Didn't the forum have a load of red Xs in the coin section for banned users. I think that could be a better solution, as it shows the rank of the banned user.
I'm grateful to the members who care enough about the forum to create external sites and scripts. It frees Theymos to spend time on essential internal forum maintenance. It also allows him to read threads and posts to form an opinion of members.
Also it makes the site more secure. IMO this is paramount. Every new bell and whistle is a potential back door. In this specific case though I am sure it could easily and securely be done it is just a matter of other considerations. |
|
|
|
The bold is a misrepresentation of what is going on. Versed SJW's do not diagnose solutions to oppression, but listen to activists from oppressed group's and then use their voice of privilege as a megaphone for the voices of the oppressed. You are correct in calling the "we know better" attitude bigoted but you are incorrect in accusing me of doing that. My feminism comes from women, my positions on trans, comes from the trans movement itself, and so on. I'm not deciding what minority groups need. Funny, it seems like nearly every instance of these objections come from the mouths of SJWs. It is almost as if you think they don't even have enough agency of their own, they need you and your Marxist SJW filth to speak for them to be heard. You are so burried in your bullshit you don't see your "logic" is nothing but a constant contradiction of itself. Your claim that marxists are the real bigots is quite a claim considering it goes against all conventional wisdom and history. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/misogyny-white-supremacy-links-alt-right-antidefamation-league-report-incel-a8463611.htmlMisogyny is a key element of the so-called alt-right movement and there is a strong link between men’s rights activism and white supremacy, a report has found.
The Anti-Defamation League’s report argues hatred of women is a “dangerous and underestimated component of extremism”.
The research – titled When Women are the Enemy: The Intersection of Misogyny and White Supremacy – found the increasingly popular narrative of white men as victims of feminism has been a key driving force behind the misogyny which has become rife in far right movements. So just to be clear, its obvious to most people that misogyny and racism are connected, and they are rife in far right movements. You are claiming the opposite. In fact, the research also connects far right movements and misogyny("men's rights") to incel language as well as racist language. Now I will point out the incel language that was just posted here. Oh its obvious is it? Well you declare it so, so it must be! "research" that's FUCKING HILARIOUS don't even start pretending your horse shit is science again, remember how badly you got spanked last time you tried that? Critical Theory is not science. Now knowing your argument is weak, you resort to guilt by association bringing up incels, as if this has anything to do with what I said other than being a convenient red herring for you to avoid the criticisms I raised. Essentially your argument is "NO U!" What exactly are the costs of being treated as autonomous humans? Could it be that the costs and responsibilities are having sex with and children by men who aren't in the so called "20%" they desire? O. Should women not be free to have sex with whomever they are attracted to? (like men have always done) So women owe you sex? not just sex but they owe you a family. After a fair percentage of the male population is intimidated and pussified by this kind of bombardment, do all the women of the country get divided up by the remaining small group of manly men? The 20% tecshare speaks about are not the "manliest men". They aren't the toxic masculinity group. Those are the incels who are frustrated women won't give them the slave they are entitled to. From the article: Members of the incel movement believe men intrinsically deserve to have sex with women. They believe that women owe them sex and women are to blame if they are not having it. Society requires reproduction to function. This is a fact. Generally at least one act of intercourse is required for reproduction. Now if women don't want to reproduce, fine, good for them. However now that all the working age men that WOULD HAVE paid all the taxes for all their precious government sugar daddy entitlement programs simply don't exist because they chose not to reproduce, they don't then get to blame men for this and hold them at gun point to fund these programs. This has nothing to do with being owed sex, and this angle is nothing but a pathetic red herring for you as well as guilt by association. You are a bigot and all of this is just a lame attempt to distract from the fact that you functionally admitted to this. Did you ever stop to think that maybe some times society is more important than individual desires? Men know this innately as the disposable work mules of society. The point is there is a cost to this myopic behavior, and women SEVERELY overvalue their sexual marketplace value to the point that they dwindle away their most valuable years trading in who they can get in a vain attempt to find "Mr. Perfect". Then instead of finding Mr. Perfect, they themselves get traded in and they end up dissatisfied lonely middle age women with no family, while the ones they traded in are making their wives happy raising a family that serves as a support structure for her as well. You act like my objections can be nothing more than a demand for sex from some kind of pathetic sexless basement dweller because it serves you and your emotional manipulation tactics. Of course this falls apart upon the slightest application of logic, because the fact is this is making women miserable too, but they have been fooled into thinking this empowers them. It doesn't. It hurts us all. |
|
|
|
nah there are many ways to limit police. Filming them is the obvious one, in more or less everyone's power in the West. If it were ineffective, why do they react so negatively to it in so many cases?
