

File: 1562962367779.jpg (98.67 KB, 800x1200, 1323fe79676a9e3a9dfcdcd16f91fa…)

>>313385
Really, no offense meant by this, but I would rather stick a toothpick under my toenail and kick a wall than watch Tim Pool tonight.

Mint horse (ID: fb625b)Country code: gb, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313392

File: 1562962559680.png (491.43 KB, 805x1024, 0E54CA61-FCB2-405E-B994-D36AD4…)

>>313388
How have you been? Haven’t seen you in awhile.

Snowbell (ID: f850b2)Country code: pittsburgh.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313400

File: 1562963404153.jpg (516.44 KB, 774x1000, 62135154_p0.jpg)

>>313307
>A self-defense plea requires you to uphold the 'Duty to Withdraw'

Not in states with castle doctrine. There's a reason Antifa types mostly do their thing in cities in blue states.

Of course "he was being fascist" still isn't a legitimate claim to self defense.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17(p-hone)!!Trixie (ID: 9844a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313403

File: 1562964340266.png (353.58 KB, 862x786, Screenshot_20190629-000222_1.p…)

>>313374
Confused, much like I am about the relevance of that question in the context of what I said.

I think I'm being lead into something haha.

Ephemeral (ID: ecd569)Country code: dk, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313406

File: 1562964781744.jpg (53.8 KB, 564x846, Suenos_con_lobos_de_papel.jpeg)

>>313392
eeeeeh

Ups and downs. I was really depressed for a while, but I'm pulling myself together a bit.

It's nice with such an enthusiastic greeting.

I've seen you around on /townhall/ a bit. How have you been doing?

Fox (ID: 0b5063)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313410

>>313288
>Like many others here, I don't think you know what a fascist is.
This is coming from the guy who repeatedly implies that fascism is physical violence against political opponents.

>You don't have to answer that, because I already know.

Ok buddy. If Andy was as dishonest on my side, I would be fine with it.

>reminder that the "antifascist" deathtoll is in the tens of millions

You are making way too many references to stalinism when talking about antifascism.

>weird flex, but ok.

Isn't it your flex?

>If I'm not mistaken, weren't you the person who said you'd love to forcibly put people who disagree with you in camps and/or execute them? If you think I consider you anything other than a psychopath, you're very mistaken.

What the fuck?

>words hurt, so if someone hurts your feelings, you're justified in attacking them. sjw logic in a nutshell.

Words cause people to go out there and shoot up mosques. Words cause people to view non-white people as less than human. Words cause a lot of harm.

>What point are you trying to make here, exactly?

Just evidence that points toward your claims being baloney. Also, worriesome comment section.

>>313307
>There is no court in the entire US that would agree with you on this.
Yeah, of course not. I've had to state like five times in this thread that legality isn't morality.

(ID: f942a2)Country code: amsterdam.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313413

File: 1562966245817.png (558.56 KB, 1000x780, dcwh759-ac8d1ea1-7e04-43cb-b52…)

>>313400
Castle doctrine only applies if you are defending your home or property. You can't go into a public space, punch someone you think is a fascist and claim self defense under castle doctrine.

>>313410
Morality is irrelevant in a court of law.
This post was edited by its author on .

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313414

File: 1562966409115.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>313410
>This is coming from the guy who repeatedly implies that fascism is physical violence against political opponents.
It's an important part of it. I don't have to imply that; it just is.

>Ok buddy. If Andy was as dishonest on my side, I would be fine with it.

At least you're consistently wrong, then.

>You are making way too many references to stalinism when talking about antifascism.

He is, after all, one of the definitive antifascists.

>Isn't it your flex?

Not giving people a seat at the table is not my flex, no. You must have me confused with someone else, which isn't too difficult to imagine, given that you can just lump everyone who disagrees with you together as the Enemy of the People.

>What the fuck?

Gulags for the dissidents. Work camps for the nonbelievers. Reeducate or (however unfortunately) die. This is your position regarding your socialist utopia, is it not?

>Words cause people to go out there and shoot up mosques. Words cause people to view non-white people as less than human. Words cause a lot of harm.

