Let's get a good OP going for once
Let's get a good OP going for once
Other urls found in this thread:
that you're rough probably
ngl I used to want to hate/skullfuck luka when I assumed they were a female
A lot of people like that.
Yeah. A lot of people don't mind being rough either.
It's a win-win for both parties.
I can't be bothered to do anything like that at the moment.
i like pets and hugs and hard pets and hard hugs
heavy petting tho
I wouldn't mind doing something like that right now, but it's hard to pluck meaningful partners out of thin air
dude those hard pets from based luka
i am so excited
I'm burntout and just turn people down now.
no hold up lemme ask you something
that was such a poor based grimu showing tbh
I saw zero appeal when I checked it out
It's like do boring grindy thing to be able to do next boring grindy thing ad infnitum
psure that grim is still jelly that luka and i respect each other
and grim just wanted to fuck her
Give women the respect they deserve !
What if we don't want respect?
I didn't say what they deserve.
How are you this today night time?
I made chickem noodle soyp from scratch
s-so what if I have a mommy fetish...
i mean like I'm much more into older women now (like 25-40)
d-does this make me weird
Sure, you know anybody who can make one?
w-what's so wrong with wanting a nurturing gf that happens to be old enough to have kids
Post music pls
Didn't think so.
How old are you
I can't make shitty ones though
20... and a half...
Don't sell yourself short. You make some of the shittiest OPs, champ.
RTL = u"" #u202e RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE LTR = u"" #u202a LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDINGPOP = u"" #u202c POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING
ehe I remember these
I can do worse.
its a bit small isnt it?
That's why your the best at being the worst, chief. Always striving for new lows.
Try to keep your dating around .8n
I made a whole pot but I only have the one dish that I could eat out of
The rest is in Tupperware in my fridge now
Fucking delicious soup though, I'm impressed I made anything without a recipe
Where do you find all the based music
The formula is 2(n-7) for lower limit. Apply that to the older person.
I fucked that up but I'm not fixing it.
I consume a lot of media. If I find a musician I like, I research them, their genre, and poke around until I find something I like.
I 400 some odd dollars to buy a book.
media is not something you consume though
home made soup can be baller, i once made one that was nothing but creamy broth, veg, and a fuckton of shredded chicken
It is exactly something you consume.
What the fuck other verb would you use for media
consume implies it is somehow tangible or gets "used up"
Media is entirely tangible. You also buy media. Maybe not with currency or whatever, but with your time and energy. You also buy it on a psychological level, by giving it your attention and allowing it to percolate through your mind and inform your understanding of the world at large.
Nah, not in vernacular at least
The other verbs are mostly too specific. Experience could work, although it seems too strong.
Consume is widely used and accepted already
that is the most jewish thing I read in a while
Fool was more articulate
It's not that the media itself is 'used up', it's the time. For example, a task can consume someone's life. It does not literally kill them, it just takes up a disproportionate amount of their time
yeah but that is a somewhat negative connotation
fool is just being pseudointellecutal
It is entirely negative.
How did it go ?
but that's 25 at highest and that's not even that old at all
age/2 +7 would leave me at 26
still too young
if it fits
IF IT FITS I DICKS.
Same. Listening to Jazz. Looking at memes. Dreading having to venture outside. The terror rises.
then do the outside thing quickly and jump back home
Yeee, hence why I leave now.
June 23, 2017
Model-chan and Plain Manager by Taneko ch. 3
[Doki] New Game! - Chapter 45
(COMIC1☆11) [なむあーる (な!)] ご注文はAV？ですか？ (ご注文はうさぎですか？) [DL版]
[MirrorWorld (未鏡)] みらいに続くまほう (魔法使いプリキュア！) [DL版]
[琥珀の島 (小鳥遊歩)] せんぱいは私の嫁っす! (咲-Saki-) [DL版]
Outside was terror.
Time to buy flags
Is it dead?
time to BURN flags
Fags will burn
Fag burning party when
Day of the rope.
I need an avatar
kinda wanna see axel's daughter take two dicks at once... same hole. Not going to Arizona for that though.
Wow this place really is finally dying isn't it?
tbh i wouldnt be entirely opposed to giving Holla Forums a go for a while
depends on how much anyone cares. if you still use it regardless then others will too I'm sure.
I think that'd result in bans still
Holla Forums have had avatar fags/waifu fags for a while now.
if someone makes a thread on /trash/ on 4chan, it might not get screwed with. The original MLP is there and they don't fuck with them a bit.
