A "progressive" wishes violent, painful death on his hated enemies and violent rape on those associated with his enemies.
I point this out and say that it's evil.
Your crazy response is to claim that I was actually talking about Republicans.
There is something seriously wrong with you. Can you not see that your "progressive" brother wished violent death and rape on huge swaths of people? Do you militantly refuse to see it? Do you even give a shit?
I bet if I were to take the worst bad apple of whatever group you belonged to
Those kind of hateful, violent expressions are not the expression of a "bad apple progressive". They're common, everyday expressions of "progressives". Notice that no other "progressive" here is saying, "Those kinds of things are not progressive! You don't belong in our group!" Everyone knows that it's de rigeur to wish hate, violence, rape, and death upon your hated enemies if you're a hateful "progressive". "Progressives" think that kind of "self-expression" is cool, and that's why I think they're evil.
Excessive guilt-by-association with a bonus condoning of "evil"?
First, I'm not slamming him for being associated with "progressives". I'm saying that "progressivism" itself is evil.
Second, you mis-used the world "condone". It means "to overlook". And I am certainly NOT doing that.
honestly, you're just as bad as that which you purport to 'cast out'.
First, I notice that you are castigating me for criticizing the "progressive" instead of objecting to what the parent wrote. Shall I assume that you approve of all of the "progressive" things which were written?
Second, how do you judge me "just as bad" as that which I cast out? Namely, where did I espouse the things for which I judged him evil?
if lumping everyone you disagree with under some stupid insulting banner is bad in the parent post, it's just as bad when you do it too.
I am not "lumping everyone I disagree with" under a stupid insulting banner. I am objecting to:
1. The overuse of profanity 2. The abuse of the word "fascist" 3. Expressing violence and wishing for murder 4. Excessive guilt-by-associating 5. Condoning of rape -- I take it back. He wasn't merely "condoning". He was actively wishing that someone be violently raped.
All of those were expressed in the parent post, and I see all of those and much more in most "progressive" writing today. I think that "progressivism" stands for all five of those things, and thus "progressivism" is evil. If you disagree, then please explain where I've gone wrong, you who saw no reason to object to what the parent poster wrote.
Do you never think however that it would possibly be a much more effective service of said country by defending it from Bush?
Absolutely not.
I mean, I don't support anything Bush has done. Anything at all.
And yet, I'm not a Bush-derangement-syndrome-riddled psychopussy like you. Yes, Bush is a lousy politician (note that I didn't say what my politics are, so don't assume). That doesn't mean I share your paranoia and think that Bush is a "fascist" who is going to turn this country into a "totalitarian theocracy". And I think you're batshit crazy if you disagree with that.
Personally, I think Islam is a greater threat than George Bush, and that's one of the reasons why I think Bush sucks. That's also a reason why I think "progressives" suck, because they are falling over each other in a stupid "tolerance dick-sizing contest" in regards to Islam. Pure accommodation and appeasement. It's sickening.
That's the current image of the US in most of the world. Thank Bush for that.
Certain media outlets in wealthy, liberal countries also had a big hand in projecting that image. But no, "the fish rots from the head" and all that, so let's put blame where it is Truly(tm) due.
I have comes from personal struggle or through our combined efforts to exploit others.
Ask a "progressive" what "exploitation" is and you'll get a bunch of hot air. This is the best definition I can come up with:
exploit (vt): to act against the goals of global "progressivism".
There is nothing to be proud of of your country. Patriotism is a plague.
I am a gay American, and I am very proud of my country. There are many attitudes in my country that I am ashamed of, and many parts of my history that I am ashamed of (especially considering that I am a Southerner). Your attitude is one that many of my countrymen share, and it's one of those attitudes that I'm ashamed of. But individual freedom of conscience permits it. And I am glad I live in the USA and not in any other country in the world. No, not Canada, not the UK, ni la France. It is the individual rights to life, liberty, and property (slowly eroding, but it's still better here than anywhere else) which has enabled our culture of self-flourishing and rampant capitalism, and I love it and I'm proud of it. I mention that I'm gay because I, of all people, ought have something to bitch about. And yet I don't. So I think you're a pussy. And I'm allowed to think that about you, given individual freedom of conscience, and I'm proud of that right.
