The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Badger]

Ferguson says 2K for reparations does he knows how much Per Capita Native American gets that's a joke it should be no more or no less than 30 K per person like Native Americans as cash payments not a 1 M dollars or 2K dollars it's called reparations not stimulus check

That’s not what I said. Learn to read.

A personal attack from one of the worst posters here on our a True and Wise Forum Institution surely belongs here.

Ferguson is right that he was badly misquoted and taken out of context. Quit sucking up

[Badger]

Behold, a sh**tpost truly for the ages!

I'm sure it was very painful and tough for people like Chris Watts to kill his children too, but that doesn't make killing his kids morally acceptable.

[Badger]

Hockey is an L sport anyway, good thing it's gonna slowly die

Wayne Gretzky will be forgotten

[Badger]

So, yes, a lot of the time people should not be held accountable because people might be targeted for revenge, and this is true regardless of your ideological position.

When it comes to our foreign policy this is true , otherwise pretty much every president we had since 1945 could be charged .

So Obama made 100% the right decision not to prosecute people from the Bush admin

"Every president was a war criminal. If you want to prosecute Bush, you'll have to prosecute every president."

Is this really the argument you're making?

Every super power has done stuff that have been morally negative at some point including the US. The difference is we have been a greater force for good than any super power in the history of the world and if you prosecuted presidents for the morally negative stuff they did, they would not have been able to do the good that they did as many things are morally grey.

You're failing to distinguish between morally negative and illegal under us law. Obviously both the American people and Congress give presidents great leeway indeed to engage in morally questionable stuff to further our foreign policy goals. History is demonstrated that clearly. But again, one absolutely must distinguish such actions between those which are violative of American law.

If you do something morally questionable to further America's goals, that's between a president, the congress, the voters, and their conscience. If a president violates American law for whatever reason, that should be between them and a judge or jury.

[Badger]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

Yellow Avatar officially triggered.

[Badger]

A twofer of peak Vosem

Radical leftists kill people all the time (estimates for deaths in the June 2020 riots vary but I've never seen them set to zero; the Waukesha lone-wolf attack made a decent amount of news) but also through preventing new medications from being approved and the wealth of society from being increased. (Which side is always advocating for redistribution?)

Are you arguing that the left trying to lift people up9 from homelessness and poverty kills more people than the left supporting polices that make it harder for well-off people to become rich / richer? Wild stuff.

Yes, by many orders of magnitude. It's not even close and it's bizarre that some people still think it is.

So is McCarthy condemning the Killing Fields, or is he whining about high spending? He can't honestly be doing both in the same breath unless he thinks one is tantamount to the other.

I think the idea that high spending is the start of a slippery slope to the Killing Fields is not really that exotic in American politics (and particularly the idea that high spending whose goal is redistribution is the start of a slippery slope to the Killing Fields). Framed the correct way I think a substantial number of the Democrats who voted 'yea' would agree with that proposition, and well more than half of Americans.

[Badger]

P.S. Your "Ten Stages of Genocide" are more aligned with what's happening to White folk/Conservatives, then what's happening to gays/minorities. Gays and minority groups are glorified by the press, and illegals are allowed to have college education here, while White folk are unable to get work at someplaces just because they aren't black enough. Your head is up your ass; how about you take it out of there and observe the real world, rather than your rectum full of Woke Leftist sh**t.

This fella is not off to a great start lmao

Say what you want mate, I stand by every word I said.

That doesn't make it one bit better, "mate". Not at all.

[Badger]

A pre-op (originally heterosexual) trans woman is no less likely to commit sex crimes than a straight cis male.

Not only is this is objectively false, it’s completely illogical and stupid. It insinuates that there’s something about bottom surgery that reduces the likelihood that someone will commit sexual assault.

It’s easier to rape someone when you have a penis

Not unless your fingers and mouth have also been cut off. Not joking.

[Badger]

A pre-op (originally heterosexual) trans woman is no less likely to commit sex crimes than a straight cis male.

Not only is this is objectively false, it’s completely illogical and stupid. It insinuates that there’s something about bottom surgery that reduces the likelihood that someone will commit sexual assault.

It’s easier to rape someone when you have a penis

Not unless your fingers and mouth have also been cut off. Not joking.

A rapist can’t orgasm from fingering or blowing their victim, so there wouldn’t be as much of a reason for them to do so

Dude, this is an insanely awful take literally posting directly into the forum. Legally, digital penetration and fellatio / cunnilingus counts as rape. Every researcher on the topic Under the Sun will tell you that rape is 99% of the time about power not sex. Thinking of this in terms of wanting to get one's rocks off is mind-bogglingly jaw-droppingly stupid.

Again, thank you for posting directly into the thread

[Badger]

Context. A threat about a school teacher who open carries out of Texas Elementary School leaving his loaded firearm behind in a bathroom stall.

Reminder that guns are tools and just because a gun is left somewhere does not mean a massacre of some kind is about to happen or in any way likely to happen.