Guns don't kill people. Mean words kill people.

>Just evidence that points toward your claims being baloney. Also, worriesome comment section.

I watched the video. very stylized. not much content. a couple of dubious accounts of things that may or may not have happened as stated. If a peaceful assembly turns into an effective riot, do you expect police to just leave them to riot? If so, on what grounds?

Mk17(p-hone)!!Trixie (ID: 9844a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313415

File: 1562966583245.png (423.74 KB, 844x970, Screenshot_20190610-113221_1.p…)

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313417

File: 1562966690230.png (753.69 KB, 822x988, 67806779_p1.png)

>>313372
After what you've said in this thread, I would definitely include you in the group of bad faith actors that deliberately spread emotionally-charged misinformation to get what you want. You even called right-wing terrorism irrelevant and then proceeded to bring up Stalin as your source of anti-fascist killings, when he was in fact the primary ally of fascism until it was 200% confirmed that Hitler actually invaded Russia.

Being a coward is not a good argument against violence, you're not going to convince anyone that speech is harmless and violence is intolerable (from non-police) by setting this kind of example.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313419

File: 1562966969508.png (111.1 KB, 641x345, 575066.PNG)

>>313417
>After what you've said in this thread, I would definitely include you in the group of bad faith actors that deliberately spread emotionally-charged misinformation to get what you want.
What do I want, exactly? For people to stop being fucking morons and return to some semblance of normalcy? Yeah, I guess I do want that. emotionally, even.

>You even called right-wing terrorism irrelevant

It is, unless you're resorting to whataboutism, and if you're going to resort to whataboutism, then it is perfectly justified to bring up:
>and then proceeded to bring up Stalin as your source of anti-fascist killings,

>when he was in fact the primary ally of fascism until it was 200% confirmed that Hitler actually invaded Russia.

That is true, yes. They were technically allied, not for ideological reasons obviously.

>Being a coward is not a good argument against violence,

You're a coward, therefore you pretend to promote violence? Got it. In real life, how big of a pussy are you?
>you're not going to convince anyone that speech is harmless and violence is intolerable (from non-police) by setting this kind of example.
Again, I don't intend to convince you of anything.

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313420

File: 1562967469968.png (182.77 KB, 500x821, 65550368_p0.png)

>>313419
>For people to stop being fucking morons and return to some semblance of normalcy?
The status quo is 100% perpetuated and defended by fucking morons with no grasp on the nuances of real world problem solving, also known as cops. It's scary to me that these are the types of people you want to see elected, I can definitely see you jumping on the Kamala Harris bandwagon a few months from now, lmao.
>It is, unless you're resorting to whataboutism
You haven't made a single point that wasn't grounded in your definition of whataboutism. If you don't understand the differences in severity, even when I lay out the statistics in plain language, it's very clear that you don't care about anything you claim to care about unless you can blame your political opponents for it.
>Again, I don't intend to convince you of anything.
Because you know you have no argument. I've laid out all of my positions and prepared myself for any amount of criticism and dismantling that you or anyone else had to offer, and you'd rather sarcastically strawman in order to appeal to the few worthless retard anons that already agree with you, and one very confused Toybox. This is the state of your position on the issue, you lost again, and I feel more confident than ever about what I've put forward.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313425

File: 1562968134977.png (111.1 KB, 641x345, 575066.PNG)