Agreed. Christopher Hitchens recently stated that North Korea is the most religious country on earth. And he is entirely correct. Their religion is called "Juche" and their god is the State.
Whether or not you think this is bad will depend entirely on how much you support individual rights. Given that you're my friend and my fan, I think I know where you stand.
Socialism and National Socialism are completely opposite ideologies.
That is entirely black-and-white thinking to say that socialism and the Nazi idology are "completely opposite" ideologies. Only a Nazi or a Communist would say such a thing, since both of then were fighting each other for who would be the totalitarian slave-lord of Europe. Do you think "slavery" is too harsh a term to describe the Communists? Read the Gulag Archipeligo and get informed as to who performed the work in the GULAG (what was a "zek"?) and how they were... ahem... acquired.
In truth, both the Nazi ideology and the Communist ideology are anti-individual and thus evil ideologies which deserve to be utterly destroyed. I demand nothing less than complete and unconditional surrender from both of them.
If you hate individualism, then you'll probably see my last comment as somewhat extreme. In that case, you would be a prime candidate for Nazi/Communist proselytizing.
It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it.
And yet, here you sit, typing happily on your computer, instead of wearing an orange jumpsuit in Guantanamo. I honestly think you feel good about yourself through pretending you live in a totalitarian state for the same reason that Christians enjoy hearing stories about "persecuted Christians" in third-world hell holes. The thought process sounds like this: "They hate us because they know that we're RIGHT!" Sound familiar?
Your words are, frankly, insulting to the millions of individuals who lost their liberty, lives, property, and loved ones in REAL totalitarian states. Read the Gulag Archipelago sometime and get informed.
I think school uniforms are awesome. It forces students to develop their personalities in order to stand out. Naturally, people who are used to being materialistic and superficial hate it.
This crime was not a "minor offense". A couple was put in grave mortal danger. Toddlers in the next room were put in mortal danger to a lesser degree.
I wasn't referring to that offense, but, nonetheless, you've convinced me.
Now I believe that some prisoners deserve to be raped as apt punishment for their crimes. Furthermore, since support the death penalty, then the most egregious offenders should be raped to death.
However, I believe that women should also be punished with rape, as the status quo violates equal protection laws.
And we should all have a big guffaw about it, because rape is HILARIOUS!
The ones that occur outside of prison usually happen to women. That's a "crime against women" or even a "hate crime".
The ones that occur inside of prison usually happen to men. That's a punch line for really stupid reasons.
Most rape victims are men.
Rape is not funny.
And the fact that being incarcerated for minor offenses is tantamount to being sentenced to rape is the most unjust aspect of the American justice system.
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant.
I completely disagree. If your definition were correct, then I think more than half of the population would qualify as homosexual.
Man A: Suppose there is a man in college who fools around with his college roommate. Later, he goes on to get married and has children and leads a normal and happy life as a married man including sex with his wife and the normal consumption of straight (meaning, containing females) pornography.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man B: Suppose there is another man who has been married for thirty years but has always sought anonymous and clandestine sex from other men.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man C: Suppose there is another man who is partnered with another man and has a cat named "Stonewall" and drives a pink hyundai and lives in the "gay ghetto" and works as a gay activist and instead of speaking regular English speaks English that is laced with chiffon.
Is he gay? Do bears shit in the woods?
And that is the definition of homosexuality: you're gay if people perceive you as gay. Usually that assumes that you admit to it, but in cruel cases it happens even if you don't admit to it or even if you deny it. I had sex with Man A and Man B (above), so those two men are not hypothetical. Neither is Man C, but he's far to faggy to be my type. Hence, no sex.
What about Man D? Man D is partnered with another man for a decade, is an adoptive parent, lives in the conservative suburbs, hates the "gay pride" parade, despises "liberal" politics, and really loves man-on-man action. Is he gay? That depends on whom you ask. It's an open question in the so-called "gay community" whether or not a person who does not ascribe to "gay culture" is truly gay. Man D is myself.
If only men or geeks are permitted, then it will really only benefit geeks.