They have, but they are selectively banning still.
Holla Forums only
I dislike 8 and everything about it. Would rather stay to this corner personally, but it might not result in bans. I do not know.
I think we have enough alt-right trannies thank you
Bebop isn't a mod on /trash/ so we're safe and we'll get new people in our community.
I'm not alt right
I guess you're alright then
Give me an avatar to use.
boys are ew
What constitutes alt right?
anything i find too right wing
If you want Muslims out of your country
Is this one of those labels that people give to everyone they don't like and/or disagree with?
The alt-right is a loose group of people with far-right ideologies who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of white nationalism, principally in the United States, but also to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe.
I understood those were words.
I stay so far out of political talks that that told me nothing, though.
to some degree, its primarily used by anyone who considers themselves right leaning who has significant ideological differences with current american right ideology, such as neo-nazis, ancaps, right leaning liberals, etc.
if thats the case then why the fuck are ancaps and ex-leftie liberals calling themselves alt-right?
Right winged extremest.
ignored by rin
I don't know. I don't keep up with politics.
well if you dont keep up you should take care you dont say anything silly out of ignorance then
I don't have an affiliation.
I didn't. Not keeping up with shit and not knowing what things are are not the same thing.
What does that meme?
that u is a bich
you did though, you gave an incomplete description of a political faction
It was a summary.
Don't be retarded.
an incomplete and misleading summary
How will I ever recover now, all dignity... Lost.
Not really. Its actually very much on the money.
You will all go back to Holla Forums
You have to have had it to lose it.
No, not really.
Fuck off, Dexter.
not really, you cant boil a faction down to a single sub-faction unless it is totally dominant, especially not when its a coalition faction like the alt-right is. thats like calling the lib-dems socialist, or labour marxist.
alt-righters are people who unironically scream cuck and think Man of Steel is "kino"
So much for the tolerant left.
It's spelled Keanu and he wasn't in Man of Steel.
then tell me why it is for the last year every fucker from ayn rand fellating ancaps to slightly right of center youtube users have been flying that flag?
Hang them all
See my post about knowing what is going on in politics and knowing something about them are two different things.
the USSR will rise again.
STALIN DID NOTHING WRONG, MAO IS BAE
Best part of that video... and I know what I am listening to on route to work tomorrow.
It's my ringtone.
Sometimes I like to just let it ring.
doesnt matter, unless there is a widely recognized ideological tradition associated with a given faction you cannot go asserting that individuals who claim to be part of a faction are not part of that faction, unless an overwhelming majority within that movement elects to disassociate themselves from that person.
Soon, Comrade. We await the call to arms.
It is though so I'm not sure how to help you, dude-o.
The river runs red like our nation.
it is what though?
You'll figure it out.
dunno, seems to me you just want to take a given sub faction of a faction you dont like and apply the label of that sub-faction to everyone within the faction at large.
Could you please use "Faction" a little more, otherwise this makes no sense at all.
I don't care about the alt right. It is the literal meaning of alt right, you tard.
the word fits and is clear in its meaning, why not use it?
it's simple. the friction here is from squash using a fraction of the faction to represent the whole faction, which is a fiction and contradiction
it's not factual, i mean to say.
the alt right is the alternative right, nothing more and nothing less
We're having a conversation.
Of the factions in our nation.
A silly allegation of extreme exaggeration.
There's a lack of information.
When it comes to confirmation.
Maybe qt is just pretending to be retarded.
It is the far right winged. I literally took it off of Wikipedia.
When a fraction of a faction create friction it is a little fractious and facetious to falsely fracture and fillibust the factional subfaction to refract and reflect your falsehoods
I was only pretending to be a nazi - Literally every Alt-right scumhole ever
☭A NATION WHERE ONE IS FOR ALL☭
But (((Wikipedia)) is founded by an Ayn Randrone and the Zionist agenda to destroy America, etc, etc.
wrong, the alt-right is a rallying point for those who wish to distinguish themselves from the mainstream right, its right there in the name. what precisely constitutes the alt-right as a faction currently is up for debate, but while you have multiple wildly different ideological factions rallying under one banner you cannot claim that only one of those represents the whole.
eth no gra phic dis place ment
3rd wave feminists and other non-extreme feminists are still both feminists.
The same applies here.
What something is and who rally under the title are not the same.
Show your support for our man Marx.
wrong, feminism actually has an tradition of thought within it spanning at least half a century, the alt-right is a purely temporal faction within american politics with nothing unifying it besides common opponents. these two factions are not comparable.