>>313420 I'll bite.
>The status quo is 100% perpetuated and defended by fucking morons with no grasp on the nuances of real world problem solving, also known as cops.
You do realize that, generally speaking, cops exist to enforce laws, right? If you have a problem with what the cops are doing, your problem lies with laws and enforcement policies, not the fact that cops exist.
We can debate the viability of an anarchic society absent cops, but really, that ain't reality and is beside the point.
>It's scary to me that these are the types of people you want to see elected,
I'm not sure what gave you this impression, but I find it amusing.
>I can definitely see you jumping on the Kamala Harris bandwagon a few months from now, lmao.
I'm not sure I follow you here, either.
>You haven't made a single point that wasn't grounded in your definition of whataboutism.
I shouldn't need to. But I do, because people here don't listen to reason. The correct response to "political violence is bad" isn't "but they [someone else completely unrelated] did it worse!"
>If you don't understand the differences in severity, even when I lay out the statistics in plain language, it's very clear that you don't care about anything you claim to care about unless you can blame your political opponents for it.
Oh I do. But unlike you, I can say both sides are bad. My opponents are in fact on both sides. But only one side is vocal and incredibly annoying about it now that Mint has toned down, hence that is the side I argue against. One side has no argument. Your side for some reason thinks it does.
>Because you know you have no argument.
No, because you're a keyboard warrior who I frankly don't give a rats ass about.
>I've laid out all of my positions and prepared myself for any amount of criticism and dismantling that you or anyone else had to offer,
oh, those one-of remarks and hot takes? yeah, definitely worth my time.
>and you'd rather sarcastically strawman in order to appeal to the few worthless retard anons that already agree with you,
more for my own amusement, tbh.
>and one very confused Toybox.
I have no idea if she agrees with me, and I'm not addressing her.
>This is the state of your position on the issue, you lost again, and I feel more confident than ever about what I've put forward.
Ok, bye then.

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313432

File: 1562969099222.png (438.41 KB, 689x800, 64631036_p18.png)

>>313425
>If you have a problem with what the cops are doing, your problem lies with laws and enforcement policies, not the fact that cops exist.
When I say (((cops))), I'm talking about people like you. Status quo snitches with limp wrists that hide behind a screen and demand the state do something about your enemies before they even have the chance to act. Police officers exist in every society, but the problems that the American people face regarding law enforcement need to be addressed in a vacuum. Unfortunately, the majority of our country, including liberals, have no patience or tolerance for the idea that law enforcement needs to be reformed in order to combat their specific issues. These are the people who have no problem criticizing and generalizing specific instances of Sharia Law in other countries to their entire religion, which makes it very obvious that they don't see the violation of trust and conduct that cops commit in this country on an hourly basis as a bad thing. They're actually very blatantly interested in allowing cops to persecute their enemies, because that's what allows for the status quo to prosper, in which they are the primary beneficiaries.

>The correct response to "political violence is bad" isn't "but they [someone else completely unrelated] did it worse!"

If I said that police brutality is bad, and you responded by saying "but he had a gun and was going to shoot the cop" then that would be a perfectly valid response. Is that too much nuance for you to process? Is your interpretation of my position going to make you sperg out about how I want to kill people for disagreeing about something irrelevant and sarcastic? That's usually what you go for whenever I set you up to have a real argument.

>oh, those one-of remarks and hot takes? yeah, definitely worth my time.

You just lost to my surprisingly infallible remarks and takes really hard, but shit-talking little faggots like you don't really understand that you lost until you're on the ground.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313433

File: 1562969820530.png (111.1 KB, 641x345, 575066.PNG)

>>313432
>When I say (((cops))), I'm talking about people like you.
hahahahaha
>Status quo snitches with limp wrists that hide behind a screen and demand the state do something about your enemies before they even have the chance to act.
you're hilarious. I'm sure in contrast you're out on the streets every day fighting the good fight, right? Sure you are.
>Police officers exist in every society, but the problems that the American people face regarding law enforcement need to be addressed in a vacuum.
hence why whataboutisms are pointless distractions.
>Unfortunately, the majority of our country, including liberals, have no patience or tolerance for the idea that law enforcement needs to be reformed in order to combat their specific issues.
I'm all for criminal justice reform.
>These are the people who have no problem criticizing and generalizing specific instances of Sharia Law in other countries to their entire religion, which makes it very obvious that they don't see the violation of trust and conduct that cops commit in this country on an hourly basis as a bad thing.
Is this like, your big issue?
>They're actually very blatantly interested in allowing cops to persecute their enemies, because that's what allows for the status quo to prosper, in which they are the primary beneficiaries.
uhhh... Some people are I guess? I don't know, does saying that a cop should be biased in favor of person B, if person A is assaulting them, mean that I want person A to be persecuted? Is it a human right to assault person B? What if I want the same "bias" in the other direction - is that still persecution? The position you imply doesn't seem consistent, just sayin'.

