Civil War Doomsday Clock

[Speaker to Animals]

I need to find out if I can address this or if I would just be whining.............. what should my response be ?

"Just make your pastries and shut the fuck up."

[C-Mag]

I need to find out if I can address this or if I would just be whining.............. what should my response be ?

"Just make your pastries and shut the fuck up."

alright

[Speaker to Animals]

I need to find out if I can address this or if I would just be whining.............. what should my response be ?

"Just make your pastries and shut the fuck up."

alright

There is no legitimate conversation to be had with people like that because their motivation is to manipulate you and lie to get what they want.

Of course liberals find some bullshit excuse to minimize this act of terrorism while amoing up the OMFG seriousness of those hoax bombs.

What are you supposed to say to people who have no interest in engaging honestly with you and only want to manipulate you to your ruin?

[C-Mag]

There is no legitimate conversation to be had with people like that because their motivation is to manipulate you and lie to get what they want.

Of course liberals find some bullshit excuse to minimize this act of terrorism while amoing up the OMFG seriousness of those hoax bombs.

What are you supposed to say to people who have no interest in engaging honestly with you and only want to manipulate you to your ruin?

I disagree.
Communication is important. I just want to find out what the man is thinking and how he views things. I'll give Bjorn or anyone else a chance to explain what they mean.

To me it is important to know how I'm being viewed as whining about issues in my country. I have both positive and negative comments about current events like any rational person would have. IMO, the Left is dishonest and irrational(generally speaking), with that belief I should state my disagreements. If I'm presenting those disagreements in a fashion in which they are preceived to be unnecessarily whiney I'd like to know why and how I can improve my discourse.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no legitimate conversation to be had with people like that because their motivation is to manipulate you and lie to get what they want.

Of course liberals find some bullshit excuse to minimize this act of terrorism while amoing up the OMFG seriousness of those hoax bombs.

What are you supposed to say to people who have no interest in engaging honestly with you and only want to manipulate you to your ruin?

I disagree.
Communication is important. I just want to find out what the man is thinking and how he views things. I'll give Bjorn or anyone else a chance to explain what they mean.

To me it is important to know how I'm being viewed as whining about issues in my country. I have both positive and negative comments about current events like any rational person would have. IMO, the Left is dishonest and irrational(generally speaking), with that belief I should state my disagreements. If I'm presenting those disagreements in a fashion in which they are preceived to be unnecessarily whiney I'd like to know why and how I can improve my discourse.

As soon as you start winning the debate, they will try to censor you or ruin your reputation, dude. You need to accept that they are lost. These people are at war with you on some level. They are not trying to discuss anything you. They are instead trying to manipulate or punish you into compliance, and when that fails they will try to ruin your life.

The only reason most people can even counter them here is anonymity.

[C-Mag]

As soon as you start winning the debate, they will try to censor you or ruin your reputation, dude. You need to accept that they are lost. These people are at war with you on some level. They are not trying to discuss anything you. They are instead trying to manipulate or punish you into compliance, and when that fails they will try to ruin your life.

The only reason most people can even counter them here is anonymity.

Yeah, I've experienced that.
For instance the, Womens Affirmative Action Thread. I was attacked for supporting Dr Hash's OP. Then framed as having responded to the wrong post in an earlier thread...……….. which I did not. Three people had called out Kath on the crazy response about ruining someones reputation for HS events, you were there for that one.

I'd prefer to keep engaging people, even when I don't agree with them or percieve events completely different than them. I feel it's more constructive in the long run. Bjorn is a pretty straight shooter, I think he will engage me honestly on this subject.

[BjornP]

Maybe its a cultural difference, but I will consider what you are saying, though I don't see it that way. What I see is people that are willing to push back against the SJWs. Sure we mock them, and demonize them and I suppose you could say Meme humor is redefining words. But I definitely don't see a victim mentality.

I for one, use the Lefts arguments against them as a way to show holes in their arguments. I do find it odd that folks tell only one side they need to 'play by the rules'. The modern left has no rules. Just like with the Kavanaugh Nomination, they flat out wanted to do away with the presumption of innocence. That's not tolerable. Maintaining some sort of judicious legal system and free and fair elections is mandatory to keeping a nation functioning and the modern Left would gladly do away with both right now.

One could call it cultural, but it's also a very recent cultural development, by all accounts.

The victimhood mentality I'm referring to is this one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... re/404794/

https://quillette.com/2018/05/17/unders ... n-manning/

From the latter link, I encourage you to read the part, "Conservatives and Victimhood culture".

What bugs me about SJW's is that, yes, racism does exist, chauvanism does exist, but those people vastly and to an extreme extent, exaggerate the scale and extent of something like racism. At the heart of it, is that those people interpret all criticism and critique, even constructive criticism, and just plain skepticism, as signs that you must be racist/sexist/transphobic/Great Big Fucking Evil White Male/Hitler.

That's what I see here, too. Only difference is who the bad guys are. Everyone follows the line and those who don't, "must" be part of the other half of some imaginary "civil war". It's a fantasy, a persecution fantasy, a desire to paint oneself as extremely threatened. And all that by no more than a media that doesn't agree with your opinion and a few cases of assaults. As if that was "civil war". That's the similarity. That's how you lot present yourselves as persecuted. That and StA's rants about women where he presents men as the same sort of victim class as the most extreme feminists do of women. He's not fighting back at feminism, or victimhood culture, he's simply adopting it. Because he thinks that's how one "wins", apparantly.

