Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. eh it varies but the eyes are still way too far apart, even in yours
  2. All the women in Dr. Stone look like bug-eyed aliens. They're really off-putting, and I'm speaking as a One Piece fan. Like, it's almost one to one with this ancient image: I mean, plus some weird titty and spine anatomy, but that's to be expected at this point.
  3. Considering how far the false-equivalence extends on every other subject in existence, it wouldn't be much of a surprise. These are the same people who call public healthcare a totalitarian dictatorship, after all.
  4. I don't think it's wrong at all to prevent lootbox practices in games, many countries do it already and they haven't exactly collapsed. The thing people need to realize is that it's not going to hurt the business of any company worth protecting. Most predatory practices are kept up by game companies that already have fucktons of money and see this as a way to get more because they're greedy bastards. It's not going to bankrupt your small indie devs. At its least effective it would signal a move to more concrete microtransactions, just being able to buy a cosmetic rather than buy a chance to get one, and that's still a lot better.
  5. I can decide what I mean for myself, thanks, I don't need petulant children to do it for me. Even if you did, God thinks you're wrong. She thinks there's zero consequences for not believing in her. I know this because she told me in a dream once. How is that reason any less valid than your angry whining? How do you know the things you think you know, and if it just takes the blind dogma that you're peddling to get there, why are you pretending to ask for people's "reasons" for anything?
  6. I've always found debates over whether God exists to be kind of droll, personally. Because the thing is, it does not matter if God is real. The world is the same world with or without her, and even if you assert that she is responsible for nature, very little of human life is natural. There's no wage theft in a rain forest. Gorillas don't have a concept of gender identity. Every inequality, every means of oppression is a thing humans created, and it's a thing they can destroy. And if that's true, we don't need gods.
  7. I would say this kind of thought isn't even tied to religion on its own. Atheists and theists alike can avoid wrapping themselves up in a persecution complex and ignoring the suffering of the material world, and atheists and theists alike are susceptible to it. This breed of neoreaction is not based in christianity or islam or judaism or pastafarianism, it is a perversion not representative of any belief system save itself. It may have an easier time making inroads with one group versus another, but there is no belief system under which you can't rationalize shitty behavior. That doesn't mean they're all equal, just that the ideology you see from a lot of fashy grifters is not usually one of christianity or atheism itself, but a collection of beliefs resembling those things that have been bent and distorted to fit whatever narrative has been fed to them.
  8. With all due respect, I'm not sure I can agree with that. This sort of values-neutral approach just isn't effective. There's a reason this forum has a rule against the most overt hate speech, but that, technically, is still a "political position". Is it uncivil to ban them? Obviously not, but failing to extend this line of thinking to politely-worded hate isn't great. I mean, look at the situation we have here. Annie expresses distress over proposed legislation that would 100% harm not only trans people, but also potentially amount to the government molesting schoolgirls (forced DNA tests aren't good either). Not even equal-opportunity molestation, they only wanted to check girls. She also dunks on the republican party, because, y'know, they're the ones who want to legislate this. Maroko's response to this is to post not just dangerous, but obvious, long-debunked misinformation about trans people in sports, along with patronizing remarks about the struggles they do (and don't) go through, with not a thought paid to the overwhelming force of social and economic oppression that this minority faces and has continued to face for centuries. Remember, this is all to justify policy that may include a government checking children's genitals before it lets them play sports. Nevermind the addition of a meme literally laughing at trans suicides, in case you thought this was somehow out of genuine concern or something. When called out that yeah, people who are treated like shit tend to have mental health problems, suddenly we get whataboutism for Muslim genocides in Israel and China, with an extra dash of you aren't real and your problems don't exist (men commit more suicide than women. does that mean maleness is a mental illness?). Add some bonus antisemitism and a "whites under attack" meme, and I think this person might not be engaging in good faith. I get into my big dumb semantic argument with them, because hey, every second they waste on me is one they're not spending on their other bullshit, and we get an interesting problem, don't we? "We shouldn't need to jump into every one of these threads to say this", but what did you expect? This is where the "free marketplace of ideas" gets you. The most extreme reactionary ideas will prevail, because they're intently focused on driving others away. If a black person gets chased off by racists, it's not because they lost a debate over their right to exist, it's because they realized it was unfortuitous, and possibly unsafe, to remain. How is it civil to suggest that a person's identity is a lie, that they should or will kill themselves, or any number of the other rancid things going on here, and uncivil to suggest that someone who says that stuff can fuck off? That is not civility, it is expressing a preference for who an incivility should be directed towards.
