• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Politics, The Friendship Breaking Topic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Opening Post
  • Threadmarks
    • Biigoh

    Biigoh

    Primordial Tanuki
    Moderator
    Joined
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages
    28,700
    Likes received
    115,702
    So... due to the issues in the original thread [See Here], the staff of Questionable Questing have decided to move it from Rants.

    What does this mean?

    It means that all rules are in full effect [See here for Rules]. Please familiarize yourselves with the rules before posting in the thread.

    Here are the rules in brief.
    1: Play nice with the other members on the forums.
    2: Keep NSFW material in the NSFW section.
    3: Do not post illegal content.
    4: No duplicate accounts.
    5: Try to stay relatively on-topic.
    6: Accounts are not deleted.
    7: Thread Necromancy is (very) conditionally permitted.

    Additionally... there will be one additional rule for this thread.
    - Be ready to cite your source, admit that your evidence is anecdotal, or concede the debate.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • And to think I was just whining on twitter last night that I really missed the days when politics occupied only 5% of my time. Been thinking of taking a step back from the original politics thread for a while now.

    This might work even better, I literally never visit the general forums of this website. You guys all have fun and hopefully any posts I make in this thread will be few and far inbetween.
     
    TanaNari said:
    What do you want to bet it's another publicity stunt/false flag? Like this guy.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/s...-crime-to-get-people-to-pay-attention-to-him/

    Either way, it would be nice if the popo investigates and arrests the asshole who did it. But when you see hate speech, be sure you know who's responsible before you pick a side to condemn.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It sure would be nice if the website actually had a link to the police report, or the president of the college's statement about the hoax hate crime. I actually Googled the article and after four pages of searching all I could find were reports from sketchy websites. No police report, no comment from the people involved, just Fringe sites. Your article is no more reliable than that tweet. And I am much more willing to believe the Tweet than them.
     
    Last edited:
    tertius, you have to remember that a lot of people who voted for him thought he was lying and wouldn't actually do anything, which made them think he was a safe choice.
     
    Bailey Matutine said:
    tertius, you have to remember that a lot of people who voted for him thought he was lying and wouldn't actually do anything, which made them think he was a safe choice.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Isn't it wonderful that American Politics is so full of lying sacks of shit that the moment an honest man comes along, nobody has any fucking clue what to do?
     
    TanaNari said:
    http://www.mystateline.com/news/beloit-police-speak-on-hate-crime-hoax/649140198

    First link on the page (well, in the article, which I suspect you didn't bother to read), chief. Goes to a police interview- which I consider good enough for these purposes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    First, lay off the condescension. Second, it's a start, but I am trying to find the full interview. The article you link only has part of the interview overlaid during the news report. Believe me, I have seen enough news to know how easy it is to cut and paste certain remarks to make it seem like someone said the opposite of what they actually said. I'm not saying that you are lying, just that I want some additional confirmation.
     
    Yeah, the video in the breitbart article isn't playing for me. Anybody else have problems seeing it?
     
    I've had enough fake news from Breitbart that I automatically dismiss anything they say without clicking on the link. If they want my trust, they need to earn it back. Is that unfair? I certainly don't think so. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Maybe they're telling the truth this time, but I've been burned so much in the past I automatically dismiss them. To me, some yahoo on Twitter is just as reliable as Breitbart.

    Something I noticed that no one has addressed yet is that in the same article that calls how a guy for making a hoax threat, it was in response to a real threat, because he wanted as much attention as the guy who got the actual threat. There was a real hate crime there.
     
    Ragnarok said:
    Maybe they're telling the truth this time, but I've been burned so much in the past I automatically dismiss them.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Now to be fair, Breitbart falls under my "auto bullshit detector" as well, but then so does CNN- and I'll at least click their article and read it, if someone's using it as a source. And if it just so happens to have a video that comes directly from the proverbial horse's mouth, then at the very least the video is probably trustworthy.

    I don't dismiss the information without even seeing what it is first, the way you seem to be doing.
     
    Btw, Tom Brady 2017 Salt Mining Operation peaked on Trayvon Martin's birthday.

    Rumors of riots in Atlanta.

    And I almost wonder how much effect I personally had getting this thread created.
     
    StriderAnarchy99 said:
    Yeah, the video in the breitbart article isn't playing for me. Anybody else have problems seeing it?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    http://calchannel.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=4107#.WJUuibp1PqY.email
    http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2017/02/01/54771/lawmakers-debate-making-california-a-sanctuary-sta/

    TanaNari said:
    Now to be fair, Breitbart falls under my "auto bullshit detector" as well, but then so does CNN- and I'll at least click their article and read it, if someone's using it as a source. And if it just so happens to have a video that comes directly from the proverbial horse's mouth, then at the very least the video is probably trustworthy.

