Vilageidiotx

Who is cooler commercials or art?

i say art because hes cooler

Can shitposts be art?

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

Damn. This is why I hate typing on my phone.

@Sherlock Holmes

It's fine. In some dialects the A is silent.

who is cooler gandalf or dumbledore

Gandalf.

Guild Book Club Suggestions Wanted

Awesome. My only concern here is that threads lock on this side if there is not some sort of constant pattern of posting and that's problematic.

@HeySeuss

They do?

The Official Role-Player Guild Cemetery

@vilageidiotx is dead on the inside

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

There is no level of "getting fucked around with" by the police transacting in this example. Will there inevitably be those officers who purposefully antagonize civilian populace? Yes, but they already exist and no one is fond of them as. This sort of screening is not an attack on anyone to be viewed as being born of doing something wrong when they haven't. In reality, the purpose of a security checkpoint as I said, even if it is not taking account of every vehicle, is to give the perception to a potential threat they might be caught before they can act and by additional quality, find a few persons of interest accidentally.

That's not the way people think though. Even if you have done nothing wrong, a security checkpoint typically feels invasive. It's like a tax audit. Nobody likes to be audited, even if they know their taxes are clean. Having authority figures poking around our shit when we haven't actually done anything to warrant it is obnoxious.

I would like to know your issue with sobriety checkpoints, because even living in a location with one of the highest numbers of yearly intoxicated driving casualties, these have been less than a few minutes of my time consistently. And I will note I am none too fond of the potentially radical implication leveled against law enforcement officers, which I will address in light later.

Sobriety checkpoints, in my experience, are a hassle even if you want cops poking around your shit. They always slow traffic way the fuck down.

I don't believe cops are dragging people out and beating them all the time at these things, that's not what I am saying. It's not radical to say you don't want authorities annoying you for no real reason though.

No, the Democratic party is not all true leftists, but when your party was fielding a candidate, with any seriousness at all, such as Sanders, I would call that extreme.

Sanders was a throwback to the New Deal dems. The idea that Sanders is an extremist is a clear sign that we are way the fuck out right of the typical political spectrum. IMHO Social Democrats are pretty fucking milquetoast.

you do not see me showing much sympathy for those on the true Alt-Right who might hold beliefs that some races or faiths are inherently inferior or that taxation is theft and the central government is evil.

Err, A: There isn't anything wrong with you sympathizing with libertarians. They are wrong, not evil. B: Those forces exist within the right and regularly feed it. The taxation is theft crowd is a well established part of right wing politics in America, and they have ran their fair share of candidates in the past. I feel you are under the impression that anything that deviates from the center is a monstrosity. The problem with the Alt-Right, for instance, is not that they are too far from the center, but rather that their ideas are horribly unjust.

Carrying on, those stereotypes are all targets of the Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" who they both strike and lash out at, as minority as they are, but I also note that approximately .3% of the United States population, as example, is transgendered yet look at the level of catering received or allocated to it and the amount of attention it received. The left found a niche in this tiny percentage and as a relative whole, leveraged it into a national debate when it was and is a non-issue.

The idea of justice in general is that it is available to all. If there is a small portion of the population who are being treated unjustly, their small number doesn't mean that the injustice is acceptable. If you want to argue about whether or not they are being treated unjustly, that's one thing, but saying "There isn't enough of them to care about." is fucked up.

The difference with these fringe radicals is that one group, the Far Left, has shown they are willing to do that or permit that sort of mindset in public. They are the ones burning down their colleges, breaking windows, attacking citizens to include committing assault with deadly weapons, using low-level explosives and smoke, and any other number of more violent criminal activity to help broadcast their message. No less, some of those fragments in the far left who advocate, and at least many more provide excuse for, the infamous rally cry of "Pigs in the blanket, fry them like bacon." Again, the Far Left demonstrates an intent to do harm, acting on opportunities to do harm, and the capability to do harm.