  9. How is it hypocritical? Because I'm doing the thing you're doing? That sure does suck for anyone in a self-defense case. If you're acting like a fascist, I am not only justified, but have a moral imperative to not treat you with respect. I literally told you right at the fucking start that you were not entitled to honest discussion. What did you think this was? Couple things here: 1. I did not claim that you discriminate against people, and I didn't really say you lumped them together either. You probably do, but the fact that you haven't made it obvious is kind of the reason I'm calling it out. 2. You constantly demand proper arguments, I do not want you to have one. Again, you don't deserve that. If you wanted honest discussion, you would have entered with an honest post, or at any point apologized for the bigotry. 3. That wasn't a quote. To pretend otherwise would imply I thought you were just saying exactly what you mean. Do you think I believe everything you say? Uh, nowhere? You keep asking that, but I never claimed you directly stated that. If you did, that'd kind of ruin the point I'm trying to make, wouldn't it? You're the one diverting things. You're so interested in the minutia of semantic debates that you think people won't notice the hate behind your words. Though I guess after that last big post, that cat's kind of out of the bag, isn't it.
  10. Actually, you're the one who can't deal with other people's opinions. You're essentially claiming here that "tolerance" necessitates your intolerant opinion be tolerated, but you refuse to tolerate the opinion that your opinion shouldn't be tolerated. You're in a lose-lose situation here. Either all opinions are equal and you are the problem for not dealing with opinions that fall outside your terms, or opinions aren't equal and the trash you keep saying is worth tossing out anyway. I never said I was being honest with you. Why would you deserve that? No, you very clearly claimed I said you said all black people, which isn't what I said. And that's an important difference! If you think it isn't, it just further shows how uninterested you are in legitimate discussion. Bigots often feign innocence by claiming x person is "one of the good ones", or by saying "liberal culture is what MADE them such degenerates", because if you don't despise 100% of a group, somehow that means it isn't bigotry. Which is also wrong, of course. Not that you're pretending to not be a bigot at this point, just so we're clear.
  11. Actually, you haven't been honest. You've been sowing disorder this whole time. The fact that you treat your politics as an identity group that can be discriminated against like race or class is the first red flag. That doesn't say what you claim I said.
  12. This is the inherent folly of a lot of forums, and parts of liberal democracy itself. It treats order as an undisputed good, rather than something natural that springs from a just society. Order should only be maintained among scenarios where there isn't any real facts. Nobody can, for example, objectively prove whether the Star Wars prequels are good or bad. I happen to think they're not very good, but there's no fundamental law to the universe that proves me right. In that instance, if I were to argue that my opinion is fact and everyone else can eat shit, then a mod trying to maintain civility by making me stop is justified. But that just doesn't work for a lot of political discussion, because if your opinion is, say, "2 + 2 = 5", that's not an opinion. You're just wrong. If one person says climate change is real and another says it isn't, those aren't two people with opinions, the latter is just saying something false. In that regard, pushing to keep those people "civil" with each other is actively allowing one of them to spout misinformation, that could potentially be really dangerous if it got out of hand (which it has, but that's more due to oil tycoons funding entire misinfo campaigns than individuals). This kind of rhetoric, just going "hey hey kids, you know which race does the most crime?" and leaving the motivation obscured, no matter how obvious it is to people like you or me, gets perceived as not sowing disorder, because it's not explicitly saying the thing it obviously means. It's the southern strategy, the Lee Atwater defense, et cetera. The fact that those things are both dated by half a century goes to show how bad a time it's been trying to get people up to speed.
  13. Yes, you: the person who makes the argument that is stupid, not you, the person who is stupid and are making the argument because of such. Do you think I would be so audacious as to just claim all stupid people are like you? I've actually been very civil with you, you just don't like that I'm responding to the kind of arguments you're making rather than the arguments themselves. I am not here to convince you whether you're wrong or right, I made that clear from the start. What you have repeatedly shown is that you are uninterested in convincing people to listen to your bad takes, hoping that they will roll over and accept them by honoring you with a proper debate. I disagree with the idea that you should be taken seriously, and you refuse to respect that opinion while at the same time claim that your opinion should be respected. To make things simpler again, imagine a scenario in which saying "we should kill puppies" is to be debated but "we should stop that guy from advocating puppy murder" is anti-unity. I am going to call your arguments, and my impression of what sort of person makes them, bigoted. Why? Because that's my opinion, and if you really believed in free debate, you would try to convince me otherwise rather than shut me down or lie about my motivations for having that opinion. You've provided the examples yourself? I do not believe others on this forum are too stupid to see it. I mentioned before, convincing you is not my goal here. Also, I never said that. You claim I'm not giving real examples, but you had to make one up for what I've said.
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.