>If I said that police brutality is bad, and you responded by saying "but he had a gun and was going to shoot the cop" then that would be a perfectly valid response.

Sure. However, your response would be more like "but someone else who wasn't there had a gun" which makes no fucking sense. I hope you can recognize why it makes no sense. Think about it for 5 seconds. If you're having trouble, phone a friend.
>Is your interpretation of my position going to make you sperg out about how I want to kill people for disagreeing about something irrelevant and sarcastic?
I don't know, maybe you do, but violence against one person, on the basis of what someone else did, is a really bad look for you.
>That's usually what you go for whenever I set you up to have a real argument.
just being a couch psychoanalyst, trying to figure outt why you so desperately want to cause harm to people who haven't harmed you first.

>You just lost to my surprisingly infallible remarks and takes really hard, but shit-talking little faggots like you don't really understand that you lost until you're on the ground.

damn I got roasted. you're right. how will I ever show my face here again?

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313436

File: 1562970837616.jpg (30.12 KB, 500x500, large.jpg)

>>313433
>what about you? what about acid? what about cement? what about people that get MASS MURDERED for saying "I love America"? what about all the Youtube videos of antifa doing things I don't like? what about YOU?
<what about the fascists that antifa are responding to?
>IRRELEVANT, GOD WHAT A DISHONEST ARGUMENT, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS THREAD?
amazin'
>I'm all for criminal justice reform.
>The position you imply doesn't seem consistent, just sayin'.
So your definition of criminal justice reform is just that you think cops should do a better job of not arresting victims of assault, got it, you have no grasp on the issues surrounding the criminal justice system outside of "sometimes they arrest two people in a fight when one of them started it," it's like I'm talking to a 1st grader.
>However, your response would be more like "but someone else who wasn't there had a gun" which makes no fucking sense
>but violence against one person, on the basis of what someone else did, is a really bad look for you.
That's a bad faith argument, I don't expect you to quote me or substantiate any of this.
>trying to figure outt why you so desperately want to cause harm to people who haven't harmed you first.
Your definition of harm is as one-dimensional as "did they physically assault you? wait, do they have a badge? no?" I could literally spread a message to my enemies that the part of town that's going to get destroyed by a tsunami is the safe zone, and you'd defend me because I didn't push them there with my bare hands. How is anyone supposed to engage you in a discussion about what kind of action is morally justified when your definitions are so shallow and nonsensical?

How many times does it need to be explained to you that speech is a form of action that has consequences? If you're so afraid of the violent consequences of your free speech then take a vow of silence, you're lucky enough to live in your ideal world where you can take all the dishonest verbal action against your enemies as you want without facing any consequences. In any other society that didn't coddle mass liars and bad faith actors, you'd be crushed.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313438

File: 1562971524360.png (111.1 KB, 641x345, 575066.PNG)

>>313436
>stuff
ok
>what about YOU?
What about me?
>what about the fascists that antifa are responding to?
Nothing you've said has convinced me that Antifa has anything at all to do with fascists.
Nothing they've done has convinced me that they even know what fascism is or why they oppose the people they oppose.
When they stop beating up people who aren't even involved in the groups they claim to be opposing, come back to me with a slightly less bullshit argument.

>So your definition of criminal justice reform is just that you think cops should do a better job of not arresting victims of assault, got it, you have no grasp on the issues surrounding the criminal justice system outside of "sometimes they arrest two people in a fight when one of them started it," it's like I'm talking to a 1st grader.

You're hilarious! You should do standup.

>That's a bad faith argument, I don't expect you to quote me or substantiate any of this.

You, very clearly, justify assaulting a person at a protest or event on the basis of the actions of someone else who is not at that protest or event, on nothing more than the presumption that they maybe possibly believe the same thing.

>Your definition of harm is as one-dimensional as "did they physically assault you? wait, do they have a badge? no?" I could literally spread a message to my enemies that the part of town that's going to get destroyed by a tsunami is the safe zone, and you'd defend me because I didn't push them there with my bare hands. How is anyone supposed to engage you in a discussion about what kind of action is morally justified when your definitions are so shallow and nonsensical?