[Badger]

Context. A threat about a school teacher who open carries out of Texas Elementary School leaving his loaded firearm behind in a bathroom stall.

Reminder that guns are tools and just because a gun is left somewhere does not mean a massacre of some kind is about to happen or in any way likely to happen.

I like you, but there are times you seem to act like a one-note robot who can only criticize and can't understand context or naunce. Considering this post I gave later on in the thread:

Firearms are not respected enough in American society. Everyone comprehends you can kill people with them, but not too many realize what that actually entails in terms of best practices. They aren't some kind of toy to flash about as if it's nothing. They aren't something to worship. They are something to defend yourself with and to use for functional purposes as you are so permitted to under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. And if you are a gun owner it is helpful to get proper training and store your weapon/weapons  responsibly as well.

I think your postings in this instance are clearly more ignorant than mine, taken as a whole.
Have a nice day.

Dude, I took your subsequent post into context, and yes, this is still a post very much Worthy for inclusion in this thread.

Noting that a loaded handgun left in the bathroom of an elementary school available to any student that passed by, and commenting that at least a massacre wasn't likely to occur, was missing the point in the extreme, combined with an overhelping of minimization.

I like you too, but take the L here and move on.

[Badger]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

[Badger]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

I don't take advice from someone we already know is racist and sexist. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with what Fergie and Mr. X said, it's just another box to check for you.

also

Holding you in contempt personally hardly makes me sexist, though I understand that hanging around with people whose end goal of social policy is handmaid's tale lite must create a huge crave for deflection.

And racist? I have to admit I'm not sure if that's yet more deflection, or projection, or a mixture. Probably the latter.

[Badger]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

I don't take advice from someone we already know is racist and sexist. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with what Fergie and Mr. X said, it's just another box to check for you.

also

Holding you in contempt personally hardly makes me sexist, though I understand that hanging around with people whose end goal of social policy is handmaid's tale lite must create a huge crave for deflection.

And racist? I have to admit I'm not sure if that's yet more deflection, or projection, or a mixture. Probably the latter.

Says the white male who hates when minorities don't agree with him.

FTR, I hate it when anyone disagrees with me.

[Badger]

"Goysplain" is not a slur, that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

The simple truths thread is thataway-->

I don't take advice from someone we already know is racist and sexist. Of course you'd see nothing wrong with what Fergie and Mr. X said, it's just another box to check for you.

also

I think anyone who interacts with Badger for more than 30 minutes feels this way.

The creepiness goes back nearly a decade with multiple posters reporting that same stalky sentiment.

Sorry, who are you again?

[Badger]

The spam argument doesn't hold water because the problem some people have with these posts is not that they are spam, it's that they are evidence that radicalism is real and that the anti-transgender crusade was never about parental rights or anything else seemingly reasonable.

The spam argument exists because it actually is spam. There is no evidence to support this idea that a "trans genocide" is happening, and there is no valuable discussion that results from the threads. It's just an excuse for some red or maroon av to falsely claim "trans genocide" with no proof and for a bunch of people to reply things like"omg Republicans are evil and have to be stopped" like it means anything.

I haven't see anyone say it is actually happen, but it's clear that there are people proposing it (this person at CPAC). And not all the threads are about genocide, but are also about bills about banning transitioning and even removing children from the home.

If you even bothered to listen to what he actually said, he was referring to transgenderism (an ideology), not transgender people. He's clearly not even close to proposing genocide.

But of course like every other red/maroon av on this forum that frequently posts about trans issues, it's much easier to push your existing beliefs than actually listen to what is being said or reason what is actually being proposed from the source itself.

There's no such thing as transgenderism. It's just a word right-wingers made up to refer to all transgender people in a way where they can do exactly what you just did which is create a false narrative of talking about something separate.

The simple truths thread is thataway.

Again, trying to say you're not trying to get rid of transgender people just transgenderism is like saying you're not trying to get rid of jews, just jewishness. You're fooling no one.

[Badger]

And the first thing the House Republicans did when they got the gavel was denounce sOcIaLiSm.

GOP Clown world.

Socialism is an everyday threat to ordinary Americans and white supremacy is not.

Beat me to it. Vosem was on a real white privilege roll last night.

There is no such thing as dog-whistling of any kind -- racial or otherwise -- from anyone -- conservative or otherwise.

[Badger]

The spam argument doesn't hold water because the problem some people have with these posts is not that they are spam, it's that they are evidence that radicalism is real and that the anti-transgender crusade was never about parental rights or anything else seemingly reasonable.

The spam argument exists because it actually is spam. There is no evidence to support this idea that a "trans genocide" is happening, and there is no valuable discussion that results from the threads. It's just an excuse for some red or maroon av to falsely claim "trans genocide" with no proof and for a bunch of people to reply things like"omg Republicans are evil and have to be stopped" like it means anything.