This assumes that art is inherently beneficial to the "grouping" to which the creator is coerced into. Those are to mighty large assumptions on your part: 1) your arbitrary grouping, and 2) that art is beneficial in the first place.
And plus I have no reason to believe it would be different at any other company.
Behold the inextricable chip on your shoulder. Indeed, the universe is stacked against you, and you will be nothing but a helpless victim for the rest of your life. But at least you have us here at Slashdot who will listen to your endless problems, right? Or are we part of the conspiracy as well?
I don't know if they act stupid or not, but they certainly aren't accomodating of femininity in general.
I'm very curious, so please elaborate about what not being "accommodating of femininity" means to you. I'd like to hear about some of your experiences in this regard.
How many men want to sacrifice their absurd, even antiquated perceptions of women?
Oh come on, Captain Male Guilt. We can generate a question that is both much more offensive to your tender sensibilities while simultaneously much more interesting.
How many women would categorically reject the idea of surgery to enhance their breast size? Answer in terms of percentages of women grouped according to cup size.
(Correlation: how many men would agree, anonymously, that breast size is important in terms of selecting a mate or a job applicant?)
Declaring people as 'enemy combatants' to avoid those pesky Geneva Conventions as well as any kind of rights by declaring them non-persons and holding them for years without trial or even access to legal counsel.
To whom do Geneva Conventions apply?
Declaring the Constitution of the United States to be just a 'goddamned piece of paper'.
That's functionally equivalent to calling the US Constitution a "living document".
These and other things
What other things?
Thing about them is, while I'm perfectly content to let them make their noises on the Far Far Far Far Right, they would send me to Gitmo in a San Yubi second for the noises I make.
Are you claiming that Bush is just like that nutjob?
Are you claiming that ALL republicans are just like that nutjob?
Guess that 'free speech' thing only applies to people that talk like they do...
How have your rights to speech been impeded, specifically?
I suppose you could still travel back in the "Papers please?" Soviet Russia. Is that really free?
In other words, NO, you have NOT been denied entry onto a plane.
Why should my ability to protest be restricted because of my opinion?
In other words, NO, "free speech zones" have NOT personally denied you any civil liberties.
No. But there are those that have.
In other words, NO, you have NOT been denied the right to a speedy trial.
How would I know if I was the victim of an illegal wiretapping program that answers to no one?
In other words, you have NO EVIDENCE that your communications were tapped.
It's been signed, it's the law. Just hasn't been rolled out yet.
In other words, you have NOT lost any civil liberties because it has not been rolled out yet.
No, but a lot of the blame for what happened (and didn't/couldn't happen) is due to his administration.
In other words, you have NOT lost any civil liberties because of any lack of a federal bailout of the Gulf Coast.
This is your horrible existence in which you've lost your "civil liberties"? Color me unimpressed. I can't see any evidence of you having lost anything, only a bunch of whining and moaning.
Is apathy really all that your side has left?
This is one of the main reasons I hate "progressives". I don't support Bush or Republicans. And yet, when I criticize "progressives", they immediately assume that I'm a Bush-worshipping Republican. This is called black-and-white thinking. And, in the next breath, "progressives" accuse me of "lacking nuance".
I'm not criticizing you for insufficiently loving Bush. I'm criticizing you for being paranoid and blaming all the world's problems on Bush. You're worse than the Clinton-haters of the 90s: more rabid, more deranged, and more militantly ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misspelled "republicanism".
A "progressive" wishes violent, painful death on his hated enemies and violent rape on those associated with his enemies.
I point this out and say that it's evil.
Your crazy response is to claim that I was actually talking about Republicans.
There is something seriously wrong with you. Can you not see that your "progressive" brother wished violent death and rape on huge swaths of people? Do you militantly refuse to see it? Do you even give a shit?
I bet if I were to take the worst bad apple of whatever group you belonged to
Those kind of hateful, violent expressions are not the expression of a "bad apple progressive". They're common, everyday expressions of "progressives". Notice that no other "progressive" here is saying, "Those kinds of things are not progressive! You don't belong in our group!" Everyone knows that it's de rigeur to wish hate, violence, rape, and death upon your hated enemies if you're a hateful "progressive". "Progressives" think that kind of "self-expression" is cool, and that's why I think they're evil.