You make this sound ridiculously endemic, when this is a pretty small potatoes issue right now. Drive to most colleges or windows in the United States and I think you'll find them unburned and unbroken.

Violence happens on the fringes, and at this point it is under control so it isn't a major problem. Your argument, honestly, is as silly if I kept pounding you in the head with Dylan Roof, or those Alt-Right guys who keep showing up to protests now. I mean, both of those arose in an atmosphere of right wing culture, does that make the existence of the right wing in general culpable for their existence specifically? That's silly.

A disorder eh? Sounds purely factual to me. But no, even on the political compass it clearly shows what it is, now sure some people don't use it correctly and politics has it's subtle differences. But I don't really think that's the main focus of Libertarianism. Opinions of non-interventionism has nothing to do with what is and what is not a commodity.

Once I went to use the word "Spectrum", I just had to continue with disorder, couldn't help myself. We are here to keep our host entertained.

@Dynamo Frokane



But yes, Libertarianism is on a spectrum moving from Republicans who like weed on down to An-Caps. All of that belongs to Libertarian thought.

I'll start with begging people to stop using the word strawman if it doesn't actually fit the sentence, a strawman is an argument that hasn't come up or existed by real people. Something like trickle down economics, never existed. But if you're trying to argue that people haven't argued that people shouldn't own your home. I hate to break it to you....

So if decreasing taxes on the rich doesn't help the through job creation for the poor, then why would anybody support decreasing said rich people taxes? That is an argument that exists, and is what the term "Trickle down economics" describe, then whether or not the term itself was used by those who pushed for it is neither here nor there.

Also, we aren't arguing about Stalinism right now. That was another thread. You were using home rights as a defense for all property rights, which isn't really appropriate.

Aside from most of this being bullshit that actually means nothing, and if it's not abide-able by law what you "feel" it means, is absolutely worthless. The best defense for a dozen people is "oh people wont use your underwear" everyone owns everything! But yeah personal propriety. Which isn't a legal term, so means nothing. Yeah, that means, they CAN use it. They can legally steal your shit, without penalty.

Personal property is a legal term. Hence why we pay personal property taxes. But that's irrelevant anyway, because if you make systematic changes you'd presumably adapt the legal system to those changes.

Also it tries to argue, anything you own that makes you money is the difference. Is private property and whatever doesn't is "personal", so a guitar...if you'd play and had a tip jar. That would no longer be you're personal propriety. According to this logic. That was not a straw-man because IT WAS MADE BY A PERSON.

You can argue that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion because I wasn't arguing that. In my opinion the line is drawn where the absence of the thing isn't realized by the thing itself, but rather the absence of the income produced by the thing. If someone takes your car, even if you are an Uber driver, the absence of the car itself is the thing. If someone takes your Wal-Mart though, you aren't all like "Oh no! The shelves." So whereas the former, personal property, is an inalienable right, the later, abstract property, is up for public discussion.

Also you disregard my statement about, people successfully suing others for trying to steal people's stuff or breaking and entering, and getting rewarded for it. Is that a straw-man? Because it seems like the COURTS, disagree that no one is doing it. It was probably being done more than ever...

wat?

Let me break down that scenario for you then, in a libertarian world, a teen is fired because of her sexist boss. Okay, so she'll point that out, people will realize to not go there. And that company loses money. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't mean at fucking all that success should be YOUR responsibility, in this case the boss failed to run a successful business due to mistreating employees. Their competitors have far better work conditions and therefore see more business.

If this were true, and everybody purchased along ethical lines, then big box stores would never have overcame small businesses. Experience has shown that people shop based on convenience rather than a complex ethical decisions, and that's sensible, because nobody has time to research every purchase meticulously. I can't be fuckin' bothered to google the owner of a store before I go to buy toilet paper there. So in the real world, that teen is fired and maybe her parents and friends don't go to his business, but most people would anyway because they either don't know about the problem or don't give a shit. An injustice has taken place and Libertarianism has no practical answer for it.