Your left is still the greatest offender, but you're following their playbook... and one simply doesn't copy the behavior of others unless one considers them leaders - hated leaders, sure, but you consider them leaders worth copying. You've surrendered to them already, imo. Like an anti-Communist who wants to fight Communism by adopting all the tactics, methods, strategies and ways of organizing society of Communists... "Only Five Year Plans can destroy Communism and Save Capitalism!". So, Carlus, I don't really think you're "using their arguments against them" actually accomplishes anything, unless you're having an actual, real, conversation with one of them and some means of persuasion. And yes, I realize that - given the current charged climate - that's rather difficult, but just like everyone on the US right is not a Nazi, everyone on the US left is not Antifa or SJW's.

I can find the "pretending to be SJW and making up bullshit victim words" shit funny, too, and I also genuinely think that victimhood culture - especially when aimed at "minorities" often has a "White Man's Burden" vibe, an unspoken assumption that just like old-school biological racism, some self-proclaimed progressives really believe in a racial hierachical pyramid. Only difference between then and now being that they feel guilty about seeing themselves as the superior race, or if they're black, they feel angry at being at the bottom... but they both accept the assumption that the pyramid is real. But if you want to win one, just a single individual person, slightly over to your side of classical liberalism, individual liberty, etc. you should try doing something they don't expect, something that they would not do. You could probably bond with many leftist Americans on your views on non, or at least reduced global, US interventionism.

As for your question:

If I comment on my displeasure about this attack and the MSMs downplaying of the attack as mere vanalism, am I whining like an SJW ?

No. It's how you comment, not that you comment your displeasure that defines wether you a follow of a victimhood culture or not. If you turn the case into a public, verbal "competition" on who is most persecuted - and your criteria for "winning" - is proving that it's you/your group that is most persecuted, you're part of that victimhood culture.

I need to find out if I can address this or if I would just be whining.............. what should my response be ?

Well, I'd start by stop assuming that me criticizing you or offering my opinion on what you ought to do instead, means that I'm preventing you from doing something. Criticism isn't control, it isn't oppression, it's just criticism. You can say and do what you want - and I can say and do what I want in response. That's how freedom works, that's how we grant each other liberty. Freedom of speech doesn't protect anyone, and never should protect anyone from being replied to, should it?

My personal response to reading a headline with the absurd "vandalized by gunfire" text, would be to mail a calm, caps-locks-less mail to whomever edits the newspaper/site in question and ask them if they could change the headline to something that more accurately described what happened to that store. As for how every other media outlets chooses to cover one event, and not the other, ignore one set of evidence while highlighting another, and shit like that... clubby already told me there are independent media outlets one can support if you're not a liberal, progressive, Socialist, globalist. Support them. That's what you can do. Most journalists today are liberals, and most media companies - even Breitbart - are headquartered in wealthy, urban environments and have reduced their presence among small-town America. That's how big media got completely sidelined in 2016: They didn't know (and/or care) about a large part of Americans that, to them, had become virtually invisible. Want media to address what you feel is important, not simply what some cafe latté sipping urbanite, hipster journalist thinks is important in the ideal society of his dreams, then find some way to make that happen? How...? No friggin idea.

[heydaralon]

There were a bunch of them getting bombed at the VFW last Saturday night up at the lake.

As usual, the fake news looked the other way.

They bombed a VFW hall? Where did this happen? Was it an anti Trump thing?

[Montegriffo]

There were a bunch of them getting bombed at the VFW last Saturday night up at the lake.

As usual, the fake news looked the other way.

They bombed a VFW hall? Where did this happen? Was it an anti Trump thing?

No that's just Fife's way of glorifying binge drinking.
He'll be bragging about how many lids he smokes next.

[C-Mag]

Bjorn, thanks for the thoughtful response.

There's a line in the second article that sums up my viewpoints,

This can mean being deliberately provocative and offensive in order to get a rise out of the activists

That's me right there. And if it's viewed as undignified by some, I don't care. Remember my view is that we are in a Cultural Civil War. The next line is

or at the extreme, it can mean embracing alt-right ideologies that reject equality and diversity.

This author is promoting the idea that only alt-right ideologies reject equality and diversity but says nothing about radical Left idealogies that do that same. I repeatedly state my position on this. One law, one standard for everyone. This guy doesn't believe that he shows a prejudicial perspective. A judicious, dignified author would have simply stated, "radical ideologies reject X and Y."

The author makes point to say that having MIlo speak is just too offensive. Is it? Here's a quote from Milo.

all liberals are ugly, fat people should be deported, feminism is a cancer, and being a Muslim is a "lifestyle choice." Himself a gay man, Yiannopoulos also said at one point "never trust lesbians."

If you are in college and can't handle those strong words, you're not an adult. We live in a culture where great comedic creations of the recent past couldn't be made today because they are too offensive. Mel Brooks would be out of business and sued. Personally, a little shock and awe of what free speech is about is called for, the author does not fully disagree, but says it should be refrained from on the basis of dignity.


The adoption of values like dignity is a two way street........... again, one standard for everyone. Calling on the 'right' to be dignified while not calling on the 'left' to be dignified is a lark.


I'm not a victim, and I'm not being a victim by giving Lefties a good dose of their own medicine. As stated in that 2nd article it's a very good way to show the absurdity of their positions.