Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

pH

silverharp wrote: »

The feminists and sjw's have been quite this week , I did come across intersection vegan feminists trying to be a thing but even I don't think that one has legs.

How do you know is someone's vegan?





They'll tell you.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

.....Just lol......

Yes, quite.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

.....
I dont get the Illinois reference, you'll have to enlighten me.

It was just that this here

"And seeing as how jews self designate themselves as "separate"(dual citizenship/loyalty to Israel etc) to mainstream US society, that is the behaviour of a fifth column, changing the ethnic make up of the US to suit themselves"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97854183&postcount=824

....sounds remarkably similar to what somebody says in this video, from about 25 seconds on....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktmNEWwH69s

JPNelsforearm

Nodin wrote: »

Yes, quite.




It was just that this here

"And seeing as how jews self designate themselves as "separate"(dual citizenship/loyalty to Israel etc) to mainstream US society, that is the behaviour of a fifth column, changing the ethnic make up of the US to suit themselves"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97854183&postcount=824

I will give a prime example of who that statement pertains to, the likes of Rahm Emanual, Mayor of Chicago, a dual citizen of Israel and the US. Israel as you are no doubt aware, is a state with a completely racist/sectarian border policy, which he supports, yet he supports amnesty and de facto open borders for the US.

Pretty simple really. You cannot have it both ways. You are either in favour of border control or you are not. You cannot have a foot in both camps depending on the nation you currently reside in.

Keep digging though, im sure you'll find the incriminating post eventually.

Nodin

I believe I've said all that need be said at this stage.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

I believe I've said all that need be said at this stage.

Great to hear, we can finally get back to the topic at hand.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Well, its a large media corporation putting out blatantly racist content... I know white people are just the worst, but still.:rolleyes:

White=Bad, racist, take advantage, male, white privilege etc etc etc

Black=Good, beautiful, intelligent, strong, innovative etc etc etc

This is PC stormfront stuff dressed up in the usual coded language

It really is a terrible website and the roughly 2:1 ratio of dislikes to likes on the video really shows how the public feel about it.

recedite

Sweden continues its descent into madness.
No mention of what "religious extremists" the police are referring to, but I'm guessing they are not members of the traditional Lutheran religion.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Sweden continues its descent into madness.
No mention of what "religious extremists" the police are referring to, but I'm guessing they are not members of the traditional Lutheran religion.

Yes, Sweden is now ranked alongside Sudan, Yemen and the Congo for quality of life. I'm glad you and the steady eye of that objective news site brought this to our attention, though I was fairly sure that the thread was for slagging off the left..........

recedite

No, not yet. Actually Sweden is not expected to become a third world country until around 2030, according to the UN projections.
Its all thanks to the ultra liberal loony left policies they have been implementing in the last decade.

PopePalpatine

Who the hell are speisa.com? Whoever they are (probably a far-right site, as there's a tag for them on the DailyStormer, which I found on the second page of the Google results for "speisa.com"), their article's been debunked by a guy in the comments, and the actual paper the article quotes makes no reference to the "third world" - you do realise that term arose from the Cold War, where the US and its allies were the "first world", the USSR and its allies (and any other Communist countries) were the "second world", and non-aligned states were the "third world", right?

Links234

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Who the hell are speisa.com?

Not to menion searching for 10news.dk (the previous site linked) pops up some BNP and Pegida links, and their front page paints a pretty vivid picture of their agenda.

This thread seems more and more like an extreme right-wing link dump.

JPNelsforearm

Adam Baldwin(not a Baldwin brother) from Full Metal Jacket, quits twitter after they instituted some sort of lefty content overlords apparently..
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/702353473145163778

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR9dXU8MV0o

Pretty kekworthy video, they basically firebombed their own platform to appeal to the PC brigade.

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

..........

This thread seems more and more like an extreme right-wing link dump.