In an authoritarian fantasy world, that same corporation, let's say cannot simply fire people. Once you're hired, you are there for good. That asshole boss still exists. So, that world keeps her job she likely hates and can't get away from. And all the customers also CAN'T go anywhere else. Because that IS the only other corporation. It receives bailouts, because no matter how bad it is. IT CAN'T FAIL.

To the furthest of my knowledge no business has ever received a bailout for diddling the help. In our current system we have laws in place to protect employees. The point being, sometimes people are not rational actors and you need to intervene in the system to keep it just.

I've never seen anyone in real life say they are. Some people probably took the label to heart, like the SJW's did, which I believe was also not something they attributed to themselves at first. But once again, I have to ask is it really on par? Why aren't there giant riots full of them?

What would they be rioting for? Their movement is new and doing well enough by simply existing, so there wouldn't really be a point to them rioting. But I think we have established that both extremes exist so we'll carry on.

'Citation needed' that the alt-right as a whole wants this. :P

Richard Spencer. I suspect anybody calling themselves alt right but not wanting ethno-states are really either libertarians or regular conservatives and don't exactly need a separate term, meaning the only unique thing the term Alt Right describes are the ethno-state folk.

You're argument is nobody brought it up, even if that was true. You realize you are now telling me to "talk less" or dumb down my sentences because it's too complicated and is out of nowhere. When everyone else in this page has brought up additional and off topic things and everyone else's posts, are also walls of text, but without all the links I provided to actually provide solid backing for my text. But it's somehow bad because I'm doing it. Not following your own rules, and telling me I'm rambling. Even if true, is hypocritical at best.

The problem is you get into a lot of non sequitors and it can oftentimes be confusing to try and parse together what your thesis is. I'm not telling you to dumb things down, I'm asking for brevity because I think it would make the discussion less of a clusterfuck.

I guess I agree? Though how does that correlate to "right wing opinions are popular with white folks in the pre-college era"? Because that was what I replied to.

Pre college would be teenagers. What I was saying is that highschoolers saying seemingly right wing things doesn't mean much because teenagers say random shit. So if someone hears teens going on about race or whatever, it doesn't mean the next group is Generation Zyklon. I say this because I remember people saying racist or homophobic shit all the time when i was in highschool, and my cohort of millenials are the ebil lazy lefties.

also, what the righteous fuck is a smurf account?

As it happens I am relatively new to the site

@Penny

welcome to the site.

tell the moderators i welcomed you so i get some welcoming people to the site points that they are going to dole out.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Security checkpoints needn't be and should not be intrusive. I am not advocating airline levels of invasiveness, but rather points located in areas of high traffic, be it vehicles or people, and strategic benefit; highways, toll roads, choke points and the like. Something as simple as the checking of a driver's license and registration. It needn't be as elaborate as a national database that tracks scanned identification, although it should to better establish continuity.

What you are describing would be very intrusive. People do not want to be fucked around with by the police if they haven't done anything wrong, and checkpoints meaning doing exactly that.

Tactics such as these are not subversion, intrusion or exploitation of basic rights; this is little different than a checkpoint developed to dissuade, detect or stop intoxicated drivers or those under another influence.

I actually do have an issue with drunk driving checkpoints, but since they usually do them on select days and only in the middle of the night, they get away with it. If cops were just fucking with you all the time, I'd become a different type of radical pretty quickly.

Because of my bias to the right, I believe it is essential that it undergoes and evolution to combat, counter and dissaude leftist policies, of which have become - in my lifetime - more extreme. Once upon a time I considered the Democratic party, but I find myself with no moderates to even back or invest in.

Most democrats are milquetoast barely-liberals. Half of the voting population isn't Anti-Fa SJW's. You've been memed if you think they are all extremists.

