# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Election 2016

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

3239 posts

- Page 97 of 130
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- …
- 130
- Next

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:51 am

> AndreiChekov wrote:DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT I CAN'T EVEN DO THE BASIC AMOUNT OF EFFORT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT MY OPPONENTS CRITICISMS ARE DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP

Not giving a fuck if people call you racist is a thing you do only if you are racist.
Hating filthy brown people from other countries because of their "religion" and their "criminality" is totally a great story to tell about how you aren't racist, but it doesn't comport with reality, where Trump knows that brown people born in Indiana are filthy brown people illegals in SPIRIT and so still evil, or how filthy brown people that vote against him are illegals, or how filthy brown people at his rallies are paid protesters (oh wait black people aren't Muslim or illegal immigrants I mean.... uh.... they illegally immigrated from KENYA).
The idea that no one can see past the transparently thin dog whistles of a man who says that Mexican immigrants are rapists, Muslims are all terrorists, and African Americans are all inner city thugs, because he's giving transparently flimsy justifications for his hatred that are sometimes explicit dog whistles invented by racists, while he gets his news from fucking Stormfront is pathetic.
If you have a factually incorrect reason for hating every brown person you see, and you invent new ones whenever you see new brown people, and you use brownness as a proxy for figuring out if someone falls into the "subsets" that you hate, and then you randomly run anti-semitic ads a couple days before the election, at some point people get to acknowledge that you are probably lying about your transparently paper thin dog whistle reasons for hating each brown person, and get to file it under "Trump hates people based on race."

> AndreiChekov wrote:Modern economies are an idea that has failed us. I'm up for trying something that worked before. I mean, it worked when jefferson did it.

Modern economics has correctly predicted that every dumb mistake made by every dumb republican wouldn't work in advance, and then correctly predicted moderate improvement under democrats who don't fuck things up further, but can't actually improve things because republicans continue to fuck things up.
But sure, I'm sure this will be the one true time that doing something actual experts tell you is dumb and a stupid republicans tell you is awesome will totally work out.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

phlapjackage
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 649
  Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

###

- Quote

Post by phlapjackage » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:42 am

> AndreiChekov wrote:This just helps to prove my point. I haven't actually said anything about my personal political stance.

You never had to explicitly say anything about your political stance, it's written into almost every single sentence you wrote.
Here, let me pick one:
"Conservative leaders have been looking to the left to see if things that they say are okay for too long."
How about another?
"I know most of you think its the "woman's body and therefore her choice" but it is simply a matter of who you think needs to be protected more. "
And another?
"Apply and get your papers like I did you fucks. "
This is really easy. Your whole post is dripping with it. It took a matter of seconds to realize what your political stance was. You must realize literally almost every single line of your post is right-wing screed ?

> AndreiChekov wrote:but because I could be a Trump supporter my post is dumb.

Noone here accused your post of being dumb because you're a Trump supporter, they attacked your actual post. It's just unfortunate that Trump supporters tend to say dumb things, so the correlation is really high...
Last edited by phlapjackage on Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
MGuy: The point is to normalize 'my' point of view. How the fuck do you think civil rights occurred? You think things got this way because people sat down and fucking waited for public opinion to change?
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:11 am

> AndreiChekhov wrote:Having only read bits and pieces of this entire thread, (it is really big), I find the aversion to Trump hilarious. I honestly can't understand why you all don't get why people like him.