Nice to know its not just me.

silverharp

a good news story for a change, “some muscle” assistant Professor Melissa Click has been fired from Missouri University

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-curators-vote-to-fire-melissa-click/article_4b0ae653-2d61-5f3f-9ede-a129d12f0fd1.html

University of Missouri curators vote to fire Melissa Click

Assistant Professor Melissa Click, captured on video calling for “some muscle” to remove reporters from a campus protest site, was fired Wednesday by the University of Missouri Board of Curators, Chairwoman Pam Henrickson said in a prepared statement.

The board voted 4-2 in favor of termination during a closed session in Kansas City, with Henrickson and curator John Phillips opposing the move, UM System spokesman John Fougere wrote in an email Thursday. Curators David Steelman, Donald Cupps, Maurice Graham and Phil Snowden voted in favor of firing Click.

Click did not respond to a message seeking comment Thursday. The board earlier voted to suspend Click with pay on Jan. 27.

“The board respects Dr. Click’s right to express her views and does not base this decision on her support for students engaged in protest or their views,” Henrickson said in the prepared statement. “However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student.”

The statement from Henrickson cited Click’s behavior at the Homecoming parade, when she cursed at a police officer who was moving protesters out of the street, and on Nov. 9 at Concerned Student 1950’s protest site on the Carnahan Quadrangle. Her actions at the protest site, Henrickson said, “when she interfered with members of the media and students who were exercising their rights in a public space and called for intimidation against one of our students, we believe demands serious action.”

PopePalpatine

Links234 wrote: »

Not to menion searching for 10news.dk (the previous site linked) pops up some BNP and Pegida links, and their front page paints a pretty vivid picture of their agenda.

This thread seems more and more like an extreme right-wing link dump.

It's like the extreme right-wing link dumpers just browse through their /r/european safe space, picking links that aren't to the obvious far-right cesspits (e.g. the Daily Stormer) hoping that the "libtards" don't know of them.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's like the extreme right-wing link dumpers just browse through their /r/european safe space, picking links that aren't to the obvious far-right cesspits (e.g. the Daily Stormer) hoping that the "libtards" don't know of them.

What I find slightly amusing with your position is that you seem to have an ideological " barge pole" , where your only interest is questioning the source as opposed to the whatever the article happens to be about. Surely its more intellectually robust to pull information from a wide selection? If only to rip the p1ss out of the content if its deserving of it.?
Its like if someone started linking to jezabel or feminist frequency, I wouldn't clutch pearl necklace or whatever the male equivalent is, I'd crack knuckles and have a bit of fun with it.

KomradeBishop

It's the same with e.g. mens rights type threads - one of them on another subforum in particular, is just a link-dump, which I got into the habit of picking through and debunking some of the nonsense posted - and sometimes when someone posts e.g. a video of 'crazy feminists doing crazy things' at some random college, I would Google the video and it's not uncommon to find absolutely no results anywhere else on the Internet - you really do have to wonder where the hell people find such things?

Some of them must be on a dedicated agitprop mailing list or something.

KomradeBishop

silverharp wrote: »

What I find slightly amusing with your position is that you seem to have an ideological " barge pole" , where your only interest is questioning the source as opposed to the whatever the article happens to be about. Surely its more intellectually robust to pull information from a wide selection? If only to rip the p1ss out of the content if its deserving of it.?
Its like if someone started linking to jezabel or feminist frequency, I would clutch pearl necklace or whatever the male equivalent is, I'd crack knuckles and have a bit of fun with it.

Ad Hominem is a valid and non-fallacious method for discrediting sources - nobody is entitled to ask posters to answer arguments from a completely discredited source, especially if they can't be bothered even putting the argument in their own words and owning it for themselves - or do other silly nonsense aimed at wasting someones time, like "argument by YouTube".

The credibility of sources are fair game.

JPNelsforearm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's the same with e.g. mens rights type threads - one of them on another subforum in particular, is just a link-dump, which I got into the habit of picking through and debunking some of the nonsense posted - and sometimes when someone posts e.g. a video of 'crazy feminists doing crazy things' at some random college, I would Google the video and it's not uncommon to find absolutely no results anywhere else on the Internet - you really do have to wonder where the hell people find such things?