This BS gets better
Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy. Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.
The argument isn't about tradition and how long it's been around. The argument is that comparatively both have multiple sub divisions rallying under one title while sharing different views.
You don't have to be around for a century to develop this mentality in a culture.
You are arguing semantics now.
Paint it red.
Steve Bannon is really Jesus come to purge the Jews and Muslims from America to return America to the white country it's been since Biblical times.
wrong, right-wing extremism and white nationalism has an tradition of thought within it spanning at least several hundred years, feminists are a purely temporal faction faction with nothing unifying them but common opponents.
Where are the other posters like Erio and other good people?
you are missing the point, i am saying that the alt-right has no unifying traits beyond common political opponents, and a shared interest in the ending of some political trends.
point to me the philosophical underpinnings of the historical faction that has consistently chosen for themselves the label of "alt-right" for the better part of their history
what does it matter what they call themselves
It does though.
The term feminist only started in the 1900.
That doesn't mean the ideology didn't exist prior.
Same for the alt-right.
You're arguing semantics again.
did I say Erio? I mean Sci.
Hey uhm, I know you are but I forgot your name. How are you?
Put on a name or I am not continuing this conversation.
The future is ==RED==
It requires its own line you
they actually built this
NO IT DOESNT LOOK AT ==THIS==
My stupid phone won't let me. What do I do?
because you can make the argument that if you choose to adopt a label of an existing faction you are supporting them and their ideology by counting yourself among them, this doesnt work however when the label is both generic in its literal meaning and where no single faction has held ideological dominance for an extended period of time.
semantics are important, sloppy use of language leads to sloppy thought, as clearly evidenced by you trying to assert that a single group within a coalition of groups represents the whole.
Do I get cock rations under communism.
Wow, i read this wrong.
The single group is a sub division of a larger group.
It is being used to describe that singular group.
They are just rebranded Neo Nazi.
And the Nazi have a pretty lengthy history.
You're arguing incorrect semantics.
How come you talk to this guy?
He doesn't even have a name.
you are arguing for an inaccurate use of a label simply because of popular conception.
Redistribution of poon?
You can't call them feminists because not all of them are the same.
The term was made to describe a particular group of people.
Who uses it now could be much broader, but the term was made with a specific group in mind.
Here. This is just going in circles. Argue something in here or whatever.
We must smash the Capitalists in every sphere... From economic and political to the bedroom
If you can't call the alt-right Neo-Nazis, does that mean you can't call any Muslim a terrorist or Brits cucks?
Oh shit did this nigger just use a motherfucking BUZZWORD
huh what do you mean? ^_^;
Anyhow I'm off to play FF15.
Its time for bed
time for dreams
dreams about Communism ♥
I wonder if Luka doesn't get hired, will he file a lawsuit for discrimination against him being a lesbian?
I'm gonna see if I can follow how this thread went:
Hit send without typing, doi.
I'd the ravenclaw, tbh
Kyle is such a hypocrite
Lewd! I thought trans MtF only liked men
The fat one looks pretty loveable.
that's his name, I totally forgot :3
wish I didn't read all that
I like how Dexter user posts still.
Ok, Test. I get what you mean now.
Is that really Bebop?
He got pointed out a few times in the past.
Grim says he regularly user posts too.
isn't saying something is linked by hundreds of years an example of something being 'temporal'? so they're both temporal. and both changed. and both are only unified by common components.
Workers of the nation unite. You have nothing to lose but your salaries.
you could at least read the thread if you're going to do this.
I prefer girls.
Like I did with alt rights.
But lord knows that ain't ok.
Also someone tell me how these are even different as examples.
Even though the words nothing alike and are diametrically opposed, in my mind I always mix up "Capitalism" and "Communism."
I always end up wanting to make communist jokes involving Recettear, but Recettear is about capitalism.
Rin. Take your disgusting capatalistic shit out of here.
We bleed red in this thread.
Squash, I'll have you know that my hive clusters work on a system of strict forced-voluntary contributions on part of all members of the brood.
Part 4. now people start doing multiple replies.
i'm going to bed
oh, Loco was literally turning English user's words on its head, complete with incorrect spelling and odd use of 'temporal'.
Weren't you done with this annihilation stuff, Kanra?
Fucking auto correct.
English user, you're right. Your definition has a higher resolution, and encompasses the varied and inconsistent use of the label 'alt right'.