I knew I was going to get a factually challenged gish gallop of stupid conservative talking points as soon as I saw this. Of course, no one is confused as to why Trump has supporters. He's a racist who suggests simple and violent solutions to complex problems, obviously there will be people who go for that in a big way.
But the underlying premise that "people like Trump" is laughably wrong. Trump's unfavorability rating is the highest of any national candidate for President in the history of the republic. People don't like Trump. There has never been a major party candidate, there has never been an American person that is less liked. Even actual terrorists like Timothy McVeigh never managed the unfavorability ratings of Trump, because they never got six in ten Americans to know who they were.
Now in this current hyperparisan era where the Republicans are literally chanting that they are going to jail their opponents for entirely imaginary crimes at their convention and the conservatives have given up even the pretext that they should conduct the regular tasks of government, we're going to see candidates with very high unfavorability ratings on both sides for the foreseeable future. Each Democratic candidate will be villified in the conservative information bubble and some non-zero number of liberals will also disagree with them about some policy matter or another or just not like the way they talk or some fucking thing. Meanwhile on the Republican side you can't get the nomination without denying climate and evolutionary science and shouting about how you want to jail your political opponents and generally act like a South American dictator - and while you're busy scaring the pants off every sane person you also won't win the approval of every conservative because maybe you're the wrong flavor of Christian or want to bomb the wrong countries or whatever the fuck.
But while the simple structure of the modern hyperpartisan elections and the vast policy gulf between the two parties ensures that we might not see another presidential candidate with an unfavorable rating under 50% in our lifetimes, Donald Trump stands out even in that context. Populations are higher than they were in the 1940s, Donald Trump likely is the most hated man in the history of the world. The fact that you frame your avalanche of bullshit in the context of claiming that you know the sekrit raisins people like him is fucking pathetic.
-Username17
Top

phlapjackage
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 649
  Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:29 am

###

- Quote

Post by phlapjackage » Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:48 am

Had a thought while reading all of this - the idea of "just speaking your mind" and "calling it like it is" has seemed to become a huge talking point for the right-wing. From Hannity to OReilly to now Trump. I guess it's ok for political commentators to speak their mind or whatever, but when did it become desirable for a politician to do this? Isn't that a huge part of a politicians reason for existance, like, to actually be diplomatic?
Koumei: and if I wanted that, I'd take some mescaline and run into the park after watching a documentary about wasps.
PhoneLobster: DM : Mr Monkey doesn't like it. Eldritch : Mr Monkey can do what he is god damn told.
MGuy: The point is to normalize 'my' point of view. How the fuck do you think civil rights occurred? You think things got this way because people sat down and fucking waited for public opinion to change?
Top

maglag
  Duke
  Posts: 1912
  Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

###

- Quote

Post by maglag » Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:10 am

> FrankTrollman wrote:want to bomb the wrong countries or whatever the fuck.

Well, at least you admit that it's no longer a question if the USA is gonna bomb countries, is just a question of which countries(plural) they're gonna bomb next. Progress!

> FrankTrollman wrote: But while the simple structure of the modern hyperpartisan elections and the vast policy gulf between the two parties ensures that we might not see another presidential candidate with an unfavorable rating under 50% in our lifetimes, Donald Trump stands out even in that context. Populations are higher than they were in the 1940s, Donald Trump likely is the most hated man in the history of the world.

I'll believe that when I see the comics and movies with Steve Rogers and Clark Kent teaming up against Trump wielding the spear of Longinus, plus Trumpist zombie armies, and Japan designing not-Trumpist mechas and not-trumpists RPG villain factions.
Actually plenty of good material there. The next Gundam season could be about fighting a space colony empire that's been cheating and bankrumpting other space colonies until they literally can't afford air and is now building a giant space wall while kicking out into the void any refugees seeking asylum.

> FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.

Top

DSMatticus
  King
  Posts: 5271
  Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

###

- Quote

Post by DSMatticus » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:07 am

> maglag wrote:Well, at least you admit that it's no longer a question if the USA is gonna bomb countries, is just a question of which countries(plural) they're gonna bomb next. Progress!

If you were anywhere near as literate as you were bitter you... probably still wouldn't be able to land any of these jabs, to be honest. But hey, everyone's gotta start somewhere, and for you somewhere is apparently learning how to read.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:25 am

Maglag, could you please refrain from being a jackass for a while? I know you love to quote sentence fragments and try to claim they mean something different from what they actually meant like a common O'Keefe, but you're still a jackass and should stop. The big rift amongst the right wing about who they are supposed to be threatening to bomb is big and real. There's the conservatives who want to pick a fight with Russia in the Ukraine because expanding NATO makes America "strong," and there are conservatives who want to make common cause with Putin against NATO because Putin is an ethnonationalist and obviously white and supports the international ethnonationalist movement through useful idiots like Le Pen and Farage.
This fundamental divide between the Neo-Cons who think the US should be the head of an Americanizing empire through NATO and the Alt-Right who think the US should be first among equals in an informal Axis of isolationist ethnonationalist states of and for white people runs very deep and it's difficult for me to imagine a potential leader of the Republican party having an above-water approval rating because of it. You spouting flippant bullshit about how the US has military entanglements sometimes is not helpful or insightful and you should shut the fuck up now.