Excessive guilt-by-association with a bonus condoning of "evil"?
First, I'm not slamming him for being associated with "progressives". I'm saying that "progressivism" itself is evil.
Second, you mis-used the world "condone". It means "to overlook". And I am certainly NOT doing that.
honestly, you're just as bad as that which you purport to 'cast out'.
First, I notice that you are castigating me for criticizing the "progressive" instead of objecting to what the parent wrote. Shall I assume that you approve of all of the "progressive" things which were written?
Second, how do you judge me "just as bad" as that which I cast out? Namely, where did I espouse the things for which I judged him evil?
if lumping everyone you disagree with under some stupid insulting banner is bad in the parent post, it's just as bad when you do it too.
I am not "lumping everyone I disagree with" under a stupid insulting banner. I am objecting to:
1. The overuse of profanity
2. The abuse of the word "fascist"
3. Expressing violence and wishing for murder
4. Excessive guilt-by-associating
5. Condoning of rape -- I take it back. He wasn't merely "condoning". He was actively wishing that someone be violently raped.
All of those were expressed in the parent post, and I see all of those and much more in most "progressive" writing today. I think that "progressivism" stands for all five of those things, and thus "progressivism" is evil. If you disagree, then please explain where I've gone wrong, you who saw no reason to object to what the parent poster wrote.
Do you never think however that it would possibly be a much more effective service of said country by defending it from Bush?
Absolutely not.
I mean, I don't support anything Bush has done. Anything at all.
And yet, I'm not a Bush-derangement-syndrome-riddled psychopussy like you. Yes, Bush is a lousy politician (note that I didn't say what my politics are, so don't assume). That doesn't mean I share your paranoia and think that Bush is a "fascist" who is going to turn this country into a "totalitarian theocracy". And I think you're batshit crazy if you disagree with that.
Personally, I think Islam is a greater threat than George Bush, and that's one of the reasons why I think Bush sucks. That's also a reason why I think "progressives" suck, because they are falling over each other in a stupid "tolerance dick-sizing contest" in regards to Islam. Pure accommodation and appeasement. It's sickening.
That's the current image of the US in most of the world. Thank Bush for that.
Certain media outlets in wealthy, liberal countries also had a big hand in projecting that image. But no, "the fish rots from the head" and all that, so let's put blame where it is Truly(tm) due.
I have comes from personal struggle or through our combined efforts to exploit others.
Ask a "progressive" what "exploitation" is and you'll get a bunch of hot air. This is the best definition I can come up with:
exploit (vt): to act against the goals of global "progressivism".
There is nothing to be proud of of your country. Patriotism is a plague.
I am a gay American, and I am very proud of my country. There are many attitudes in my country that I am ashamed of, and many parts of my history that I am ashamed of (especially considering that I am a Southerner). Your attitude is one that many of my countrymen share, and it's one of those attitudes that I'm ashamed of. But individual freedom of conscience permits it. And I am glad I live in the USA and not in any other country in the world. No, not Canada, not the UK, ni la France. It is the individual rights to life, liberty, and property (slowly eroding, but it's still better here than anywhere else) which has enabled our culture of self-flourishing and rampant capitalism, and I love it and I'm proud of it. I mention that I'm gay because I, of all people, ought have something to bitch about. And yet I don't. So I think you're a pussy. And I'm allowed to think that about you, given individual freedom of conscience, and I'm proud of that right.
Agreed. Christopher Hitchens recently stated that North Korea is the most religious country on earth. And he is entirely correct. Their religion is called "Juche" and their god is the State.
Whether or not you think this is bad will depend entirely on how much you support individual rights. Given that you're my friend and my fan, I think I know where you stand.
Yes, I get your attempt to oversimplify very complex issues into sound bytes in order to promote your "progressive" agenda.
Given Google is very selective about picking the cream of the crop as their employees, you'd expect their employees to be disproportionately liberal.
So much for "progressives" being about the "common man"! Thanks for validating it.
"Progressives" represent the wealthy, the white, and the privileged.
Socialism and National Socialism are completely opposite ideologies.