Squash, your initial definition was too specific and had gaps. You said your reason was that they're all just sub-groups of each other, but if you actually made a bullet point list of what defines each ideology, you'd realize that some contradict, some are mutually exclusive, and only some are shared.
Literally no reason to boil them all down the way you defend doing.
gomen. I spotted my error.
I'm done with the psychoanalysis stuff. Analyzing arguments on animus is far better than whatever stupid entertainment I could be doing. Better practice for my brain, too.
That isn't what happened.
If you're going to do it at least try to be right when you do it.
fuck me i need to get out more
no, the term was adopted by people who saw fit to distinguish themselves from the mainstream rights rhetoric, it makes absolutely zero sense to invent a new fucking political term to catergorise a collection of people who already have a name for themselves, as you are implying was done.
wikipedia is meaningless when it comes to politics
sleep well, fag
white nationalism is not a unifying trait of the alt-right, it is merely a trait present in part of the alt-right
I only now learned what Boxxie's name is.
And yet they did. And it happened.
That's what the current alt right is described as.
Wikipedia is pretty ok for a citation as you can fallow its citations as well. Discrediting it is just some shit teachers did so you couldn't just pull answers from it.
It's not some informational boogy man.
Seemed kind of obvious.
Reported for DOX.
QT isn't gay.
Don't besmirch my darling.
Am I grim-tier yet?
by what authority?
you are laughably full of shit. wikipedia is not suitable as a source in academia because it is not vetted, it is almost entirely open to the public for open editing and thus there is no standard of academic rigor to it. citing wikipedia is no different to citing studies from poorly reputed organisations.
as for this case, wikipedia is not suitable as this is a political topic, and thus wikipedia is in and of itself inherently unreliable as a source. if you want the truth on any matter of politics you have to do your own research, and approach all things with an open mind purely in the honest pursuit of understanding.
politically i am some variant of liberal, in the actual philosophical sense. i have no interest in progressive/conservative politics.
No. I actually like Grim.
You not so much.
There is currently a part called the alt right who are generally akin to Neo Nazi political views. That is what I can only assume Rin originally asked in reference of to begin with and that was what I was giving the description to.
You want to be a cunt about it then we can just not have this conversation. You haven't exactly given much proof of your side you know.
your Wikipedia definition of alt-right
your simplified definition of alt-right
you saying you don't keep up with politics.
you saying that you still know what things are, even though you don't keep up with politics
you excusing your inaccuracies as 'summarizing'
you saying your apathy towards current events and knowing about them are mutually exclusive
you claiming that your definition was "the literal meaning of alt right"
you admitting you "literally took it off of Wikipedia."
you say your reason for grouping the alt right so specifically, is because you also group all forms of feminism. That labels are mutually exclsuive from their definitions. Insane!
you saying that feminism/right wing politics all fall under umbrellas, and despite "sharing different views", it's correct and normal to refer to the umbrella, the things under the umbrella being different
you say 'pro women movements' and 'movements under the label of feminism' are okay to mix together, since they're all sub groups of each other
you say a single label can be used to describe many things, even if they're different, which can be true, if the umbrella label is generic enough, but you argue for specific definitions of those umbrellas
ie. alt right is white nationalism, even though some alt right are not white or white nationalists
You also say that Nazi and Neo Nazi are the same thing, or can be considered the same, and that its pointless semantics to say otherwise. So you're saying Neo Nazis and the Third Reich are the same thing. Maddening!
And Wikipedia also gives links to citations, so you are free to go through and point out what ones are not credible.
Also for that last part see the top of my post. My description is for what the specific part of the group I am assuming Rin was asking about as it is the current meme.
Are you not doing the same thing as him and seeking out confirmation bias because you've cited nothing and the only thing you've presented is your opinion and insisted it is more factual than someone else's. By all means, present your academic sources since you're saying that he lacks any.
Did I misinterpret any of your posts?
Like, any of them?
I'll be honest.
I'm not even reading your posts.
That's the bitch way to win an argument.
Can't feel wrong if you avoid proof that you are!
You just read his post.
I don't read his posts that are longer than 30 words because I know he's just trying to be a part of it and flex some E-dick and he knows I don't enable that with him*
That's what I dislike about people who identify as "people that don't give fucks".
Because they still give fucks about things.
They just stop giving fucks about basic things, like being consistent.
Good luck with that
You're trying to force your way into the argument without actually adding anything to it.
Debating you on it doesn't seem like a good way to spend my time really.
It isn't like anyone is going to give to the other side.
At this point I'm just staying in it because if I don't then I lose.