I don't even know where you're getting this bullshit cop aspect from. Please, enlighten me.

>How many times does it need to be explained to you that speech is a form of action that has consequences?

Yes, it is an action, and actions have consequences. But all actions are not violence. Sorry to break it to you.
>If you're so afraid of the violent consequences of your free speech then take a vow of silence, you're lucky enough to live in your ideal world where you can take all the dishonest verbal action against your enemies as you want without facing any consequences.
So, saying something you don't like, is an action, and the consequence of that action, is that you get to freely assault me. Am I getting that right? Just making sure, because this is the position you're pushing for, with no self-awareness whatsoever that this runs in two directions.
>In any other society that didn't coddle mass liars and bad faith actors, you'd be crushed.
Oh man, you're something. How do you even exist in reality?

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313439

File: 1562972013182.jpg (76.69 KB, 800x800, Cute+_b7e1857551981423c9b3a07f…)

>>313438
>Nothing you've said has convinced me that Antifa has anything at all to do with fascists.
Yeah, we've spent literally zero time discussing this topic because you'd rather talk about how all non-police violence is bad and all speech is harmless
>on nothing more than the presumption that they maybe possibly believe the same thing
No, I justify assaulting Andy Ngo because he belongs in a gutter with his brains splattered on the wall and his chinky eyes wide open in fear.

>I don't even know where you're getting this bullshit cop aspect from

I'll give you another chance to clarify your position, even though you've already made it clear, don't pass it up if you want a response. When is it okay for someone to assault another person?

>But all actions are not violence

Are there any actions that warrant violence other than violence?
>So, saying something you don't like, is an action, and the consequence of that action, is that you get to freely assault me.
This is pretty much what you've been repeating over and over again for the last two days instead of reading what I actually type, and my answer is no, it's more nuanced than that. Obviously.
>How do you even exist in reality?
Nobody has called the cops on me for the suspicion that my water bottle is actually full of acid, maybe I'm just lucky.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313441

File: 1562972677018.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>313439
>Yeah, we've spent literally zero time discussing this topic because you'd rather talk about how all non-police violence is bad and all speech is harmless
Neither of those are things that I've said. Pay attention, now.
>No, I justify assaulting Andy Ngo because he belongs in a gutter with his brains splattered on the wall and his chinky eyes wide open in fear.
Well, at least you're an honest psychopath.
>I'll give you another chance to clarify your position, even though you've already made it clear, don't pass it up if you want a response. When is it okay for someone to assault another person?
To defend life, liberty, or property. And no, that doesn't mean people who disagree with you on policy positions.
>Are there any actions that warrant violence other than violence?
This depends on how wishy-washy your definition of violence is, but I will say yes. A pre-emptive strike given overwhelming evidence of imminent attack, being a great example.
>This is pretty much what you've been repeating over and over again for the last two days instead of reading what I actually type, and my answer is no, it's more nuanced than that. Obviously.
Then please inform me, under what conditions, your majesty, I may deem to disagree with you, and not expect an entirely justified pummeling.
>Nobody has called the cops on me for the suspicion that my water bottle is actually full of acid, maybe I'm just lucky.
Unless you go around throwing water at people, I'd be really surprised if anyone had reason to call the cops on you for anything remotely similar.

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313442

File: 1562973677903.jpg (37.12 KB, 1080x1077, 47102913_128843254662911_87451…)

>>313441
>Neither of those are things that I've said
I said the contrary and you've spent quite a bit of time disagreeing with me instead of discussing Antifa. We can change the subject any time you want.
>A pre-emptive strike given overwhelming evidence of imminent attack, being a great example.
"Imminent attack" being limited to other forms of physical violence, or could I interpret imminent attack as an attack on my rights through legislation?
>Then please inform me, under what conditions, your majesty, I may deem to disagree with you, and not expect an entirely justified pummeling.
I responded to that here >>313012
>If I think that I have a right to life and someone disagrees with that, then by definition, yes. Everyone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.
If it should follow that speech has consequences (as does the support of turning speech into action through voting), I could justify the assault of anyone who disagrees that I have a right to live. So if you support politicians that want to take that right away from me or my loved ones, I have every right to defend myself.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313445