... ahem ... acquired.
That is entirely black-and-white thinking to say that socialism and the Nazi idology are "completely opposite" ideologies. Only a Nazi or a Communist would say such a thing, since both of then were fighting each other for who would be the totalitarian slave-lord of Europe. Do you think "slavery" is too harsh a term to describe the Communists? Read the Gulag Archipeligo and get informed as to who performed the work in the GULAG (what was a "zek"?) and how they were
In truth, both the Nazi ideology and the Communist ideology are anti-individual and thus evil ideologies which deserve to be utterly destroyed. I demand nothing less than complete and unconditional surrender from both of them.
If you hate individualism, then you'll probably see my last comment as somewhat extreme. In that case, you would be a prime candidate for Nazi/Communist proselytizing.
Use of the work "fuck"?
Those people are fucking insane.
Check!
Abuse of the word "fascist"?
Idiotic, fascist keyboard warriors.
Check!
Expressions of violence and murder?
I hope they all die painfully.
Check!
Excessive guilt-by-association with a bonus condoning of rape?
And honestly... anybody who links them should get raped by a spool of razor wire.
Check!
This is what "progressives" have become. All of you. I cast you out. You are not me. You are not anti-racist. You are not humanist. You are evil.
It's fucking awful.
I agree with you. We merely disagree on the "it".
It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it.
And yet, here you sit, typing happily on your computer, instead of wearing an orange jumpsuit in Guantanamo. I honestly think you feel good about yourself through pretending you live in a totalitarian state for the same reason that Christians enjoy hearing stories about "persecuted Christians" in third-world hell holes. The thought process sounds like this: "They hate us because they know that we're RIGHT!" Sound familiar?
Your words are, frankly, insulting to the millions of individuals who lost their liberty, lives, property, and loved ones in REAL totalitarian states. Read the Gulag Archipelago sometime and get informed.
I think school uniforms are awesome. It forces students to develop their personalities in order to stand out. Naturally, people who are used to being materialistic and superficial hate it.
This crime was not a "minor offense". A couple was put in grave mortal danger. Toddlers in the next room were put in mortal danger to a lesser degree.
I wasn't referring to that offense, but, nonetheless, you've convinced me.
Now I believe that some prisoners deserve to be raped as apt punishment for their crimes. Furthermore, since support the death penalty, then the most egregious offenders should be raped to death.
However, I believe that women should also be punished with rape, as the status quo violates equal protection laws.
And we should all have a big guffaw about it, because rape is HILARIOUS!
Most rapes occur in prison.
The ones that occur outside of prison usually happen to women. That's a "crime against women" or even a "hate crime".
The ones that occur inside of prison usually happen to men. That's a punch line for really stupid reasons.
Most rape victims are men.
Rape is not funny.
And the fact that being incarcerated for minor offenses is tantamount to being sentenced to rape is the most unjust aspect of the American justice system.
Homosexuality is defined by the attraction, not by the action taken because of it and the notion of sin is irrelevant.
I completely disagree. If your definition were correct, then I think more than half of the population would qualify as homosexual.
Man A: Suppose there is a man in college who fools around with his college roommate. Later, he goes on to get married and has children and leads a normal and happy life as a married man including sex with his wife and the normal consumption of straight (meaning, containing females) pornography.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man B: Suppose there is another man who has been married for thirty years but has always sought anonymous and clandestine sex from other men.
Is he gay? No, because people do not perceive him as gay.
Man C: Suppose there is another man who is partnered with another man and has a cat named "Stonewall" and drives a pink hyundai and lives in the "gay ghetto" and works as a gay activist and instead of speaking regular English speaks English that is laced with chiffon.
Is he gay? Do bears shit in the woods?
And that is the definition of homosexuality: you're gay if people perceive you as gay. Usually that assumes that you admit to it, but in cruel cases it happens even if you don't admit to it or even if you deny it. I had sex with Man A and Man B (above), so those two men are not hypothetical. Neither is Man C, but he's far to faggy to be my type. Hence, no sex.