    I don't dismiss the information without even seeing what it is first, the way you seem to be doing.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    You know, the confirmation that illegal immigrants use false IDs and stolen Social Security numbers would explain where a few million of Hillary's votes came from.
     
    HeWhoWasMarduk said:
    Nice deflection, I also notice how you didn't call out Ugolino on how Twitter isn't a credible source though.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Twitter or Facebook could be a valid source, it depends on that evidence the social media method provides. A blatant statement that "method of information" isn't a valid source is false, since the method of information isn't relevant, the information contained is. A video could be competently truthful, or it could be edited to lie. A twitter post could link to a avalanche or information, or just an a misinformed opinion.

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/guccifer-2-claims-responsibility-for-dnc-email-dump
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...mails-likely-from-email-transcription-service
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/dnc-hack-what-we-know-and-what-we-still-dont-know
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...government-attempt-to-cover-up-their-own-hack
     
    The Shadowmind said:
    Twitter or Facebook could be a valid source, it depends on that evidence the social media method provides. A blatant statement that "method of information" isn't a valid source is false, since the method of information isn't relevant, the information contained is. A video could be competently truthful, or it could be edited to lie. A twitter post could link to a avalanche or information, or just an a misinformed opinion.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Same with Breitbart, or CNN.
     
    Oh hey. I just realised that I haven't outlined my full political views here yet. So, since we've got a new thread, I think it's about time.

    Economically, I'm relatively leftist, though perhaps less so than I used to be. I think the top bracket of income tax should be around 60%, for instance, and I'm very uneasy about the wage gap between businesses' productive personnel and top management. I think copyright ought to be removed in its entirety; there are other ways to monetise creation that aren't as philosophically problematic and are less prone to abuse via regulatory capture. I'm also in favour of nationalising (or at least partially nationalising) natural monopolies, including several emerging ones (the internationalisation and oligopolisation of payment processors, for instance, allowed a lobby group in America to seriously damage the escort industry here; that's really problematic), and I support free - i.e., fully subsidised - basic public transport (trains, in particular).

    On social issues, my primary driving ideology is libertarianism. I'm strongly in favour of free speech, including some types of speech which people typically try to claim are outside its scope. I loathe the very idea of hate speech laws, for instance - except for literal criminal conspiracy, I support the right to promote terrible ideology (and, in general, be dismissed as a lunatic). And I detest the crusade against paedophiles (which are NOT THE SAME THING as child molestors; I cringe every time someone says "convicted paedophile"), in particular the efforts to ban simulated child pornography. Live-action child pornography is bad because making it involves child molestation - arousing paedophiles is not an inherently bad thing. On a related note, I think there's too much societal stigma around sex in general, which is thought to substantially contribute to worsening rape trauma. The disconnect between the way we treat violence and sex in rating content is patently silly, for instance, and ages of consent over 16 are highly dubious (and lowering them even further is plausibly a good thing, though obviously comprehensive sex ed should precede the AoC in all cases). I mean, if you're old enough to want sex, and you know enough to safely have sex, isn't it being rather something of a nanny state to legislate whether you're allowed? Speaking of which, I'm not a fan of a lot of things under the "nanny-state" umbrella; generally, I hold that it should be legal to do stupid things, so long as the only one harmed is you. This applies to stuff like mandating people wear seatbelts (mandating installing them is perfectly reasonable) as well as the stupid ban on marijuana (I'm okay with controls on stuff like heroin, because a few doses' worth suffices for manslaughter or murder, but marijuana has a higher lethal/active ratio than both nicotine and alcohol). I'm also strongly against animal rights laws, except in the rare cases where non-human animals are possibly people (the dozen or so species that pass the mirror test, for example), and support legal abortion up to and including (agreed-by-both-parents) prompt infanticide.

    I also dislike discrimination. All discrimination, including deliberate attempts to bias things towards groups thought statistically disfavoured. That's getting very far down the slippery slope of "ends justify the means". As far as religion goes, I think scripture classes in public schools are an absolute disgrace, and that religion/"tradition" shouldn't be involved in legal unions. I do think that man-woman couples should be given first preference for adoption over singles or same-sex couples, but that's because of biological issues (girls with no father, for instance, have very early menarche) rather than anything philosophical.
     
    Last edited:
    TanaNari said:
    I thought he made a career out of being a fucking clown. But I'll concede your point- everybody was told he's a liar time and time again, so they assumed he was lying.

    Surprise, bitches!
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    He made his real estate career as a conman. He made his show business career as a clown.
     
    Reader mode
    60 more messages…
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
    Back
    Top