Some of them must be on a dedicated agitprop mailing list or something.

I dunno, speaking for myself, I only see this type of "left wing vegan stuff", from facebook pages who share it, eg "PostTumblrStressDisorder" and various patriarchy/pleb/Trump meme pages.



As for sources, I wouldnt have looked at breitbart before the "refugee" crisis, but when "credible" media outlets abdicate their responsibility..

Links234

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Adam Baldwin(not a Baldwin brother) from Full Metal Jacket, quits twitter after they instituted some sort of lefty content overlords apparently..

Pretty kekworthy video, they basically firebombed their own platform to appeal to the PC brigade.

So the obvious response to that is, who cares?

But there's so much wrong in such a short post I can't just leave it at that. Look, Twitter has been in catastrophic decline since 2014. Have a quick read of this Business Insider article, Leaked Twitter API data shows the number of tweets is in serious decline.

Tweets per day reached a peak in August 2014 of 661 million, our source says. That 30-day sampling period included the World Cup final. In January 2016, there were only 303 million tweets per day, on average, during the 30-day period.

So it's been fairly well known that the platform has been dying a death for a while now. The question then is why? Well, the brunt of it is bullying, abuse, harassment and twitter itself was doing nothing about it. Why Twitter's Dying (And What You Can Learn From It), 'Twitter's Dying' Puts Spotlight On The Line Between Abuse And Voice, and there have been many similar articles pointing to these issues and Twitter's inability to curtail the abuse as the reason for it's decline. There's also been varying prominent users who've quit and claimed they've been harassed off of twitter. Twitter revises policy banning threats and abuse. These measures are trying to plug a leaky boat, and it might be a case of too little too late.

They're not "firebombing" to appease some imaginary "PC police" they are trying to save their platform. Think of it like spam. If email providers didn't enact measures to curtail spammers, it would be the death of them. People are disengaging from it because they don't want to run into angry, aggressive twitter mobs, or have already fallen afoul of them. It's the unsolicited bulk email spam of twitter, except it's really angry and it's shouting "free speech!"

And so we have this thread in a nutshell. "There's a complex issue, can we blame liberals?" Essentially, this:

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's the same with e.g. mens rights type threads - one of them on another subforum in particular, is just a link-dump, which I got into the habit of picking through and debunking some of the nonsense posted - and sometimes when someone posts e.g. a video of 'crazy feminists doing crazy things' at some random college, I would Google the video and it's not uncommon to find absolutely no results anywhere else on the Internet - you really do have to wonder where the hell people find such things?

Some of them must be on a dedicated agitprop mailing list or something.

So you're using this thread again to go off topic and have a go at the usual suspects.
Care to point out this thread that's "just a link-dump"?

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you're using this thread again to go off topic and have a go at the usual suspects.
Care to point out this thread that's "just a link-dump"?

It's perfectly on-topic, as it's exactly pointing out how the 'left wing vegan cookies' are often a manufactured controversy, out of nothing.

It's against the forum rules to name/discuss other subforums I think - though not to allude to them afaik - it's in the mens rights posters usual haunt.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ad Hominem is a valid and non-fallacious method for discrediting sources - nobody is entitled to ask posters to answer arguments from a completely discredited source, especially if they can't be bothered even putting the argument in their own words and owning it for themselves - or do other silly nonsense aimed at wasting someones time, like "argument by YouTube".

The credibility of sources are fair game.

But that's all that it is, discrediting or trying to discredit a source is doing just that.
It doesn't deal with the argument at all and it gets tiring listening to the same posters relentlessly using this tactic.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So you're using this thread again to go off topic and have a go at the usual suspects.
Care to point out this thread that's "just a link-dump"?

*splutter

Nodin

silverharp wrote: »

What I find slightly amusing with your position is that you seem to have an ideological " barge pole" , where your only interest is questioning the source as opposed to the whatever the article happens to be about. Surely its more intellectually robust to pull information from a wide selection? If only to rip the p1ss out of the content if its deserving of it.?
Its like if someone started linking to jezabel or feminist frequency, I wouldn't clutch pearl necklace or whatever the male equivalent is, I'd crack knuckles and have a bit of fun with it.