> phlapjackage wrote:Had a thought while reading all of this - the idea of "just speaking your mind" and "calling it like it is" has seemed to become a huge talking point for the right-wing. From Hannity to OReilly to now Trump. I guess it's ok for political commentators to speak their mind or whatever, but when did it become desirable for a politician to do this? Isn't that a huge part of a politicians reason for existance, like, to actually be diplomatic?

The entire idea that saying racist things is something that needs to be defended is obviously sort of weird. You actually do have the right to say horrible bigoted things, whenever you want. The issue is that more and more old entitled white people are noticing that other people get upset with them when they do it. They aren't arguing for the freedom to say awful things, they are fighting for the power imbalance that prevents other people from registering their displeasure.
It's not that their right to call black people nasty names is under attack. You can still call someone a coon or a spear chucker or whatever whenever you want. But if you did that in 1972, the black person would have to take it and wait to vent in private. But now they can say "Dude, fuck you old man!" right back - and it's more than likely that other white people in the area will take the black person's side. Trump still has the wealth and power as an individual that he can say horribly racist things and people won't get in his face. There are a lot of white men who want that.
This election really makes me ashamed to be a white man. I desperately don't want to be in the same demographic as these chucklefucks.
-Username17
Top

Mechalich
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 696
  Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:16 am

###

- Quote

Post by Mechalich » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:29 am

> phlapjackage wrote:Had a thought while reading all of this - the idea of "just speaking your mind" and "calling it like it is" has seemed to become a huge talking point for the right-wing. From Hannity to OReilly to now Trump. I guess it's ok for political commentators to speak their mind or whatever, but when did it become desirable for a politician to do this? Isn't that a huge part of a politicians reason for existance, like, to actually be diplomatic?

Normally, yes, and its a case of how the insane US right wing can't even manage to argue about an issue that is favorable to them in a non-stupid way. There has been overreach by the social justice left in the present moment - mostly in academia and certain portions of the internet (Twitter) and this has combined with the extremely rapid pace of social change to the point that people who haven't evolved with changing social mores feel like they've been unfairly labelled as 'bad people' or 'evil' or 'racist' for simply continuing to believe things that were perfectly acceptable as recently as ten years ago.
The modern social justice left has not been very good at persuasion and has been rather harsh to people who have not been persuaded about things and has been too quick to throw out the 'racist' label of late, and this has produced a lot of anger, which of course Donald Trump and his ilk are channeling. However, it is very important to note that Trumpism might offer an outlet for anger, but it offers no solutions and in fact by increasing division only makes the problem worse. Likewise Trump's descent into overly misogynistic, prejudicial, and racist rhetoric only reaffirm the most hard line leftist positions and broaden the divide further and further.
Immigration's an obvious case. By nominating Trump and allowing him to go full-on nativist and obliterate the line between criticism of illegal immigration and the US immigration system and anti-Mexican prejudice Hillary and Bernie both moved substantially leftward on the issue.
Top

maglag
  Duke
  Posts: 1912
  Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:17 am

###

- Quote

Post by maglag » Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:46 am

> FrankTrollman wrote:Maglag, could you please refrain from being a jackass for a while? I know you love to quote sentence fragments and try to claim they mean something different from what they actually meant like a common O'Keefe, but you're still a jackass and should stop. The big rift amongst the right wing about who they are supposed to be threatening to bomb is big and real. There's the conservatives who want to pick a fight with Russia in the Ukraine because expanding NATO makes America "strong," and there are conservatives who want to make common cause with Putin against NATO because Putin is an ethnonationalist and obviously white and supports the international ethnonationalist movement through useful idiots like Le Pen and Farage.
> This fundamental divide between the Neo-Cons who think the US should be the head of an Americanizing empire through NATO and the Alt-Right who think the US should be first among equals in an informal Axis of isolationist ethnonationalist states of and for white people runs very deep and it's difficult for me to imagine a potential leader of the Republican party having an above-water approval rating because of it. You spouting flippant bullshit about how the US has military entanglements sometimes is not helpful or insightful and you should shut the fuck up now.