But I do "tech"nically agree with tec... passing laws is a questionable way to fix problems. If someone does submit a bill, you can sometimes use it as an opportunity to generate debate. Or, in our case, remind people that there is a liberty struggle going on in new hampshire and that they are invited to move here and join it.
I agree there that bringing their actions out into the light is probably actually one of the most effective ways to limit their abuse. The problem is not everyone is as brave or well informed in their rights as you are. Also I imagine in your locality you have built up quite a reputation among most of the local PD forces, and they know better than to try to cut corners in your presence. In a lot of peoples cases it ends with a "that's illegal", a phone snatch, and a delete button, and maybe an arrest. Though, none of this is an excuse not to try... just be aware of what you may be in for. |
|
|
|
By your own logic then I would be justified in attacking you. You are willing to put me in danger, therefor you are a direct threat to me and force is justified.
Yes. Well, I am glad you can see the error in your logic -_- |
|
|
|
.....
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps).
Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs.
Personally I'm indebted to Chomsky, for giving me more understanding of liberal progressive philosophy than 999 of 1000 liberals have. This kind of understanding is only possible by reading the key documents, and understanding them. Listening to and/or believing or parroting the current popular politicians simply does not do it. Absolutely. He is a smart man, but his purpose ultimately is to sell a lie, and he even so much as admits it. When I read his work I was a true believer. OFC this was in the context of George Bush Jr., which I still stand by him being net negative and a tool of his father (as other POTUSs were). Luckily I had a strong background in psychology and philosophy so I started to see the contradictions and cognitive tricks played to sell these ideas. Along with a little more life experience, and a rapidly shifting Overton Window, suddenly my once liberal ideologies are now "far right" to some people. As you state though, that is one of the primary weaknesses of the left. They like to pretend to know about you and your ideas, but they hardly know their own. If you don't cultivate your mind, other people will, and it will not be for your own good. Collectivists love it though... for a while... |
|
|
|
I think it's a great campaign and great message  After a fair percentage of the male population is intimidated and pussified by this kind of bombardment, do all the women of the country get divided up by the remaining small group of manly men? Already happening. See The Pareto Principle. Monogamy and the family now effectively destroyed, 80% of the woman now chase after the top 20% of men. This is confirmed by dating site scrapes as well as numerous other studies of nature. This of course leave the other 80% of men without the primary motivations men have to build societies, like a family. This is why there is an epidemic of men happy earning just enough to survive and play some video games, and a bunch of women demanding government be their sugar daddy and make those men provide for them by force via taxation. In summary women want all of the benefits with none of the costs or responsibilities. |
|
|
|
|
You don't have to take responsibility for who you ban if no one knows...
|
|
|
|
With U.S. police killing about 1,000 people a year compared to German police who kill about four I can appreciate the spirit of this bill. https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB218/id/1833526 Some of the Stockholm syndromers online are upset that the bill comes from "liberty Republicans." In New Hampshire, Republicans are more libertarian than in most places and really do want to limit the govt. Want freedom? Move to NH http://FreeStateProject.orgI like the spirit and direction of the law, but at the end of the day the police still police themselves with little public oversight, and this law will be no different than the rest in the face of selective enforcement. I do think it is well written though and can not see any counterproductive side effects of having such a law. |
|
|
|
Danger is part of existence and you need to be able to fight for what you think is right. Even if that means putting yourself or others in danger.
By your own logic then I would be justified in attacking you. You are willing to put me in danger, therefor you are a direct threat to me and force is justified. You don't spend too much time thinking out your reasoning do you? |
|
|
|
I am not trying to be snarky but I honestly do not see where I contradicted myself and you haven't pointed out a single instance where I did. I also have no idea how anything I said could be seen as racist or bigoted. I'm not sure how you make a connection between identifying a group that has been disadvantaged as bigotry. Do you need facts to show how these groups are disadvantaged? Who are you guys even saying I a am bigot against? White men or minorities?
I don't doubt you believe I am a bigot but I would really like some insight to how you arrived at labeling me, a social justice warrior, as a bigot. That is the very thing I am devoted to working against.