And how many times do you reckon you'd do that before your knuckles were all cracked out.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

But that's all that it is, discrediting or trying to discredit a source is doing just that.
It doesn't deal with the argument at all and it gets tiring listening to the same posters relentlessly using this tactic.

You don't need to deal with the argument, if the source is discreditable. You can tell the poster "go find a more credible source, I don't have to give that source the respect of a response - a response it doesn't deserve".

No source is entitled to the assumption that, when the sources reputation is abysmal, that its argument isn't complete nonsense as well - if a poster wants to own the argument, they should ditch the source and put the argument in their own words - except almost nobody does this, when it comes to the kind of linking I'm talking about.

It gets tiring listening to lazy posters, point you to a link and say "argue against this", or pointing to a YouTube video and saying "argue against this" - while putting zero effort in themselves, at presenting an argument in their own words.

That's not a debate/discussion, that's a monologue brought to you through discreditable links and YouTube videos - something more suitable to a blog.

Links234

You know, after silverharp's post, I decided to hit up Feminist Frequency's youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4mA_rIeBAQ

"It's a fun movie, and unlike the tedious and lifeless prequels, it's a solid Star Wars film"

Oh no! SHE LIKES THE NEW STAR WARS! :eek: 9/11 was an inside job CONFIRMED! Jet fuel can't melt steal beams! #cuckery #gamergate #trump2016 #notthedroidsyourlookingfor

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's perfectly on-topic, as it's exactly pointing out how the 'left wing vegan cookies' are often a manufactured controversy, out of nothing.

It's off topic and there was no need to bring it up.
You just brought it up to take a pot shot at another thread, because you dislike the subject being discussed.

It's against the forum rules to name/discuss other subforums I think - though not to allude to them afaik - it's in the mens rights posters usual haunt.

It's very obvious from your post which subforum you're referring to.
You're definitely breaking the spirit of the rule.
It's bad form to lazily describe a thread as "just a link-dump" and disrespectful to the people who posted in it.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't need to deal with the argument, if the source is discreditable. You can tell the poster "go find a more credible source, I don't have to give that source the respect of a response - a response it doesn't deserve".

Shockingly, even some of the most backward and disgusting people aren't wrong all of the time.

You should assess the argument regardless of the arguer. You can temper your assessment, but utterly refusing to assess the argument is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'Na Na Na Na Na, you were wrong before and therefore you are wrong again'.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No source is entitled to the assumption that, when the sources reputation is abysmal, that its argument isn't complete nonsense as well - if a poster wants to own the argument, they should ditch the source and put the argument in their own words - except almost nobody does this, when it comes to the kind of linking I'm talking about.

What?!

Think about what this means. It literally translates as 'the quality of the deliverer always affects the veracity of the information'.

Is that logical?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It gets tiring listening to lazy posters, point you to a link and say "argue against this", or pointing to a YouTube video and saying "argue against this" - while putting zero effort in themselves, at presenting an argument in their own words.

That's not a debate/discussion, that's a monologue brought to you through discreditable links and YouTube videos - something more suitable to a blog.

You make a choice to read and engage. You could always not do that if it is tiring.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Shockingly, even some of the most backward and disgusting people aren't wrong all of the time.

..............

This is true, but as certain internet sites are run by a number of people dedicated to firing out a particular viewpoint, why should we have to wade through the other 99 times out of 100 they are wrong?

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

This is true, but as certain internet sites are run by a number of people dedicated to firing out a particular viewpoint, why should we have to wade through the other 99 times out of 100 they are wrong?

You clipped a relevant piece from the quote

Deleted User wrote: »

..
You make a choice to read and engage. You could always not do that if it is tiring

If you want/choose to engage, then you must 'play by the rules' of logic if you want your answers to be in anyway useful.