And no, let me state this clearly, because I find this ground dangerous and without room for error; I believe the far left has the inadvertent ability to accidentally, or even knowingly, allow a radical into their group who consctibes to their philosophy. This hypothetical person has the willingness, capacity and intent to utilize a firearm and or an explosive device for political movtive. In doing so, they kill American citizens.

Fringe radicals exist on both sides. That is the nature of the fringe. If would be ridiculous for me to associate the guy who shot up that black church as the essence of all Republicans.

It is my worst fear that this attack will provoke those present to participate in a small scale engagement at that time. It may or may not be coordinated on a low-level. Furthermore, it will provide a basis for the right to demonize the left as a whole and will compromise the credibility of anyone who has those leanings.

Which you are doing right now. It's already the state of things that even milquetoast democrats get bunched up with active shooters and shit. The "This is why Trump won" folk argue that the left misread the situation when they lumped in all Trump voters with the Alt-Right. And that's fair. But isn't that the same thing you are doing now, with the shoe on the other foot?

Libertarian are not anarchists. The court system and government would still exist.

Libertarianism is a spectrum disorder. Some are anarchists. The driving question within libertarianism is what is a commodity and what isn't. Actually, this is the driving question of modern economics, it's just that libertarianism tends to think that too many things have been decomodified. However, if you believe that everything except your own body is a commodity, than Anarcho-Capitalism is sorta the natural place for you to go.

That including "breaking those oh so arbitrary private rights, like breaking and entering

This seems like a straw man. If someone breaks into your house, yeh, that's not arbitrary property rights. Arbitrary property rights would be shit like, say, protecting the intellectual copyright of dead people, or enforcing an investors right to a proportion of property they have never visited at the expense of the workers.

Also obeying and respecting your boss is a stupid thing to disagree with. It's within your self interest to stay employed...where's the contradiction exactly? And it's in your bosses self interest, to keep those he finds easiest to work with and who is making him the most money.

This is the inherent problem with libertarianism though. People are not economic units, they are people. Your boss doesn't entirely act in his logical self interest. Neither will his customers. Neither will you. Your boss might do something that is irrational and makes the system you are describing despotic. For instance, Imagine a scenario where we nix sexual harassment laws. While Ron Paul blows a kazoo in the libertarian fortress of doom, some teenage girl somewhere gets fired because she wouldn't go the extra mile with her boss. To keep sexual harassment laws is to accept that we aren't rational actors all the time, and that state intervention is sometimes necessary.

The alt right I'm almost convinced means absolutely nothing.

There are people who identify as Alt-Right. They exist. Like SJW's, they are an small minority, but they do exist.

But they're at least fighting against something they believe in. Free Speech.

and an ethno-state free of minorities.

Also, I know it's so popular to point out how white men are to blame for basically everything, but just looking at Trump analytics and the people that voted for him compared to different presidents.

Okay, nobody was debating this point. You are rambling, sir. Try to keep to, like, five sentence answers or something. Be concise so this debate doesn't get out of control pls.

Frankly, I have no idea WHAT Trump's political stances are.

(pls nobody start arguing with the lyrics btw, I just posted this because the Lump parody comes to mind a lot)

This statement almost got me to respond to it one night, but I decided to not post what I wrote. But I feel so much has been said on this, that just needs someone to point it out...(and I'm going to do it in a much shorter way than I did previously.)

That is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate. Millennials generation and younger people are predominately liberal. Or at least that's what they identify as. (As many people point out, millennials political opinions don't make any sense.)

First and formost Millenials are adults, so what we are about is irrelevant.

Second, yeh, teenagers don't have complex political opinions. What I am saying is that fucking with feminists and saying racist shit isn't evidence that teenagers are all right-wingers now, it's just evidence they are teenagers.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@The Harbinger of Ferocity

In fact, I do actively support the concept of having both static and randomized security check points

What, like, everywhere? Holy fuck.

The United States should be setting the trend for fostering an environment of stability, safety, security and standards.

We already do. If we go any further, we start strangling out the essence of a free society.