We came, we saw, he died.
That was Hillary Clinton talking. She's the not-Trump candidate. She's the democratic champion for this election. And she still treats bombing other countries and leaving them as chaotic wastelands with feuding warlords as just another day in their glorious office.
But go ahead, call me more names if it makes you feel better and ignore the bit where the USA has the more weapons factories in the world by far, and if a presidential candidate fails to offer an use for that, they're simply not gonna go very far. Who gets bombed is completely secondary as long as somebody is buying the bombs and bombers.

> FrankTrollman wrote:

> > phlapjackage wrote:Had a thought while reading all of this - the idea of "just speaking your mind" and "calling it like it is" has seemed to become a huge talking point for the right-wing. From Hannity to OReilly to now Trump. I guess it's ok for political commentators to speak their mind or whatever, but when did it become desirable for a politician to do this? Isn't that a huge part of a politicians reason for existance, like, to actually be diplomatic?

> The entire idea that saying racist things is something that needs to be defended is obviously sort of weird. You actually do have the right to say horrible bigoted things, whenever you want. The issue is that more and more old entitled white people are noticing that other people get upset with them when they do it. They aren't arguing for the freedom to say awful things, they are fighting for the power imbalance that prevents other people from registering their displeasure.
> It's not that their right to call black people nasty names is under attack. You can still call someone a coon or a spear chucker or whatever whenever you want. But if you did that in 1972, the black person would have to take it and wait to vent in private.

Plenty of black people didn't just take it in private in 1972. There were enough around to form their own party six years before actually.
When people tell you to shut up, sometimes you should keep talking. Issues that are covered up cannot be solved if people just silence them.
Last edited by maglag on Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

> FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.

Top

DSMatticus
  King
  Posts: 5271
  Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

###

- Quote

Post by DSMatticus » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:35 pm

If you literally cut sentences in half in order to hide the subject of those sentences and imply they say something else entirely, yes, we will call you names. Specifically, we will call you names like lying jackass. You'll have earned it, by virtue of being a lying jackass. If being called a lying jackass about all the lying jackassery you get up to turns you into a whiny bitch, I'm gonna say that's one problem you're going to have to work out on your own. I could offer some helpful pointers, if you want - less lying jackassery, for starters. Give it a shot, see how it works out. It's not a big commitment or anything; if it turns out you prefer things the old way we'll all be right here to remind you what a worthless shithead you are.
Also, you clearly possess absolute fuck all in the way of knowledge of the Libyan crisis or the Arab Spring in general. I suspect you have no actual fucking idea why or how the civil war in Libya started, and if pressed to answer on the spot would shrug and mumble something about bombs and arming rebel groups and maybe something about twitter - twitter was in the news for awhile when all this was happening right?
So let's play a little game: what do you think the UN and NATO should have done (if anything), and what do you think would have happened as a result? You seem to think something went wrong, so clearly you must have some not-entirely-stupid idea of what 'right' would have looked like.
Top

Mask_De_H
  Duke
  Posts: 1995
  Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Mask_De_H » Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:40 pm

And it's not like we can't see the original post simply by scrolling up , so I don't see the point. Is it proving your point by any means necessary, or a desperate need to notch the proverbial belt against the big names in this thread, or just run of the mill "someone called me wrong on the Internet" shit?
Also, maglag, you do realize the Black Panthers were formed as a method of protection as well as political activism, right? Because if a black person shouted down a racist old white man in 1972, they would most likely be beaten, imprisoned or killed. And you do realize these meetings had to be done in private in clandestine fashion at times because the Black Panthers were considered domestic terrorists, right?
Last edited by Mask_De_H on Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.