Who cares ?
I mean, I don't think you have to care about something to take part in it. I don't care much about this as a topic, but I'm at least having some fun.
I've made you at odds with me. That was selfish, since I'd rather help you learn something important and useful.
I'd much rather you think about how and why you group different concepts. At first it may seem like I'm attacking you, but there's a good reason to be accurate about how you define and use different concepts.
You know I don't do this kind of thing with you for a reason.
It's been like that for like 3 years now.
Not like there's much going on right now anyhow.
Sup with you?
I wasn't an asshole til you accused me of being wrong.
And if you're gonna accuse me of that, at least have the decency to tell me how and where.
Don't be a punk.
But it's cute when you get uppity.
I'm about to cook while a bunch of high school kids try and be my friend.
Why are you around a bunch of high school kids?
Should the authorities be notified?
I'm uppity about being misunderstood and written off, just because I tell people they think the wrong things.
Then they don't allow me the sweet release of them realizing I was right, or witnessing their confrontation with their own ignorance.
I am already embroiled in one argument.
I don't have the motivation to be in another.
I'm gonna say no
which part don't you understand ?
Why are you around high school kids?
Ban gettin' some sweet 16 y/o pootang
I want some sweet pootang.
Too bad I'm not 16 y/o.
Or a dog.
16 is too old for a dog.
As do I.
That's why I ask.
Going to go play some games.
I believe you. I believe you don't want more of what I'm dishing out.
But that doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.
It's not good enough for me to think I'm right. Everyone thinks they're right. I either need proof, or for someone to admit they're wrong.
It's like being blue-balled.
I haven't had to drag anyone out of my house today at least.
if youre full of shit im going to tell you that you are full of shit, i mince my words for nobody.
i dont even need to, because you are apparently incapable of constructing an argument that isnt blatantly fallacious.
then you are the one playing with words on account of "memes", "its just a prank bro" doesnt cut it.
only thats not what im saying. what i am saying is that his appeal to the authority of wikipedia is fallacious on account of the topic in question being highly controversial, and wikipedia being publicly edited and thus not capable of providing a high quality assessment of anything.
secondly, squash has tried asserting that the popular understanding of the meaning of the given label trumps the reality of those who identify with said label. as this is a categorical claim, I only need cite one example of where this is not true to completely disprove it. see for example styxhexenhammer666 who has stated before that he identifies with the alt-right and also regularly mocks nazis, see also youtuber Rocking MrE, who also identifies with alt-right and considers both nazis and progressives to be basically the same kind of bullshit.
styxhexenhammer666 isn't a credible source.
*flippant hand wave*
he's too cool and busy to defend his ideas
he doesnt need to be, he only needs to exist and espouse 2 positions: first, that he identifies with the label "alt-right". second, that he disdains white nationalism. that is literally all that is required to prove you wrong, because you made a categorical claim about a group of individuals you have no information on like a complete idiot.
Except citing exceptions doesn't disprove a majority opinion, which is the entire purpose of language: a word means whatever is ascribed to it. Different groups can define things differently but the majority still describes it as such.
You can go read the wiki page that I liked and show me the info on there that is explicitly wrong then.
If you're going to argue my claims then provide credible sources like you're saying I have to.
And I already said that the alt right that I was describing that Rin asked about was the meme party that is in popular culture. I already said that so your argument isn't really holding up.
Not to mention your passion for this is rather concerning.
Also if you're going to be a a kid and name call I'm just going to stop responding.
"not mincing your words" is just an excuse to act like a kid honestly.
Either grow up and have a civil argument or I'm just not going to bother.
squash, you claimed a very specific definition for 'alt right'
you were giving a summary of a generalization
but it was literally untrue.
If what you've been saying all thread was true, it'd look like a circle COMPLETELY inside another circle
this is a categorical assertion about the opinions of a group of individuals, a single exception invalidates that assertion.
if the world refuses to acknowledge that you are of the same species as us does that make them right?
i dont need to, there is literally nothing there that is at all relevant.
i am not the one making any assertion as to what is here, because i do not need to. i need only point to aspects of your argument that are entirely fallacious, and combine them with anecdotal evidence for it to be immediately apparent that your argument is not correct.
so youre talking out of your arse and not at all attempting to make an assertion that properly and completely reflects reality?
i really, really dislike dishonest attempts at ascribing beliefs to people.
youre blatantly pulling shit out of your arse with no regard as to what is and is not reflective of reality, i dislike people piss arsing me about and acting smug when its obvious for all to see that they are full of shit.
