The Gaming Den

Look Longes, you vodka swilling fuckfence, if you want to have anyone see your posts as anything other than "NOTICE ME PUTIN-SENPAI~" you're going to have to at least link your sources.

Mask_De_H wrote:Look Longes, you vodka swilling fuckfence, if you want to have anyone see your posts as anything other than "NOTICE ME PUTIN-SENPAI~" you're going to have to at least link your sources.

It's from the same fucking wikipedia article Frank linked, you twat.

phlapjackage wrote:Had a thought while reading all of this - the idea of "just speaking your mind" and "calling it like it is" has seemed to become a huge talking point for the right-wing. From Hannity to OReilly to now Trump. I guess it's ok for political commentators to speak their mind or whatever, but when did it become desirable for a politician to do this? Isn't that a huge part of a politicians reason for existance, like, to actually be diplomatic?

The whole thing is based on the presumption that "telling it like it is" and "just speaking your mind" means honesty. Which is a pile of shit and the reason why con artists [like Trump] are so successful.

AndreiChekov wrote:You are calling people racist for stating facts. Know what Trump said about black people? He said that their situation sucks. More crime, orphans and single mothers. How is that racist? Its not racist to point things out.

Case in point.

Longes wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:annexing lands belonging to other countries by force

I take it you are choosing to ignore the referendum and the opinion of crimeans on that referendum?

Crimean public opinion wrote: A joint survey by American government agency Broadcasting Board of Governors and polling firm Gallup was taken during April 2014. It polled 500 residents of Crimea. The survey found that 82.8% of those polled believed that the results of the Crimean status referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, whereas 6.7% said that it did not. 73.9% of those polled said that they thought that the annexation would have a positive impact on their lives, whereas 5.5% said that it would not. 13.6% said that they did not know.

A comprehensive poll released on 8 May 2014 by the Pew Research Centre surveyed Crimean opinions on the annexation. Despite international criticism of 16 March referendum on Crimean status, 91% of those Crimeans polled thought that the vote was free and fair, and 88% said that the Ukrainian government should recognise the results.

However, hasn't that polling been challenged on it's reliability?
http://bbgwatch.com/bbgwatch/u-s-bbg-pa ... ed-crimea/

Course BBGwatch may well have an axe to grind, so always look at both sides with some salt handy.

So just to be clear, if North Korea decides to take South, we should do a poll in Seoul a few weeks later to see what they think, and then declare them not aggressors?

Mask_De_H wrote:Muslims trying to conquer the world is propaganda fed by the far, far right; funnily enough both brown (Wahhabist militants) and white (honestly pick a member of the Western right at random at this point).

I pray that you are merely ignorant instead of toxic, so instead of yelling at you (Frank and Kaelik are better at that), I want to walk you through a hypothetical.

Think about it like this: whatever race/creed you are, AndreiChekov, imagine I said your kind were trying to conquer the world and rape our women. You, personally, probably couldn't find your own asshole with two hands and a map, but I'm sure your people have done something beyond the pale. Now I'm going to blame you and people like you for it, even if you happen to wear a slightly different hat that you can get killed for by your own "kind".

Unfair, isn't it?

You've gotten this upset when merely called out for being an ignorant shithead on the Internet; imagine how upsetting it would be if not just the Den, but a large subset of people thought that you and everyone like you were unruly, unkempt, violent, inhuman savages. Now imagine that, whether implicitly or explicitly, it was told that beating the shit out of you was not only accepted, but desired. If you fight back, you get beat harder or imprisoned or killed. If you die, people will say the world has been made a better place. If you are imprisoned, depending upon how we feel about your people, you will be tortured, put to slave labor, beat (possibly to death) and/or spend the rest of your natural life marked as an undesirable. If you make the news, you will be demonized or used as a statistic. If you don't, nobody will give a shit about you and the people who put you down or put you away will probably mock your plight. If you're lucky, you might be alive to hear it!

Think about this. Think as hard as you possibly fucking can on it. Reflect upon it, then your previous words.

I'm not advocating this. I'm advocating limiting immigration because large numbers of people don't have too assimilate if they move together, and European culture really is the best. It involves things like equality for women, rape being illegal, and honour killings being illegal.

No, it is not fucking propaganda that Islam wants to conquer the world. In just 300 years after its start, it had conquered 2/3 of the Christian world. And they kept going after that. It used to be something commonly known. Russia fought hordes of muslim tartars so commonly throughout their history that you basically can't tell anyones life story without mentioning with war with the tartars they were in.

Oh right that Battle of Kosovo thing, where the Serbs were peacefully absorbed into the Caliphate.

Your blindness to the evil of Islam is a disease. If you pretend there is no problem, people will turn to those who agree there is a problem but are crazy. Like in Holland.

As for blacks. What i think would help is them having more black owned businesses, and for BLM to be labelled the terrorist organization that it is. And if there is rioting and looting call in the National Guard.

AndreiChekov wrote:No, it is not fucking propaganda that Islam wants to conquer the world. In just 300 years after its start, it had conquered 2/3 of the Christian world. And they kept going after that. It used to be something commonly known. Russia fought hordes of muslim tartars so commonly throughout their history that you basically can't tell anyones life story without mentioning with war with the tartars they were in.

I'm pretty sure most of Russian conflicts with "muslims" had a secular nature. Starting with Mongols who were shamans and buddhists and didn't give a shit about religion in Rus, and continuing with Ottomans who wanted Ukraine and Black Sea. Rights of Christians were a topic during Russian-Ottoman wars, but they hardly ever were a primary factor.

AndreiChekhov wrote:No, it is not fucking propaganda that Islam wants to conquer the world. In just 300 years after its start, it had conquered 2/3 of the Christian world. And they kept going after that. It used to be something commonly known. Russia fought hordes of muslim tartars so commonly throughout their history that you basically can't tell anyones life story without mentioning with war with the tartars they were in.

Wow.

I suggest you stop digging. Every time you say a thing, that thing is more racist, stupid, and insane than the thing you said before that.

First of all, the first 300 years of Islam ends before the start of the previous milennium. You are literally pointing at wars and flag raisings that happened more than a thousand fucking years ago as if they had any relevance today. They do not. You might as well point to pillaging by the Vikings as evidence that modern day Norwegians are sufficiently dangerous that we need to defend our rivers from their raiding parties. That is so stupid and insane that it merits no response except mockery.

Secondly, the Tatars included Christians, Tengrists, and Buddhists as well as Muslims. Because Tatar is a word which denotes a large and heterogeneous group of Turkic peoples from Central Asia. Miraculously, the Empire of Russia still managed to find reasons to have wars with Tatars of all of those faiths. And since the ultimate result of the Tatar wars was that Eastern Orthodox Russians spent most of the last thousand years subjugating and oppressing the Muslim Tatars, that's a really shit example.


Ivan the Terrible conquered Kazan and had a lot of Tatars murder-stabbed and/or tortured if they refused to convert to Christianity. This is not a historical event you should mention if your thesis is that Muslims are aggressive and dangerous.

But the bottom line is and always will remain that groups of people today are fairly dissimilar to groups of people from a few hundred years ago, let alone groups of people from more than a thousand years ago. Europe was the worst place on Earth for a thousand fucking years. Making any value judgements about people alive today based on events that happened back when the Saxons (remember that it would be a few centuries before the "English" even existed) lacked road building or sanitation is meaningless gibberish.

If your claim is that people today deserve some kind of punishment for events that happened before the invention of movable type, you're stupid. Also you are a racist shit stain, but we'll start with the fact that you are a fucking idiot whose contributions to this discussion are embarrassing own goals for your side. That's enough.

-Username17

AndreiChekov wrote:You are calling people racist for stating facts. Know what Trump said about black people? He said that their situation sucks. More crime, orphans and single mothers. How is that racist? Its not racist to point things out.

Since when is making shit up "pointing things out?" Here are things Donald Trump has said:

"Inner-city crime is reaching record levels." Sure - record lows.

"Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever." Even if you ignore slavery and Jim Crow, this is still almost the exact opposite of true, and most indicators are at or near record bests.

When Donald Trump says things about black people, he is not "pointing things out." He is fabricating the image of a nightmare hellscape in order to scare stupid racist white people about some hypothetical impending collapse of their society so they'll vote. It's for the benefit of people like you, who want to imagine an imploding world from which they need saving as opposed to having to actually learn about any of this shit because being an informed voter is apparently too fucking hard for you, I guess.

AndreiChekov wrote:I don't like Putin because he is white, I like him because he is a non-aggressive nationalist.

What the fuck? Putin flies bombers into European airspace just to remind them he can. Putin actually did bomb a covert US/UK military installation in Syria just so he could show up to the negotiating table with a "see, we'll fucking bomb your shit" card. Even the FBI - which just came out swinging for Trump, if you can't tell - has internally admitted that Russia is behind the hacks, and the only reason they didn't sign off on it publicly is because Comey thought doing so would influence the election. Putin is incredibly fucking aggressive, and worse, he is aggressive with other nuclear powers. Right now, Putin is the single most likely culprit for causing the actual apocalypse. That wasn't always the case, mind - if you'd asked me that sometime in the '00's, I'd have said China, what with their blatant attempts to simply absorb the nations around them by choking them out of the surrounding waters, but now Russia has pulled ahead by a considerable margin.

AndreiChekov wrote:As far as economics goes, DSMatticus completely missed the point of what I was saying. Tariffs on finished products do help the economy, tariffs on raw materials don't.

No, no I did not miss the point. I corrected you, because what you said was retarded. Then I rebutted the correction, because I understand this shit and you don't.

What you actually said was that a tariff on imports would make US factories cheaper to run. I pointed out that that's stupid fucking gibberish. It's stupid fucking gibberish because you don't actually understand economics, you're just starting from the position "trade bad" and then saying whatever shit you "feel" like would make that "trade bad" true. The actual argument is that tariffs on imports would increase domestic production, which would create jobs. And then I specifically addressed the "correct" claim (which, again, you'd fumbled because you're an idiot who doesn't really understand this conversation) by reminding you that automation exists, and automation is currently cheaper than employing U.S. labor in factories. We are no longer competing with just the third world, we are competing with the robots. Spoiler: the robots win. The robots always win.

I honestly even pre-empted your newest bullshit, the part where you said "tariffs on finished products do help the economy, tariffs on raw materials don't," like somehow you believe that we'll be able to dissolve all of our trade deals and then put tariffs on imported products and no one will retaliate by putting tariffs on exports they send our way. Do you not get how this works? Once the trade deals are gone, other countries can fuck with us in the same way we can fuck with them!

AndreiChekov wrote:My dislike for Islam comes from the fact that when they end up in Europe crime rates go up.

AndreiChekov wrote:I'm not advocating this. I'm advocating limiting immigration because large numbers of people don't have too assimilate if they move together...

Yeah, fuck the Irish refuges! Wait, are we not still doing that? I'm sorry, I'm really bad at this racism thing. Which groups are we panicking about right now? I can't tell, because the arguments never fucking change no matter how many times they end up being wrong.

AndreiChekov wrote:As for abortion, well I also support the death penalty for murder, and if a woman dies while trying to murder her child she deserves it.

A woman is raped. She ends up pregnant, because it turns out the body doesn't have "ways to shut that whole thing down." Should we murder the innocent, crimeless "child" for the sins of its father or should we force the mother to carry her rapist's child to term?

Spoiler: if you answer "yes, make her carry it," you are a monster. If you answer "no, don't," then you are admitting that the fetus inside her isn't actually a fucking person, because you would never in your life be comfortable saying "find the rapist's 6-year-old son and murder it because it'll make the rapist's victims feel better." It's almost like everyone actually agrees that fetuses aren't really children, and some people just like being hyperbolic twats in order to push an agenda on women. Wow. Dickish.

AndreiChekov wrote:
As for blacks. What i think would help is them having more black owned businesses, and for BLM to be labelled the terrorist organization that it is.

--I haven't even gotten a chance to respond to your first statements. --

I agree to an extent that BLM has some major problems in its ranks and why I am not really a part of it.

http://blackdemographics.com/economics/ ... usinesses/

I'm from Mississippi, number 2 in percentage of black-owned businesses (2012) and the state is still one of the poorest.

And if there is rioting and looting call in the National Guard.

I assume would want this when anyone rioted and/or looted. Since the way that you have written it, it makes seem like you only wanted it when blacks do it.
--
I have a problem with zealous fundamentalist of Islam, and other religions as well, people who do terrible things because of their religion. Now Islam have been going the way of Christianity (not every christian is like a Westbro Baptist Church person), there are critics of Islam like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (I think erroneously called anti-muslim extremists by the SPLC), that are trying to bring Islam in that direction. So your they are trying to take over the world tirade rings pretty damn hollow. Since there is some confusion on saying Muslim == brown Arab person and a practitioner of Islam...[cont]

--

This is going take longer than I though. I will have to continue this tomorrow.

So I come back from a week's holiday having very limited Internet access, and find this. Wow, is there some rule that whenever one glob of smegma ragequits/is banned/fucks off of their own accord, someone else has to adopt the mantle? Andrei is taking this to entirely new levels though, maybe matched only by PR - when PR was admitting to trolling.

In other news, only 48 more hours until the beginning of the 2020 election season. <weeps>

FrankTrollman wrote:67 is a measure to prevent grocery stores from giving out disposable plastic bags. 65 is a measure to make it more difficult for grocery stores to sell reusable bags. 65 is an attempt to undermine 67 and make it more difficult to implement. You should vote for 67 and not for 65, things are bad if 65 passes, as it gets really funky whether or not 67 passes at that point.

Wait, I'm confused. Looking at the props, 65 says "stores must put the money they get from reusable plastic bag sales into a fund for environmental purposes" and 67 says "the 2014 law should go into effect, and stores get to keep money from selling reusable bags"

So... wouldn't the optimal thing be to vote yes on both? The law takes effect and the money stores get from selling reusables goes to environmental causes.

Well I have now officially seen this BLM must be a terrorist organization everywhere now. I still don't see the joke getting anywhere near funny.

What I find most frustrating in life is when someone is so wrong even beginning to explain why they're an idiot is so tedious that I just can't bring myself to do it, and then they think they win because nobody is willing to engage with their 'arguments'.

Putin is not an admirable figure.

American media likes to portray the entire continent of Africa as a post-apocalyptic war-zone or a society of primitive pastoralists with spears. Captain America - Civil War is oddly one of the more accurate portrayals of life in Africa with their big fight scene in Lagos.

African Americans have suffered from outright persecution in the United States since before the nation's founding. Hillary Clinton was alive and fighting against illegal racial segregation and is now running for President. We're not talking about 'ancient history'. Anybody my parent's age can remember a time of systemic disenfranchisement.

For myself personally, I would prefer that people act in a morally upright fashion. For example, I don't think people should cheat on their spouses (like Donald Trump, for instance). On the other hand, even though my religion teaches that it is morally wrong, I don't think it should be illegal. Just because an action is contrary to the teachings of the bible doesn't mean it should be against the law. For example, I like to eat bacon and shellfish. Even if we accept that abortion is morally questionable, it does not follow that it should be illegal. In fact, I think an argument using the 13th amendment allows a woman to 'opt out' of a pregnancy. If she can be impregnated against her will (as she can) forcing her to carry the baby to term is a form of forced labor...in a very literal sense of the word.

I believe in the Constitution. Trump does not. Putin doesn't believe in his own country's constitution.

So, the above is perhaps light on explanation. AndreiChekov, you are wrong about everything you profess to believe. You appear to be living in an alternate universe where the power of belief makes things true contrary to observable fact. But I will indulge you in this one thing. Give me your one 'foundational argument' that you think nobody can disagree with and I'll give you a full explanation on why you're wrong. With footnotes and everything. All I ask is that when you realize that your starting point is not just wrong but completely opposite of what you believe, you'll stop arguing from false premises and making claims that make every sapient creature scream in mental anguish.

AndreiChekov wrote:BLM to be labelled the terrorist organization that it is.

C'mon, man. BLM observers have noted that that the movement's leadership model is incredibly decentralized and built around local activism. It's not particularly comparable to earlier civil rights or black nationalist movements where national reach was often married to relatively strong centralized leadership organized by a few popular figures. Trying to crack down on people's freedom to assemble for the entire movement over a minority of people doing heinous shit is super dumb even from just a purely practical perspective. Cop killing and looting is illegal and that's not going to fucking change and trying to prevent those things from happening in the first place isn't actually helped by putting people who play dead at the state fair or show up for candlelight vigils on a fucking watch list. Fucking COINTELPRO wasn't exactly America's proudest moment.

Prak wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:67 is a measure to prevent grocery stores from giving out disposable plastic bags. 65 is a measure to make it more difficult for grocery stores to sell reusable bags. 65 is an attempt to undermine 67 and make it more difficult to implement. You should vote for 67 and not for 65, things are bad if 65 passes, as it gets really funky whether or not 67 passes at that point.

Wait, I'm confused. Looking at the props, 65 says "stores must put the money they get from reusable plastic bag sales into a fund for environmental purposes" and 67 says "the 2014 law should go into effect, and stores get to keep money from selling reusable bags"

So... wouldn't the optimal thing be to vote yes on both? The law takes effect and the money stores get from selling reusables goes to environmental causes.

67 is essentially a referendum on an existing (though I believe not yet in place) ban on single-use plastic bags. If you vote yes, the ban is upheld. If you vote no, the ban is lifted.

65 is a whole lot of bullshit, and is intended to confuse people into voting no on 67. It also has some deceptive, legally dubious wording that - if it passes by a larger margin than 67 - Republicans may attempt to use to invalidate 67 entirely through the judiciary.

The depressing thing about Putin is that thanks to Salafist brutality going unchecked (mostly because America's insane alliance with Saudi Arabia) he can take Russia to fights that make him look like the good guy.

In a saner world I'd not be rooting for Russia and Iran's military success, but this was what happened during the time when salafist assholes were cutting down minorities and these two countries were fighting them, while America and Europe were going from seriously to gravely concerned about the ISIS scenario.

Longes wrote:

Mask_De_H wrote:Look Longes, you vodka swilling fuckfence, if you want to have anyone see your posts as anything other than "NOTICE ME PUTIN-SENPAI~" you're going to have to at least link your sources.

It's from the same fucking wikipedia article Frank linked, you twat.

You know what a pothole to an article has that an unsourced quote doesn't, fuckface? Citations.

E: In light of research on your claim, the fact that Crimeans enjoy not being a part of the shithole country that is the Ukraine does not negate the fact that Russian troops just rolled up into a motherfucker before the referendum like it was a Call of Duty game. And that isn't even counting the funky nature of the referendum (and the Crimea post referendum) in general.

W EDIT: Either you have an evil split personality, AndreChekov, or you are rocking some serious fucking cognitive dissonance. Here's a fun game: replace every instance of Islam/Muslim in that insane screed with Christianity/Christian, or Britain/British, or Spaniards/Spanish, or Mongol/Hun. Change the assimilation conflict to fit.

It's abhorrent MadLibs! AbhLibs!

The best thing you can say about this election cycle is that it has been intensely illuminating.

It has illuminated for me that my cousin thinks that Hillary is an Illuminati Witch (something I'd never heard of before him talking to me about it). It's shown me that there is a lot of crazy among people I know to varying degrees.

MGuy wrote:It has illuminated for me that my cousin thinks that Hillary is an Illuminati Witch (something I'd never heard of before him talking to me about it). It's shown me that there is a lot of crazy among people I know to varying degrees.

I love my little online echo chamber...

MGuy wrote:It has illuminated for me that my cousin thinks that Hillary is an Illuminati Witch (something I'd never heard of before him talking to me about it). It's shown me that there is a lot of crazy among people I know to varying degrees.

Worshipper of Moloch specifically.

Does your cousin follow a Syrian girl with big lips.

Wikileaks stuff wrote:Thanks to the Wikileaks Hillary Clinton Email Archive (containing 30,022 emails, free to search), we now have more concrete proof that Hillary Clinton and other globalist elites have occult ties.

Honestly this is the kind of thing that makes me vote for Hillary

Prak wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:67 is a measure to prevent grocery stores from giving out disposable plastic bags. 65 is a measure to make it more difficult for grocery stores to sell reusable bags. 65 is an attempt to undermine 67 and make it more difficult to implement. You should vote for 67 and not for 65, things are bad if 65 passes, as it gets really funky whether or not 67 passes at that point.

Wait, I'm confused. Looking at the props, 65 says "stores must put the money they get from reusable plastic bag sales into a fund for environmental purposes" and 67 says "the 2014 law should go into effect, and stores get to keep money from selling reusable bags"

So... wouldn't the optimal thing be to vote yes on both? The law takes effect and the money stores get from selling reusables goes to environmental causes.

65 is a poison pill ammendment created by people who want to undermine the plastic bag ban. There's some nice sounding stuff in it, but it's just intended to sound nice, not be nice. This is sadly a thing that corporations and pressure groups do quite frequently in California when there is a popular sounding motion on the ballot they want to undermine. They know that of the 36 million people in California, very few of them have ranks in Decipher Script.

-Username17

MGuy wrote:It has illuminated for me that my cousin thinks that Hillary is an Illuminati Witch (something I'd never heard of before him talking to me about it). It's shown me that there is a lot of crazy among people I know to varying degrees.

If I were 100% certain that this was true, I'd be more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of course, if the Illuminati are as powerful as is claimed, is there any possibility she could lose the election, unless Donald Trump is ALSO Illuminati?

That's a classic force - you create the illusion of free will, but either way people get the option you chose ahead of time.