> K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.

> Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.

> Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.

Top

Ancient History
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 12708
  Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:57 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Ancient History » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:18 pm

I've been going through this thread from the beginning, and I would like to say that this entire election has been bullshit.
Deep Cuts In A Lovecraftian Vein
Top

Hiram McDaniels
  Knight
  Posts: 393
  Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:54 am

###

- Quote

Post by Hiram McDaniels » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:58 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote: The entire idea that saying racist things is something that needs to be defended is obviously sort of weird. You actually do have the right to say horrible bigoted things, whenever you want. The issue is that more and more old entitled white people are noticing that other people get upset with them when they do it. They aren't arguing for the freedom to say awful things, they are fighting for the power imbalance that prevents other people from registering their displeasure.
> It's not that their right to call black people nasty names is under attack. You can still call someone a coon or a spear chucker or whatever whenever you want. But if you did that in 1972, the black person would have to take it and wait to vent in private. But now they can say "Dude, fuck you old man!" right back - and it's more than likely that other white people in the area will take the black person's side. Trump still has the wealth and power as an individual that he can say horribly racist things and people won't get in his face. There are a lot of white men who want that.
> This election really makes me ashamed to be a white man. I desperately don't want to be in the same demographic as these chucklefucks.
> -Username17

This.
I get into this argument with alt-right dick warts all goddamn the time. They argue that they're getting censored when people tell them that they are racist fucks and they get banned from some forum or social media outlet or another.
Well no you piece of subhuman garbage (not YOU you, the royal "you") you aren't being censored. Censorship is when the government throws you in prison for saying shit. When you say shit that people don't like and they say they don't like it, that is free speech. When a privately owned platform bans you, they are exercising their right not to let you shit in their livingroom. People have the right to speak their mind whenever they want. What they don't have is the right to a platform or freedom from dissent. These people don't want freedom...they already have that in abundance. They want preference.
The most dangerous game is man. The most entertaining game is Broadway Puppy Ball. The most weird game is Esoteric Bear.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:25 pm

To be fair, there is a real problem where random corporations theoretically have the ability to silence opinions they don't agree with because being able to for example, make youtube vidoes or not make youtube videos, or even worse, being able to use the internet or not use the internet (remember, Verizon and Comcast are actually private companies) is so vast that it's the difference between being able to express your opinion or not.
It's why equal time laws exist. And there is a reason to care about responsible usage of censorship by social media platforms, IE, banning someone for harassment is very very very different from banning someone for expressing an opinion you don't like, and I'm not going to support that second one in most cases on big platforms especially.
That being said, the right wing doesn't understand or care about this problem, because they only actually care about the ability to harass people, and to silence criticism of their shitty opinions because it hurts their feelings.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Maxus
  Overlord
  Posts: 7645
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Maxus » Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:59 pm

Wait. Wait. Am I actually respecting Glenn Beck for once?
Yep. I think I feel a smidgeon of respect for him now
Last edited by Maxus on Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Top

Occluded Sun
  Duke
  Posts: 1044
  Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 6:15 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Occluded Sun » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:36 pm

> Ancient History wrote:I've been going through this thread from the beginning, and I would like to say that this entire election has been bullshit.

My respect for AH just keeps going up. I have no idea if our specific political positions agree, but he keeps saying things I can get behind.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Nov 07, 2016 6:41 pm

> Occluded Sun wrote:

> > Ancient History wrote:I've been going through this thread from the beginning, and I would like to say that this entire election has been bullshit.

> My respect for AH just keeps going up. I have no idea if our specific political positions agree, but he keeps saying things I can get behind.

He's not a racist who wants to go back to enslaving blacks, so you probably won't agree on much.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

AndreiChekov
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 523
  Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:54 pm
  Location: an AA meeting. Or Caemlyn.