the best way to solve for the differences, is to either drop the generalization, or make the generalization vague enough to encompass all the variations
personally, it makes a lot of sense to treat the ideas on an indiviual, person by person basis
that's literally the best, but longest way to conclude anything about the 'alt right'
If you aren't going to check my citations then there is no reason to continue.
this is not academic! you don't need sourced papers!
this is literally a matter of logic!
this, do we literally have to explain set theory and how logic works to him?
except that is exactly the case, his argument is so weak that literally a single example counter to it breaks it, and in order to make any authoritative statement like he is trying to make he would actually have to engage in actual fucking research.
your citations do not matter, your very reasoning is incorrect
Also I don't care if you hate something.
If you aren't going to actually check my sources after asking for them then you're a fucking moron.
Considering language isn't definitive nor precise and varies entirely on speaker and receiver, you seem to intentionally be arguing against the concept of language itself if you're saying the majority's definition of a word make it inaccurate.
Either find flaws in the actual citations and their content or piss off and don't ask for them.
You're still asking for sources for his definition while your definition is based on what you believe as though your definition requires no proof or support but his does.
He says my proof is not worth reading so it's like I have no proof at all.
your sources do not matter, you made a categorical claim to which a single incorrect classification is a complete invalidation of your claim.
he would need some pretty good research to claim what hes claiming, alternatively he could stop making categorical claims about groups and instead focus on what can be demonstrated to be applicable to any given individual within the group in question.
you havent given proof, to give actual proof you would need to sit down and perform a proper investigation into the philosophy underpinning every last distinguishable faction within the alt-right, or survey every last person within the alt-right.
your citations are IRRELEVANT because you have not made a statistical claim, you have made a categorical claim that can be debunked with next to no effort by fucking anyone, you complete and utter fucking retard.
my definition is literally that the alt-right is composed of individuals who identify as right wing, and do not identify with what they perceive as the prevailing set of right wing ideas. essentially, my definition of the alt-right is that it is whatever can be classified by the literal meaning of the label, thats so far encompassing you would need to go out and find a person who identifies as currently left-wing or identifies with the right wing establishment to prove me wrong. my argument is literally a tautology, limited only by my own poor phrasing as to what constitutes the inverse of "alt".
even using the words 'set theory' is enough to make people blank. not everyone is as jarred by an incorrect logical step.
the more words you use, the more they space out
can you explain your steps for why you think your definition is true?
do I follow you:
source A claims a definition
you trust source A
So here are your sources for the Wikipedia sentence:
VICE news article
The Forward article
BBC news article
All of them vaguely describe some members of a group, and assume others are part of the group, but none of them account for the contradictions and variations within 'alt right' individuals!
It's almost like every faction or group has member who do not have all the characteristics of the general collection of the group.
Don't ask for sources if you're going to ignore them then. I got my proof from that page. You can go there and find where it's wrong, but we both know you're going to be a twat and just say you don't have to on the chance you're wrong.
Keep name calling, kiddo.
Here are your sources!
All of them vaguely group a bunch of people, where grouping isn't necessary!
None of them account for the accuracte view that 'alt right' people are varied, contradict, overlap, share, disagree, agree, and have personal definitions.
In order for the Wikipedia definition to be wrong, all it takes is ONE person to not fit that category. Seems tedious, but that's how logic works.
See the above post.
If you don't post actual sources for your definition then I'm going to just assume you're also pulling shit out of your ass and leave it at that.
Also, Kanra you would have to go through more links than just 4, but I do respect the fact you actually went through even one compared to QT not going through any if you actually did.
He has no proof either yet is still stating his definition has authority behind it because it's what he thinks.
Political ideologies and labels are not single issue broad statements that means anything can fall under it's umbrella. They're nebulous at worst, dogmatic at best. If there's enough reoccurring elements among a political group that it becomes it's public defining features, then the label means that, right or wrong.
If you'd like to actually discuss this on Steam we can, Kanra.
It's not really something that matters in the end. I'm just defending my stance the best I can, although I am bad at arguing my points in general. I'm not saying he's wrong, but just why I think I'm right.
If you'd like to actually discuss this on Steam we can, Kanra.
It's not really something that matters in the end. I'm just defending my stance the best I can, although I am bad at arguing my points in general. I'm not saying he's wrong, but just why I think I'm right.
Kiddo, read your own fucking sources.
Then maybe do the responsible thing and tell us how it relates to the Wikipedia sentence.