What about Man D? Man D is partnered with another man for a decade, is an adoptive parent, lives in the conservative suburbs, hates the "gay pride" parade, despises "liberal" politics, and really loves man-on-man action. Is he gay? That depends on whom you ask. It's an open question in the so-called "gay community" whether or not a person who does not ascribe to "gay culture" is truly gay. Man D is myself.
If only men or geeks are permitted, then it will really only benefit geeks.
This assumes that art is inherently beneficial to the "grouping" to which the creator is coerced into. Those are to mighty large assumptions on your part: 1) your arbitrary grouping, and 2) that art is beneficial in the first place.
"Microaggression" as a concept looks like an fresh new way to invoke White Guilt and Male Guilt in your hated enemies. Way to innovate!
And plus I have no reason to believe it would be different at any other company.
Behold the inextricable chip on your shoulder. Indeed, the universe is stacked against you, and you will be nothing but a helpless victim for the rest of your life. But at least you have us here at Slashdot who will listen to your endless problems, right? Or are we part of the conspiracy as well?
I don't know if they act stupid or not, but they certainly aren't accomodating of femininity in general.
I'm very curious, so please elaborate about what not being "accommodating of femininity" means to you. I'd like to hear about some of your experiences in this regard.
if he means anything like "artful", "creative", or anything remotely humanist, then yeah, women not being involved will result in an inferior outcome
Why?
Because men are inherently inferior at creating anything remotely artful, creative, or humanist?
How many men want to sacrifice their absurd, even antiquated perceptions of women?
Oh come on, Captain Male Guilt. We can generate a question that is both much more offensive to your tender sensibilities while simultaneously much more interesting.
How many women would categorically reject the idea of surgery to enhance their breast size? Answer in terms of percentages of women grouped according to cup size.
(Correlation: how many men would agree, anonymously, that breast size is important in terms of selecting a mate or a job applicant?)
Warrantless wiretaps.
On whom, specifically?
Declaring people as 'enemy combatants' to avoid those pesky Geneva Conventions as well as any kind of rights by declaring them non-persons and holding them for years without trial or even access to legal counsel.
To whom do Geneva Conventions apply?
Declaring the Constitution of the United States to be just a 'goddamned piece of paper'.
That's functionally equivalent to calling the US Constitution a "living document".
These and other things
What other things?
Thing about them is, while I'm perfectly content to let them make their noises on the Far Far Far Far Right, they would send me to Gitmo in a San Yubi second for the noises I make.
Are you claiming that Bush is just like that nutjob?
Are you claiming that ALL republicans are just like that nutjob?
Guess that 'free speech' thing only applies to people that talk like they do...
How have your rights to speech been impeded, specifically?
I suppose you could still travel back in the "Papers please?" Soviet Russia. Is that really free?
In other words, NO, you have NOT been denied entry onto a plane.
Why should my ability to protest be restricted because of my opinion?
In other words, NO, "free speech zones" have NOT personally denied you any civil liberties.
No. But there are those that have.
In other words, NO, you have NOT been denied the right to a speedy trial.
How would I know if I was the victim of an illegal wiretapping program that answers to no one?
In other words, you have NO EVIDENCE that your communications were tapped.
It's been signed, it's the law. Just hasn't been rolled out yet.
In other words, you have NOT lost any civil liberties because it has not been rolled out yet.
No, but a lot of the blame for what happened (and didn't/couldn't happen) is due to his administration.
In other words, you have NOT lost any civil liberties because of any lack of a federal bailout of the Gulf Coast.
This is your horrible existence in which you've lost your "civil liberties"? Color me unimpressed. I can't see any evidence of you having lost anything, only a bunch of whining and moaning.
Is apathy really all that your side has left?
This is one of the main reasons I hate "progressives". I don't support Bush or Republicans. And yet, when I criticize "progressives", they immediately assume that I'm a Bush-worshipping Republican. This is called black-and-white thinking. And, in the next breath, "progressives" accuse me of "lacking nuance".
I'm not criticizing you for insufficiently loving Bush. I'm criticizing you for being paranoid and blaming all the world's problems on Bush. You're worse than the Clinton-haters of the 90s: more rabid, more deranged, and more militantly ignorant.
What do you mean by "Oh, wait..."? Please explain.