###

- Quote

Post by AndreiChekov » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:33 pm

This whole thing is still ridiculous.
You are calling people racist for stating facts. Know what Trump said about black people? He said that their situation sucks. More crime, orphans and single mothers. How is that racist? Its not racist to point things out.
Being called racist because I see problems and not everyone involved is white is what I am pissed about.
I don't like Putin because he is white, I like him because he is a non-aggressive nationalist.
As far as economics goes, DSMatticus completely missed the point of what I was saying. Tariffs on finished products do help the economy, tariffs on raw materials don't.
Also, I'm obviously a racist, and support slavery./sarcasm
My dislike for Islam comes from the fact that when they end up in Europe crime rates go up. I know you like to pretend that lightning is more dangerous, but that is fucking retarded. Muslims have been trying to conquer the world for 1400 years, and they haven't stopped yet.
As for abortion, well I also support the death penalty for murder, and if a woman dies while trying to murder her child she deserves it.
Peace favour your sword.
I only play 3.x
Top

Leress
  Prince
  Posts: 2767
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Leress » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:46 pm

> AndreiChekov wrote:
> As far as economics goes, DSMatticus completely missed the point of what I was saying. Tariffs on finished products do help the economy, tariffs on raw materials don't.

You were clear as mud about what that meant.

> As for abortion, well I also support the death penalty for murder, and if a woman dies while trying to murder her child she deserves it.

So you were saying your views when you were giving your list.
I will go into your points more in depth later.

> You are calling people racist for stating facts. Know what Trump said about black people? He said that their situation sucks. More crime, orphans and single mothers. How is that racist? Its not racist to point things out.

Yet the question of why that is has not come up.
Last edited by Leress on Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!

> Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!

> Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.

> I want him to tongue-punch my box.

]

> The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.

Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:57 pm

> AndreiChekov wrote:Also, I'm obviously a racist, and support slavery./sarcasm

Learn to fucking read you shitstain idiot.

> AndreiChekov wrote:I don't like Putin because he is white, I like him because he is a non-aggressive nationalist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

> AndreiChekov wrote:As far as economics goes, DSMatticus completely missed the point of what I was saying. Tariffs on finished products do help the economy, tariffs on raw materials don't.

Yes, because no one has ever retaliated with tariffs ever......
Look you idiot, Tariffs on finished products don't actually help the economy either unless they are enough to make importing prohibitive. So if China makes cellphones for half the price of the US, then a 15% tariff makes all the poor people poorer because their cell phones are more expensive, and creates zero fucking jobs making phones.

> AndreiChekov wrote:You are calling people racist for stating facts. Know what Trump said about black people? He said that their situation sucks. More crime, orphans and single mothers. How is that racist? Its not racist to point things out.

Except you know: 1) All those facts are wrong. 2) It's racist both to portray the situation of blacks as worse than it is, and racist to portray it as being that way because of the way black people are. 3) It's racist because it is motivated by animus against blacks. 4) It's racist because his solutions are "Destroy all programs that work to reform poor communities or discourage racial prejudice and hope all the black people die and the problem goes away." 5) It's racist because everything he says is a transparent dog whistle that has been used by white nationalists to blame all problems on black people for years, and people who aren't illiterate idiots like you can see that. 6) It's racist because everything he has ever said or done proves he is racist, like when he called for the innocent Central Park Five to be killed a few months ago, knowing they were innocent, or when he discriminated against blacks in his New York real estate, or when he said "Laziness is a trait in blacks. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day" while saying that he can't possibly decry a white racist KKK member because he doesn't know enough with just that information. Or that time he just assumed the black guy trying to hand him a note was a protester, even though he was actually a trump supporter.
But yeah, he's just pointing out the real problems that black people are inherently lazy, most of them live in poverty and they have a 58% youth unemployment rate while blaming police brutality on black victims. Even though none of that is true, it would be wrong to call any of that racism.......
No you shit, he's a racist shitstain, and you claiming he isn't is either evidence of profound stupidity and ignorance, or racism. I mean, probably the former, since you think Putin is not aggressive and you can't fucking read, but still.
Last edited by Kaelik on Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:12 pm

> Andrei wrote:I don't like Putin because he is white, I like him because he is a non-aggressive nationalist.