Yes, it is quite clear there are a lot of things you don't understand. The bigotry is you not only assigning blame for this so called disadvantage, but you pushing the notion that without your help, or the help of people who share your ideology, they don't have the agency to take care of themselves. Frankly you are quite bigoted against pretty much all involved for different reasons. Marxism is by its nature a quite racist ideology, except it likes to pretend it is the savior of these groups while it simply uses them for cover against criticism while directing the majority of energy towards its own Marxist goals. Social justice warriors are some of the most racist people on the planet, and they justify the victimization of others by declaring victim hood status in the name of others, and claiming they are just righting a wrong. Remind you of anyone? There was another group who went around using their "victim status" supposedly perpetrated by another group as justification for violence against them... there are more than a few similarities... |
|
|
|
Where exactly did my statements contradict?
Its not low expectations to acknowledge who has the power in society and who doesn't. I didn't make it that way. I'm just diagnosing reality. These groups aren't naturally weak but their current position in society is weak because of historical oppression by white men. Don't shoot the messenger.
Acknowledging a victim class is not "designating" a group of people as victims as you seem to be insinuating as if we are the ones choosing for them to be victims. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with your statement if it used the word "identify" in place of "designate".
Nearly every breath you take contradicts the last. You listing off your assumptions to me does not make it any more true. You are a bigot, and you are simply using these groups as cover for criticism of YOUR OWN narcissistic behavior. I don't give a fuck about your comfort. In fact I hope I make you very uncomfortable, because your need for comfort is what lead you to believe and propagate all of these racist lies. Your ideology requires you victimize those whom you designate to be powerful in order to supposedly give equality to those you deem victims. Then there you stand in the middle like some kind of emotional loan shark ready to collect your narcissistic supply from the spoils of your plundering before you pass on the scraps to your token victim classes. You and your ideology are dangerous, vile and racist. You go ahead and desperately try to polish that turd some more though like I know you will... |
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, but I think you may be able to bring these people to court... The only way these types learn is if you dangle THEIR asses on the line. Happy dangling. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/vi/91-a/91-a-mrg.htmP.S. BADecker, my man Ridley here has a nice interview with Karl Lentz you might like on his channel... |
|
|
|
a lot all of your feedbacks
Also the risked amounts don't seem to be credible. Of course 50 risked BTC amount is not real but if you look at the 2013's post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=211858.msg2221664#msg2221664 : "If you want to make a rating stronger, increase "Risked BTC". 50 extra risked BTC is equivalent to an additional rating." I followed the rules and put 50 risked BTC to give a stronger rating. Other risked BTC amounts are 100% real! This is a perfect example of the arbitrary enforcement of rules around here. If there is not a clearly defined set of rules, then even people who want to cooperate have no idea what they can and can't be doing. If there is no rule of "law" so to speak, then those in charge systematically debase their own authority. For some people apparently chaos is opportunity though... |
|
|
|
Of course, it's necessary to have a Learned Scholar assist in interpreting the Chomsky model. Times have changed. For example, where Chomsky says this...
"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (I) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (~) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premises of discourse and interpretation, and the definition of what is newsworthy in the first place, and they explain the basis and operations of what amount to propaganda campaigns."
...we replace (5)b. with "communism and socialism" as a national religion and control mechanism. When Chomsky wrote that paragraph, he was looking at a specific geo-political matrix and from his personal bias.
I'm not certain that m0gliE understood this in the prior discussion, although it should be obvious.
A "propaganda model" is an abstraction. It exists, but differs in various differing cultures. Saudi Arabia obviously has one differing from the current US model, or the classical Communist Russian model, or the current Russian model, etc, etc.
Of course not. It is just demonstrative of the fact that most leftists don't even scratch the surface of understanding, even of the ideologies they support (or especially those perhaps). Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, but he likes to pretend this extends to every field. He has openly admitted to being a tool of the elite anyways... and I agree, he is a tool. This however does not invalidate everything he has ever said. Even if every word he ever wrote was verifiably wrong, it still offers insight into specific ideological constructs. |
|
|
|
|
In the US, we call it "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Put that phrase in Youtube for some excellent examples. Also yes, it is almost as if the entire media has been reworked to shit on anything Trump does 24/7/365 for the past 2 years. To some people, anything that is said by the glowing idiot box in the corner of their room is as good as the word of God.