Terrorism in the United States is not succeeding overtly, but it doesn't need to as history has shown us time and time again; an attack only needs to happen - it needn't be another 9/11 - it just needs to elevate the public perception, get into the media and provoke a government response. The fact that Islamophobe is thrown out as a slur now is a tell tale sign of that; people are legitimately wary of the Muslim population. Does that mean every Muslim is a terrorist? No, not at all and anyone who believes so is unbecoming of decency to themselves and others.

Didn't you want an overt government response though? I'm not kicking up shit, I just feel like I don't quite understand your primary thesis. What I mean is, if the terrorists want the public to be wary of Islam and and the government to subvert certain rights and comforts in exchange for safety, than isn't the subversion of those rights and the wariness of Islam a surrender to terrorism?

I sincerely doubt Western civilization will bow as a whole to it and convert, but it is and will continue to suffer damage it could otherwise avoid.

Sure, the Islam/West tension is damaging, I absolutely agree. But history is a long list of struggles, that's not new. We need to be careful in what rights we are willing to give up in order to defelct this short term damage. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising to see the Ben Franklin quote trotted out, but since it is an American tradition to cram it into any for of this conversation, here it is; "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.".

Moving on to the next topic, I do not believe you are likely to see a legitimate uprising of Alt-Right or "Alt-Right" politically that will have or act on nationalist motives sufficient enough to provoke international incidents. In part because they have not the numbers or the platform, but also because the way the American political field is stratified. What I believe we will see, at least with the United States, is a comparatively strong - to compare it with the recent past of the more left leaning - center-right and actual right push across all boards.

That would be expected in this swing of the pendulum. That being said, two things

A: American politics since 1980 has been in a right-leaning phase economically and geo-politically speaking. You put any of those supposedly left-leaning candidates into the 1940's and, though their social politics would be radically left-wing, their economic politics would be relatively standard for the Democrats.

B: A right wing push would put the Alt-Right in a comfortable position in the overton window. If the right wing is undergoing another renaissance, in a period where the left hasn't had a renaissance to balance the scales, then we can presume that the Alt-Right might just become the center-right in a few decades.

Among the left there seems to be certain aspects they generally agree on enough to collaborate on as a singular political unit.

I disagree entirely. The right tends to be better at organizing disparate groups into cohesive political unit, hence why the Republicans do so well despite having smaller membership. As the old saying goes, "The Right falls in line, the Left falls in love." All you gotta do to get right wing votes is have the big R stamped next to your name, but the left rebels against the democrats pretty much consistently if they don't get candidates of their preference. Hell, me included.

Alt-Right and the "Alt-Right" have, in contrast, at minimum demonstrated basic, entry-level small unit tactics and trigger discipline, as well as a bias against random acts of violence against civilian population and structure.

So what you are concerned with is disorganized leftist tactics might inspire the right wing to go full paramilitary? Okay, that would be a major disaster, I really hope they don't do that. If we somehow do end up with right wing death squads... it's been nice knowing you all, I guess.

American citizens should always be wary of people they are not familiar to regardless of who they are for their own safety and should foster an environment of vigilance and a culture of watchfulness.

Stranger danger lol.

I would say walking out on anyone during a speech, presentation or ceremony is disrespectful.

Eh, people gotta be allowed to protest some way. Better to walk out than to go all "Don't taze me bro"

Can shitposts be art?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

if you could restart your life but you'd be as smart as you are now, would you do it

Sure. A talking baby that can predict up to twenty seven years into the future would be badass. The minute I am (re)born I'd say in perfectly clear English "Donald Trump gets elected President in exactly twenty seven years and one week." The look on the Doctor's face would be amazing.

But even if we cut out the weird shit and assume that this knowledge returns to us at appropriate times in our development, definitely yes. I'd get to relive my childhood, which was pretty great, I'd have no adolescent idiocy, I'd of course be able to make better life decisions, and I'd have all the knowledge I have now as a base to build from, so I'd be a sharp motherfucker.