Explain. Your. Steps. Otherwise we'll assume there are only THREE steps to your position.
1) Sources say something
2) Wikipedia uses sources for definition
3) You use Wikipedia definition because it has sources
I can tell you what the sources say. They're news articles vaguely indicating the loose political movements of different groups of individuals in different countries, NONE of them suggest they're exclusively identified as 'white nationalists', but the Wikipedia article suggests they are.
At best, it's lazy. At worst, it's misleading.
its basic propositional logic, any student in a field where classical logic is even remotely relevant learns this within weeks of starting university, any first year student of comp sci could immediately see that i have no need of defending my own argument, as it is quite literally so general as to be incapable of being wrong.
look, i get that youre fucking about here, but you are making a categorical claim for which no amount of sources can save you from a single incorrect instance. your insistence on citations here has only shown that you are incapable of reasoning on par with a first year university undergraduate with a mediocre understanding of knowledge, as you were incapable of identifying a tautology. a tautology, just so you know, is a statement that can never be false, because it literally makes no argument.
here is precisely all the citations i need to support my assertion:
The first part of the article is where I pulled my definition of the alt right.
If you actually went through the citations and found flaws I'm happy to change my outlook on it if you want to provide additional information that might aid in this from the articles.
Sorry, I don't have to read your citation.
Jesus Christ no wonder people stopped posting regularly here
i made a tautological claim, my sole position on this so far has been that P does in fact equal P. in that book somewhere should be a chapter telling you precisely what a tautology is, and why asking for citations to prove one is nonsense. alternatively just be lazy and read the wikipedia page on propositional logic, they should have a section on tautologies there.
It kind of sucks, but honestly I'm happy people are moving on.
According to the logic of the Wikipedia sentence:
either black 'alt right' members are white nationalists that reject mainstream conservatism, OR there are NO black alt right members
either mexican 'alt right' members are white nationalists that reject mainstream conservatism, OR there are NO mexican alt right members
either spanish 'alt right' members are white nationalists that reject mainstream conservatism, OR there are NO spanish alt right members
either mixed 'alt right' members are white nationalists that reject mainstream conservatism, OR there are NO mixed alt right members
All it takes is ONE example of ONE person that doesn't fit that criteria in order for it to be wrong.
In order to make it a better definition, you just need to remove the word 'white'. Or just add the words 'many of whom are white nationalists'. There are a lot of ways to capture the vagueness of the label, and I'd argue it's important to realize just how vague and generic its use has been in the media.
In fact, one of its biggest dangers is how people hide behind the vagueness of it, and how randomly its used.
to be fair, what is there to come here for besides talking to a dwindling number of people you know online?
But a political ideology that has two words in its name does not mean just those two words.
By that "logic", Labor Party means they are a group that only agrees on people working.
we should maybe pin a poll for going back to Holla Forums or something, all that can come from staying here is slow decline and eventual death
What if a person who claims to be something and isn't just simply isn't that thing.
If I claim to be black, but I'm white, that doesn't mean the definition of black is wrong. The individual could simply be identifying wrong.
I'm cool with Holla Forums, but can we please be selective on who we bring back here?
But what if twenty people identify wrong? Or a hundred? How many does it take for the definition to change?
Clearly a better definition would encompass these discrepencies, and not have to change constantly.
I feel like at that point you should just use a new term to distinguish the new groups because it isn't like the old group left.
It's not about 'who' we bring to Holla Forums, but 'what' we're bringing.
If we're going to create another aimless, infinite chatroom, thats better there.
a tautology is not something that can ever be refuted, as it is not an argument, its literally saying that a thing is a thing. terms can have multiple meanings, but in this case you are talking about an organisation that calls itself the Labour Party, which is not the same as attempting to classify a group of people based on criteria.
in order to classify people by criteria, you either have to demonstrate that a set of given characteristics ALWAYS indicates that the individual belongs to the group, or you have to present a statistical argument, which requires research, and is a fundamentally different kind of claim to a logical one.
People working and partying.
What if grouping the reformed group with the outdated old group is part of an agenda to make them all seem bad?
Not like that ever happens.
We'd be bringing people back.
Then you're mixing groups.
im thinking basically the old anime circlejerks, but at this point i wonder if we can keep posts regular and frequent enough to keep threads from just sliding off page 15
What if someone calls themselves a Democrat but votes Republican?
Should we group them with Democrats that voted Democrat?
How about Democrats that don't vote?!
The answer isn't difficult. It's about using more words, and more accurate words to describe people.
4chan lets you just auto dump so we could easily bump our threads like that. Not to mention anons will come and bitch like the fur threads and such. I'm sure with a small base of people it wouldn't be hard.
If we're going back to Holla Forums, let's bring a mentality.
We have enough random shitposting as it is.
That will bring us closer together, create a community identity, and new posters will want that sense of belonging, and want to join.
Nah. Let's be tsun as shit to new folk.
We can be that anywhere.
I'll post in both places. Just mark threads with the marker so I can find them.
we need our own tribalism
like the gfurs once had
or the pones
or the alicefags
or the gfur trolls
We also need cool, interesting, sociable people to seduce new posters.
too bad we're all shit.
You're all shit.
I'm fly as hell.
old Squash was fly as hell. He made gfur posters come back to the threads week after week to see what was up. Perhaps he was soft, needy, a little sensitive, but really friendly. Now he's somehow grizzled and jaded, and not even 25.
I'm feeling 22.
you have the rest of your life to be grizzled.
maybe don't be so eager to be it now?
I'm nice when I feel like it.
it's less of a priority these years. ik.
I like far fewer people.
i read lockes second treatise cover to cover with no issues, so suck on these nuts
not saying you're not nice. just less 'old Squash' style nice
which was 'nice by default' and 'dick with a reason'
spicy stuff ITT
well, it was written in English
its another thing to succinctly put him in your own words
but I have no reason to doubt you can.
So many reasons to be a dick.
its honestly all about the writing style, locke is really quite to the point
so many ways to deal with negative thoughts that aren't being a dick
this undercuts your feat
why decide to read it in the first place?
None of them as fun.
They're definitely more advanced moves.
Effort is insufficient.
There are ways to make it feel effortless.
Repitition is a good one.
The more you let yourself pass
the harder it gets
~I'm sailing away~
im interested in liberalism
Literally anyone else.
Almost literally anyone else.
Just here to show Squash that things can always be worse~
It could still be better.
squash massages balls for a living so who cares what he thinks?
I massage brains for a living so who cares what I thinks
And I'm damn good at it.
reading the OG material is one way to go about it
following who it influenced then is important too
but does any of it compare to the vantage point of all the data and studies we have in 2017?
are you good at it?
I read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill for the exact same reason: curious about wtf liberal meant.
Pretty sure you can get a good sense of what 'liberal' became in America, England and France by reading others
Let me know how it goes. kindly.
I made someone cry at paintball. I felt so bad.
Oh, heck no.
was it a little kid?
what good are you then
I'm pretty shit tbhbbq fam bruh
Should probably just kms tbh
yeah you should lbgtq
Eromanga Sensei ended today too, why even live?
never seen it
He didn't call his hits and kept running. It was like the second time I've ever played paintball but I figured if they don't say they're out, you can keep shooting them.
Yeah, that makes sense.
It's pedo bait, not furry bait.
i dunno what you mean i barely post furry stuff
im gonna have a hard time getting hold of robert hookers writings, but ill definately be reading hobbes soon
i dont think its comparable, the perspective of locke is different. reading locke was like having much of my own politics explained to me and justified without the need of my own personal moral framework.
You've been posting a furry at me the whole time.
what animal even is this
Looks like an owl to me.
June 24, 2017
Hana and Hina ch15
little by little
Mitsuboshi Colors - c028 (v03) [Katyusha]
Mochi Au Lait 7
[GiB] A Room for Two - Chapter 16 [Yukiko]
[kaori hero] Homuhomu Night Mission (Puella Magi Madoka Magica) [English]
(C63) [メルヘンBOX (よろず)] どれみパラダイス9 (おジャ魔女どれみ)
(成年コミック) [雑誌] COMIC BAVEL 2017年7月号 [DL版]
(東方合同祭事伍) [ムゲンダイ (フメイ)] マエリベリー・ハーンは甘えたい (東方Project)
[りんとねこ (くうねりん)] みれぃのミルクのむぷり (プリパラ) [DL版]
[メルヘンBOX (よろず)] どれみパラダイス1 (おジャ魔女どれみ)
idk she just fits and her voice is super cute
lol gj teaching that dumb kid reality
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
Most definitely a furry.
Thanks, Luka 2.0.
i need a cat
Unfortunately, that's a rabbit.
you're a rabbit
Is that the order?
Is the order a rabbit?
no bunnies are too cute to eat
Tfw no cute little sister to watch anime and play games with