|
|
|
|
It is unfortunate that we have to put so much emphasis on negative reporting. I prefer to highlight the positive behaviour of members. So far I have only made one negative report, but I will increase this in the future. As TMAN stated, this tagging should be dynamic. DT1s need to be infinitely just and infinitely merciful, so they can't condemn members to eternal damnation for venal sins. I seem to have so many things on the go at the moment, that I created an appeals ticket system on a spare domain - The Jet Cash appeal system. It could be worth making new members aware of the recommended methods available to remove red tags. Starting abusive threads in Meta may not be the optimum way, but it does seem to be the choice of some. Polite private messages would probably be more effective, but newbies can't avail themselves of this method if the DT has newbie PMs on ignore. And the problem is posting anywhere else is off topic, and the people who go around shotgunning negatives usually don't give a shit who it hurts, as a result the only real option is a public plea, and ofc these same people just LOVE piling on these threads too... |
|
|
|
My hope is that one day I piss you off enough that you open up a book to prove me wrong.
Impossible. Nobody can prove you wrong. On 3 or 4 years on the forum I've never seen you admit being wrong even once. So only two possibilities: -Either you're a motherfucking genius and we're all completely stupid to miss out how brillant your reasonnings are -Or you're a dumb asshole who doesn't discuss or debate but like to use logical fallacies and fluctuant values to avoid any factual debate Chose which is most likely. Well, there's no need to be trading insults on Chomsky. We can simply agree he is the intellectual modern voice of socialist/communist thought and practice. Yet another one of those creatures that love to live with the benefits of the USA, while criticizing it non stop. You do find liberals don't know who or what Chomsky is. But so? Neither have they read Adam Smith, or Ayn Rand. Liberals should learn the roots of their mistaken beliefs. But they should also pick up some Rush Limbaugh so as to be informed on ACTUAL modern conservative thought. Read Lenin, you'll immediately reject it as the most boring trash you ever picked up. Manufacturing Consent is okay for this subject which really is that of "manufacturing consent." Briefly Chomsky does not think things work "right" unless there is a ruling elite behind the scenes shaping and directing "progress." He considers the great mass of people "stupid." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rEIf I was back playing around in college it'd be great fun to do a class comparing and contrasting these two schools of thought. But that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TODAY, would it? And to understand why socialism has that totalitarian, narrow view, well you just have to go to the roots of that brain virus... I'm not a liberal. Not at all. I've read Adam Smith, it's the equivalent of Socrate's science books. Interesting considering the date it was written but obvious bullshit from beginning to the end. Never even heard of this "Rush Limbaugh" though. Will come back to you if Manufacturing consent was worth it. And no ones give a shit about Lenin... He was just a leader that's all. Marx is the important one, and Das Kapital is the best example of how brillant he was (and the proof that he was a horrible writter because the only thing I've read which is written worse than Das Kapital is probably Mein Kampf xD) Thanks for the advice on the book. Have ordered it and will update you once I've finished it. Or option 3, you are exceptionally ignorant. You will notice not everyone debates with me. I am sure a lot of people disagree with me. The difference between you and them is they will admit their own ignorance and not pretend to know more, even if they don't like what I have to say. Also I usually don't bother taking up debates about subjects I know nothing about, so I could see how you would think I am a supergenius as a result  For you though, in your mind the fact that you disagree is equivalent to knowing what you are talking about, and should be given equal measure, just because you suck up air or something. |
|
|
|
"I said it and I'll say it again, you want no illegal immegration there are only two solutions:
-Shoot anyone trying to pass
-Accept everyone trying to pass"
Hmmm looks different than "inefficient" to me. Looks exactly like that false choice fallacy I mentioned where you claim it either works or it doesn't.
If you had come to the adult table as an adult we wouldn't be having this particular conversation. Snowflake, that's... original. You ALMOST had a thought of your own for a moment there. It almost made sense too! You were so close! Keep trying.
That was a summary of a previous post. Hence less complete because an answer to someone who was supposed to have read the whole thought. The important part of the reasonning is that I say the two extremes solutions should be most considered because most efficient. Again read my whole posts don't just cherry pick what you need for your argument. Can't say any better: read. If you can't, learn to. Oh, good thing I have you to tell me what the IMPORTANT part of the reasoning is. I don't know if I could have figured that out without you dictating to me which logic is a valid consideration or not. Read, that's... funny, coming from you. Let me know when you get done with Manufacturing Consent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