File: 1562975006002.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>313442
>I said the contrary and you've spent quite a bit of time disagreeing with me instead of discussing Antifa. We can change the subject any time you want.
Specifically, my position is that it's not your place to unilaterally decide what speech is harmful and then act upon it. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the go-to example of harmful speech. Inciting a riot or imminent violence is another. Saying mean things you don't like doesn't automatically qualify, even if you really, really, really don't like it. And if you want to prove to me that you're right, you need to argue your position and show how it's better than theirs and demonstrate why they're wrong, instead of trying to smash their face in because you don't like them. Thus, if you're using violence in politics, the assumption is that you've lost the argument by default, otherwise you wouldn't need to resort to violence, would you?

This is doubly true because many of the 'fascists' who have been beaten up by Antifa have literally nothing to do with the groups they protest, like bystanders on the street who just happened to have a T-shirt they didn't like. You don't get to just assume what people think, and then beat them up for it. It's not that difficult to understand. You aren't the good guy just because you claim to be antifascist.
>"Imminent attack" being limited to other forms of physical violence, or could I interpret imminent attack as an attack on my rights through legislation?
Yes, specifically in regards to life, liberty, and property. But like I told Foxdude, the target matters. If you want to essentially become an insurgent wannabe freedom fighter, I can at least understand your rationale, whether or not I agree with it, even if I think it's not the best way to go about doing things. If, however, you choose to get your way through violence against the people themselves, well now you're just a piece of shit terrorist.
>>If I think that I have a right to life and someone disagrees with that, then by definition, yes. Everyone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.
>If it should follow that speech has consequences (as does the support of turning speech into action through voting), I could justify the assault of anyone who disagrees that I have a right to live. So if you support politicians that want to take that right away from me or my loved ones, I have every right to defend myself.
Your statement here is very convoluted.
First off, I have never heard someone put forth the notion that any citizen should be deprived of life, absent something like the death penalty for heinous crimes, so I literally have no idea what examples you could pull out of your ass for this, but I'm incredibly curious.
Second, even if you do find some fringe whackaloon who would like to see you dead, that doesn't mean that others agree with him. Specifically, you don't get to just pick people, claim they want to see you dead, and then assault them over it.
Third, even if they do want you dead, thought crime isn't a thing, so if they have taken no action and made no moves against you, you have no justification. The fact that someone doesn't like you doesn't mean you get to attack them.
Fourth, this is doubly true when you're just assuming they don't like you. You don't even fucking know. You're just assuming they want to see you dead, unless you've heard them personally say it.
Fifth, this entire notion is based on the idea that you can read their mind and know what they're thinking, and then attack them for it because you don't like it.
This sounds like some delusional bullshit.
This post was edited by its author on .

🐈🐈Dodger🐈🐈!FGiFL0Ecls (ID: 759dff)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313450

File: 1562976576130.png (477.49 KB, 574x941, 67806779_p11.png)

>>313445
>Saying mean things you don't like doesn't automatically qualify
It's impossible to have a conversation with you about anything when you reduce everything to such idiotic talking points. I've explained my position every time you've tried to make it look like I'm saying something else, and I don't know if you're doing it for the people reading this conversation that might be fooled by your bad faith acting, or if this is somehow what you're actually getting from what I'm saying. I don't think I'm going to waste any more time trying to explain that my position is not as simple as you'd like it to be from your stance of opposition, you've demonstrated that you're not willing to engage in that sort of non-hyperbolic conversation because you're drunk or something.

>First off, I have never heard someone put forth the notion that any citizen should be deprived of life, absent something like the death penalty for heinous crimes, so I literally have no idea what examples you could pull out of your ass for this, but I'm incredibly curious.

Taking away someone's means of survival through legislative action is a form of political violence, it's not as simple as the government coming to your house and executing you. I don't think you're curious at all, because I've already explained this. The fact that you went on a huge rant based on such a retarded misconception about my position is really confusing to me when I've been very clear about what I'm talking about up to this point. If it sounds like delusional bullshit, it's because you're not responding to me, you're responding to your own thoughts.