He's so non-aggressive that he flies nuclear bombers into British airspace almost every month to prove how nice a guy he is. I don't know what definition you could use for "non-aggressive" that somehow includes flying armed nuclear weapons into the airspace of foriegn countries in order to intimidate them, but surely it can't include annexing lands belonging to other countries by force or bombing cities in foreign countries, right? It just fucking can't.
Putin is the opposite of a non-aggressive anything. He's the dictator of a militarily expansionist empire. There exist actual non-aggressive ethno-nationalists you could stroke your dick to - those assholes in Holland for example. But Putin is very obviously aggressive and an aggressor. Expanding the Russian Federation and using force to do it is like his entire shtick.
I know literally everything you say is stupid and wrong, but could you please stake out various hills to die on that aren't ridiculous and inane?
-Username17
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Kaelik » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:27 pm

Guess which major political party was bragging about this?
"North Carolina Obama Coalition Crumbling
African American Early Voting is down 8.5% from this time in 2012.
Caucasian voters early voting is up 22.5% from this time in 2012.
As a share of Early Voters, African Americans are down 6.0%, (2012: 28.9%, 2016: 22.9%) and Caucasians are up 4.2%, (2012: 65.8%, 2016: 70.0%)."
Yep, not racist at all, cheering at success of racially discriminatory voting changes implemented after Shelby totally not evidence of racism.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Prak
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 17329
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Prak » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:32 pm

> Maxus wrote:Wait. Wait. Am I actually respecting Glenn Beck for once?
> Yep. I think I feel a smidgeon of respect for him now

Keep an eye on NPR's website for their interview with him from yesterday where he walked out because he doesn't understand actual journalism*.. That should help.
*He apparently doesn't understand that maybe the liberal audience of NPR hasn't heard fuck or all about him since he was on Fox News and this was his opportunity to tell us about how he's changed.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.

> Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.

> FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
> You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.

Top

Mask_De_H
  Duke
  Posts: 1995
  Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:17 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Mask_De_H » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:41 pm

Muslims trying to conquer the world is propaganda fed by the far, far right; funnily enough both brown (Wahhabist militants) and white (honestly pick a member of the Western right at random at this point).
I pray that you are merely ignorant instead of toxic, so instead of yelling at you (Frank and Kaelik are better at that), I want to walk you through a hypothetical.
Think about it like this: whatever race/creed you are, AndreiChekov, imagine I said your kind were trying to conquer the world and rape our women. You, personally, probably couldn't find your own asshole with two hands and a map, but I'm sure your people have done something beyond the pale. Now I'm going to blame you and people like you for it, even if you happen to wear a slightly different hat that you can get killed for by your own "kind".
Unfair, isn't it?
You've gotten this upset when merely called out for being an ignorant shithead on the Internet; imagine how upsetting it would be if not just the Den, but a large subset of people thought that you and everyone like you were unruly, unkempt, violent, inhuman savages. Now imagine that, whether implicitly or explicitly, it was told that beating the shit out of you was not only accepted, but desired. If you fight back, you get beat harder or imprisoned or killed. If you die, people will say the world has been made a better place. If you are imprisoned, depending upon how we feel about your people, you will be tortured, put to slave labor, beat (possibly to death) and/or spend the rest of your natural life marked as an undesirable. If you make the news, you will be demonized or used as a statistic. If you don't, nobody will give a shit about you and the people who put you down or put you away will probably mock your plight. If you're lucky, you might be alive to hear it!
Think about this. Think as hard as you possibly fucking can on it. Reflect upon it, then your previous words.

> FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.

> K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.

> Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.

> Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.

Top

Longes
  Prince
  Posts: 2867
  Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:02 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Longes » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:50 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote:annexing lands belonging to other countries by force

I take it you are choosing to ignore the referendum and the opinion of crimeans on that referendum?

> Crimean public opinion wrote: A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014. It polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, whereas 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, whereas 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% said that they did not know.
> A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation. Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.

> FrankTrollman wrote:bombing cities in foreign countries

By request of said foreign country. Clearly that makes Russia an evil aggressor.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

3239 posts

- Page 97 of 130
  - Jump to page:
- Previous
- 1
- …
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- …
- 130
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS