The Gul's Psychotic Break/WF Implosion Banpool...

[The Question]

Yeah, but you know they're still talkin' shit about this place, as if they ain't down in the tank while we up here shittin'.

 

[The Question]

Was his name Guy Ritchie?

Ritchie gitchy-gitchy-GOOO!

 

[The Question]

I did like reading Castle switching his hysteria on when the owner spelled out the place was changing. He went from offering to help to nooooooo, you can't change this place

1. Eggs isn't the owner, which shows not only that you don't now know what you're talking about, you probably never did.

2. You're a halfwit sheep fucker. You're probably not even Scottish. You're probably feckin' Welsh.

 

[Anna]

You are simy a liar. I routinely decry all followers of that false religion which is normally your main complaint.

So, you hate white American Muslims the same as the rapefugee ones sponging off the dole?

I kinda doubt that from you.

 

['Gear]

I hope I never become a simy liar.

 

['Gear]

WF is so dead that there's nobody there who even commented on M. Bison's departure. It's like "last one to leave turn out the lights."

"WF is dead."

"How dead is it, Gear?"

"WF is so dead, no on cares that gturner came over here to announce how dead it is."

 

[The Question]

So, you hate white American Muslims the same as the rapefugee ones sponging off the dole?

I kinda doubt that from you.

Of course you do, because you've decided (absent all the evidence to the contrary) that it's not the behavior he's criticizing. So it must be the race.

Because if it's the race, you can indulge your cowardice and not call out the behavior along with him. So much easier to just call the guy criticizing the behavior a racist than to square your shoulders, straighten up, and take the uncomfortable step of saying, "Yes, that behavior is uncivilized. Men should not shoot at little girls for trying to have an education. Men should not murder their wives, sisters, or daughters for being too 'westernized'. It's wrong for violent fundamental religionists to murder gays."

Saying the foregoing takes guts. You haven't got any. So instead, you call Oerdin a racist and think you've gained some kind of moral high ground, when in fact you are simply a coward.

 

[gturner]

If you folks would listen to what he says instead of screaming "racist!" you'd understand his position, which is based on a person's beliefs and cultural attitudes.

Some of the lily white Muslim converts are worse than the Middle Easterners or North Africans in regards to jihad and Islamist supremacy. They do, however, know not to cut line at McDonald's. They might blow it up with a suicide vest, but they won't cut line. A Saudi, in contrast, would just march right up to the counter because it's their right and they're more important than anybody else.

Dinner has taken that rare step for a liberal, actually listening to what Islamists say and taking them at their word. For all liberals blather on about diversity, they don't actually believe it exists. The good and progressive liberal world view and value system is of course shared by all of humanity - except the evil people who voted for Trump. Muslims must somehow think like secular progressives except for their cute little cultural affectations of bowing toward Mecca (which makes them interesting and "diverse"), and every aspect of Islam must have some corresponding equality with Christianity. But unfortunately none of that is true.

Very secular Muslims in a Western environment may approach that, but they're not the problem. They also got undercut in their home countries with accusations that they are Western stooges, if not Zionist spies, and purveyors of non-Islamic values who are leading the ummah astray. The reassertion of "true Islam" (see ISIS for its proper, no-compromises implementation) has created a difficult environment for the secular Muslims, and the top-down argument-from-authority nature of Islam makes it hard for them to argue their position without completely undermining their status as authentic Muslims. They cannot win the cultural war within Islam on Islam's terms.

 

[Anna]

Very secular Muslims in a Western environment may approach that, but they're not the problem.

I'm glad we agree on this.

The reassertion of "true Islam" (see ISIS for its proper, no-compromises implementation) has created a difficult environment for the secular Muslims, and the top-down argument-from-authority nature of Islam makes it hard for them to argue their position without completely undermining their status as authentic Muslims. They cannot win the cultural war within Islam on Islam's terms.

I also agree with this. As do most people on both sides, believe it or not.

Where we differ is the labeling of every person fleeing these countries as savages, animals and rapists. And being black and having the Civil rights fight in living memory, I do not want to fall in the trap of labeling others that look different from me as "the enemy." We did that seventy years ago and it became one of the most humiliating stains in the tapestry of American history.

 

['Gear]

I'm glad we agree on this.


I also agree with this. As do most people on both sides, believe it or not.

Where we differ is the labeling of every person fleeing these countries as savages, animals and rapists. And being black and having the Civil rights fight in living memory, I do not want to fall in the trap of labeling others that look different from me as "the enemy." We did that seventy years ago and it became one of the most humiliating stains in the tapestry of American history.

So what's your solution?

 

[Anna]

Of course you do, because you've decided (absent all the evidence to the contrary) that it's not the behavior he's criticizing. So it must be the race.

Because if it's the race, you can indulge your cowardice and not call out the behavior along with him. So much easier to just call the guy criticizing the behavior a racist than to square your shoulders, straighten up, and take the uncomfortable step of saying, "Yes, that behavior is uncivilized. Men should not shoot at little girls for trying to have an education. Men should not murder their wives, sisters, or daughters for being too 'westernized'. It's wrong for violent fundamental religionists to murder gays."

Saying the foregoing takes guts. You haven't got any. So instead, you call Oerdin a racist and think you've gained some kind of moral high ground, when in fact you are simply a coward.

Yes, that behavior is uncivilized. Men should not shoot at little girls for trying to have an education. Men should not murder their wives, sisters, or daughters for being too 'westernized'. It's wrong for violent fundamental religionists to murder gays.

That isn't most Muslims, however, and I refuse to paint everyone of one culture or race with the same brush, no matter how barberic.

 

[Anna]

So what's your solution?

Start with not slandering all Muslims. Reach out and talk with the ones that are doing it right. Don't be like France that thinks banning the hijab will suddenly allow for women to be liberated: if anything, such a restriction will make the ones that need help the most stay inside.

The radicalization of mosques is a problem, but bullshit like Draw Mohammed Day is schoolyard taunting that creates more problems than it solves.

Basically, you do what you'd do with a woman you suspect is being abused: keep the lines of communication open as best as possible.

 

['Gear]

lol

 

[The Question]

Yes, that behavior is uncivilized. Men should not shoot at little girls for trying to have an education. Men should not murder their wives, sisters, or daughters for being too 'westernized'. It's wrong for violent fundamental religionists to murder gays.

That isn't most Muslims, however --

Wrong. You think nobody can see what goes on in Saudia Arabia, a "moderate" muslim country? You think nobody can see what goes on in Iran, or Qatar? It ain't 1985 any more, young lady. We get news out of those Islamist shitholes, and even the "moderate" ones oppress the fuck out of women, gays, and non-Muslims. So try again. It's a backward-ass, primitive-ass, vicious theocracy even in its most diluted form, so don't you even try to defend that shit. Nobody is buying it. That is most Muslims. Even the ones who aren't actively engaged in the primitive shit aren't standing up to stop it, and in fact, in Europe, they actively shelter those who do. So knock it off with the "not all" -- fucking enough do. Too many do. And too many of the rest give those fuckers shelter from secular dynamics that would stop it. And that includes you with this "not all" bullshit.

 

[The Question]

Start with not slandering all Muslims.

Yeah, just like it was "not all" fascists. Islam isn't a racial identity, it's an ideological identity, and that ideology implies some commonality of beliefs among all its adherents.

So yes, it fucking is all muslims, because those to whom the bronze-age bullshit does not apply aren't muslims and wouldn't be. It's a group based not on shared race but on shared beliefs.

Do ya get that, ya fuckin' willfully ignorant mo-ran? All muslims believe in the same shit, just like all neo-nazis believe in the same shit. That's what makes them muslims. If you don't believe in the bronze-age barbarian bullshit, you're not a muslim. So anybody who is a muslim, by necessity, believes in the bronze-age bullshit. Get it?

So yes, abso-fucking-lutely you can assume that a group based on shared beliefs all share beliefs. You fucking nincompoop.

 

[The Question]

So, you hate white American Muslims the same as the rapefugee ones sponging off the dole?

Maybe what he hates isn't even muslims but, rather, serial rapists sponging off the dole. I guess that hadn't occurred to you in your heated rush to label him a 'racist' so you wouldn't have to address that issue, though.

 

[Anna]

Wrong. You think nobody can see what goes on in Saudia Arabia, a "moderate" muslim country? You think nobody can see what goes on in Iran, or Qatar? It ain't 1985 any more, young lady. We get news out of those Islamist shitholes, and even the "moderate" ones oppress the fuck out of women, gays, and non-Muslims. So try again. It's a backward-ass, primitive-ass, vicious theocracy even in its most diluted form, so don't you even try to defend that shit. Nobody is buying it. That is most Muslims. Even the ones who aren't actively engaged in the primitive shit aren't standing up to stop it, and in fact, in Europe, they actively shelter those who do. So knock it off with the "not all" -- fucking enough do. Too many do. And too many of the rest give those fuckers shelter from secular dynamics that would stop it. And that includes you with this "not all" bullshit.

So moderates need to stand up to tertorists...but yet, as gturner pointed out and you agree with I'm sure, anyone standing up to the bullies will meet with a painful death by stoning or getting United off the highest building. Women should say "fuck head coverings" but know that death for doing so will be the lightest punishment they see.

Is that about right?

I'll be honest: I *dont* care as much about what happens in other countries. I *do* care about not selling what's left of America's sole in the name of "freedom." We don't need to copy Merkel and let in every immigrant. That was plain stupid no matter who the group was. I mean, haven't you been wailing on for two years now about an obscure message board doing underhanded shit to improve the board (ie, getting rid of you because you were a danger) and you want this on a national scale?

 

['Gear]

Soul.

 

[Colonel Kira's Left Tit]

I really doubt that anything anyone does on a message board could be misconstrued as "danger", unless you're way too attached to whatever paradigm you think exists there.

Otherwise, mostly agree with your assessment above, but substitute "security" for "freedom". At this point we've kind of collectively wiped our asses with the Bill of Rights in the name of feeling safe from the Evil Terrorists, and it has done nothing but compromise our supposed liberties with nothing much in return.

 

[The Question]

So moderates need to stand up to tertorists...but yet, as gturner pointed out and you agree with I'm sure, anyone standing up to the bullies will meet with a painful death by stoning or getting United off the highest building. Women should say "fuck head coverings" but know that death for doing so will be the lightest punishment they see.

Is that about right?

That's about right. Christianity had a reformation, you think that wasn't painful? You think the other other white Abrahamic meat didn't claim its share of blood during that? It had to happen, otherwise we'd have two savage death cults roaming the world now. But we do still have the one of them, and it has to go. By revolt or by glass parking lot, and I do not much care which it is.

I'll be honest: I *dont* care as much about what happens in other countries. I *do* care about not selling what's left of America's sole in the name of "freedom."

America's soul is freedom. That's the light we shined to the world for better than a century, though illiberal regressive dipshits have dimmed it. Our forebears fought and bled and killed and died to bitchslap the shit out of mother fuckers who denied people freeom. From the revolutionary war to the civil war to both world wars -- I won't name the rest because they're debatable, but those first four are absolutely not debatable -- Americans have bled and shed blood to keep the ring of freedom heard loud and clear.

We don't need to copy Merkel and let in every immigrant. That was plain stupid no matter who the group was. I mean, haven't you been wailing on for two years now about an obscure message board doing underhanded shit to improve the board (ie, getting rid of you because you were a danger) and you want this on a national scale?

No, what I've been complaining about a message board doing was it was censoring dissent. It was purging opposing views, and it still is, and look at what that's getting it. Mussolini would be proud, but fucking nobody else would be. WF has flushed itself down the goddamn shitter because those who run it are cowards. They can't tolerate opposing opinions. That's why gturner was banned. That's why I was banned, because the staff said "Hey, you must say these things and only these things" and I said, "Fuck you." and so out I went. And out went gturner for the same reason, and now more have been leaving of their own accord, because the staff of that board are fucking pussies who can't stand up to opinions that oppose their own.

Let me say that again, for emphasis:

Pussies.