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313454

File: 1562977552833.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>313450
>It's impossible to have a conversation with you about anything when you reduce everything to such idiotic talking points.
You're literally talking about assaulting people over the way they presumably voted, based on your interpretation of the effects of that vote, are you not? For example, if someone votes against single payer healthcare, you can convolutedly justify that as "violence" against you and a "threat" to your "life" and therefore are perfectly justified in attacking and even killing them in self defense. Or someone could support a politician for another completely unrelated reason, but because that politician is against single payer healthcare, you are now justified in assaulting that voter. Please tell me where I'm mistaken. This is the logic that you have laid out.
>I've explained my position every time you've tried to make it look like I'm saying something else, and I don't know if you're doing it for the people reading this conversation that might be fooled by your bad faith acting, or if this is somehow what you're actually getting from what I'm saying.
I'll hand it to you, you laid out your positions in a way that sounds reasonable - until you look under the surface and see the implications of what you're saying. Never mind that anyone could use the same justifications right back at you. I keep pointing this out to you, but you keep ignoring it, so I guess it hasn't sunk in yet.
>I don't think I'm going to waste any more time trying to explain that my position is not as simple as you'd like it to be from your stance of opposition, you've demonstrated that you're not willing to engage in that sort of non-hyperbolic conversation because you're drunk or something.
I'm pointing out the logical inconsistencies in your positions, and you ignore them, presumably because they are inconvenient to you and would require you to change your positions once addressed.

>Taking away someone's means of survival through legislative action is a form of political violence, it's not as simple as the government coming to your house and executing you.

Like what, welfare? If I vote against your welfare, are you justified in attacking me? What if I think you should only get $150 of food stamps instead of $200? Is that political violence? Please, enlighten me.
>I don't think you're curious at all, because I've already explained this. The fact that you went on a huge rant based on such a retarded misconception about my position is really confusing to me when I've been very clear about what I'm talking about up to this point. If it sounds like delusional bullshit, it's because you're not responding to me, you're responding to your own thoughts.
I assumed you'd be pointing to welfare and the like, and how people are owed money for merely existing, but I figured I'd let you come out and say it. because if you think voting against welfare is violence, that's absurd. So please, tell me what kinds of votes are a threat to your life and justification for assaulting people merely for the way they've voted.

Fox (ID: 0b5063)Country code: windows9x.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  313588

>>313413
Then what is leniency? This isn't a discussion about legality, once again.

>>313414
>Not giving people a seat at the table is not my flex, no.
The point you replied weird flex to was me saying that it's a good thing that tankies would lose out. You must have me confused with someone else, which isn't too difficult to imagine, given that you can just lump everyone who disagrees with you together as the Enemy of the People.

>This is your position regarding your socialist utopia, is it not?

No.

>I watched the video. very stylized. not much content. a couple of dubious accounts of things that may or may not have happened as stated. If a peaceful assembly turns into an effective riot, do you expect police to just leave them to riot? If so, on what grounds?

Whoa whoa whoa, the claim was that police were doing nothing. Why are you moving the goalposts?

!XSAILBoatg (ID: 5ff6ac)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  313622

File: 1563036036745.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>313588
>The point you replied weird flex to was me saying that it's a good thing that tankies would lose out.
It is odd that you want the people you are arguing in favor of to lose out, yes. You don't exactly seem like the Voltaire type, just sayin'.

>No.

Interesting.

>Whoa whoa whoa, the claim was that police were doing nothing. Why are you moving the goalposts?

Oh, is that why you posted the video? I wasn't sure.
Yes, you are correct, the police do, in some cases, "protect the far-right rallies from antifascists".
More accurately, they defend "people at rallies from political violence", but since only one particular group is openly clamoring for violence, well... that would determine who they're defending, now, wouldn't it?
And that is, in some cases. And in other cases, they fall back, stand by, and let things play out while they twiddle their thumbs until shit hits the fan, and then finally move in to disperse the crowds.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]