I haven't see anyone say it is actually happen, but it's clear that there are people proposing it (this person at CPAC). And not all the threads are about genocide, but are also about bills about banning transitioning and even removing children from the home.

If you even bothered to listen to what he actually said, he was referring to transgenderism (an ideology), not transgender people. He's clearly not even close to proposing genocide.

But of course like every other red/maroon av on this forum that frequently posts about trans issues, it's much easier to push your existing beliefs than actually listen to what is being said or reason what is actually being proposed from the source itself.

There's no such thing as transgenderism. It's just a word right-wingers made up to refer to all transgender people in a way where they can do exactly what you just did which is create a false narrative of talking about something separate.

The simple truths thread is thataway.

Again, trying to say you're not trying to get rid of transgender people just transgenderism is like saying you're not trying to get rid of jews, just jewishness. You're fooling no one.

Congratulations on using that Meme for the 4000th time that you were unable to articulate a compelling response.

[Badger]

The United States is absolutely hated by almost all Spanish-speaking people and more or less plays the role of Russia with Ukraine in Latin America. Being an "Anglophile" in the Hispanic world or Africa is basically a condemnation of political marginality.   

The bolded statement is so absurd on its face that one is forced to assume that he is trolling. Millions upon millions of Spanish-speaking people have been pouring into the United States, legally and illegally, for decades. 50% of the 48,000,000 foreign-born Americans are from Latin America, plus however many more illegal immigrants.

Clearly these people are coming to America by the millions because they hate it so deeply. Impeccable logic.

I am Hispanic and have lived in Mexico for years. With this comment you only show that you absolutely do not know the Hispanic culture. Just because they emigrate doesn't mean they like the country, lmao.

" Mexicans in central Americans are coming to America in droves because they hate America"--some guy.

[Badger]

The United States is absolutely hated by almost all Spanish-speaking people and more or less plays the role of Russia with Ukraine in Latin America. Being an "Anglophile" in the Hispanic world or Africa is basically a condemnation of political marginality.    

The bolded statement is so absurd on its face that one is forced to assume that he is trolling. Millions upon millions of Spanish-speaking people have been pouring into the United States, legally and illegally, for decades. 50% of the 48,000,000 foreign-born Americans are from Latin America, plus however many more illegal immigrants.

Clearly these people are coming to America by the millions because they hate it so deeply. Impeccable logic.

I am Hispanic and have lived in Mexico for years. With this comment you only show that you absolutely do not know the Hispanic culture. Just because they emigrate doesn't mean they like the country, lmao.

As of November 2021, 66% of surveyed Mexicans had a positive opinion of the United States.

https://www.acrosskarman.wilsoncenter.org/article/most-mexicans-perceive-positive-us-mexico-relationship

Cool anecdote tho 👍👍

That poll is absolute garbage, lmao. 

"Because I say so!"

Doing a great job lately with posting directly into the thread, dude.

[Badger]

You can reject transgenderism while still being compassionate to the individual.

Nope. "Love the sinner, reject the sin" is a bunch of horsesh**t.

In practice, it really is. The people who say this somehow display a sh**tload of hate, both personally and in policy, towards the people they supposedly offer Christian love too.

Let's be frank. I would say 90 plus percent of the people who say this are more or less American Taliban types who want to sanctify their own bigotry while ignoring the very unchrist-like treatment of their fellow human beings.

[Badger]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

We apparently need to make a new thread for you entitled " truths too close to home for me to feel comfortable with".

[Badger]

They know better but are still Republicans, which is even worse. Being a Republican is immoral. Being a right winger or conservative is not immoral, but identifying as a member of that political party specifically in 2023 is extremely morally dubious, at this point.

They're usually even bigger sickos than non-college Republicans. Blood-suckers who hate the poor with a passion.

We apparently need to make a new thread for you entitled " truths too close to home for me to feel comfortable with".

Saying that being a member of one of two major political parties makes you automatically immoral is a delusional, asocial and absurd thing to say.  Not surprised you agree with it.

Those two assertions about the Republicans are basically true. Sorry, not sorry.

[Badger]

Haiti desperately requesting outside help and potentially receiving it is neither "imperialism" or "neocolonialism", particularly when such intervention comes from their Caribbean neighbors rather than distant foreign powers.

Addressing the comment about "stifling Haitian sovereignty": Haitian sovereignty has already effectively ceased to exist. Haiti is a failed state with a government consisting entirely of empty seats and interim officeholders. It is completely unable to control either the gangs or mobs. The best they can manage is for police to control less than one fifth of the neighborhoods in Port-Au-Prince, and nothing anywhere else. The Haitian government only exists as a legal fiction at present, and does not exercise sovereignty over anything.

Haiti would probably be better off today if the French just took a “no mercy” approach to Haitian Revolution, as much as I hate to say it. But I don’t know if it would be worth it for the destruction said approach would’ve caused.

Requires no explanation.

Apparently the problem with Haitian history is that there wasn’t enough genocide. It’s bad enough when certain lunatics claim that the 1804 Haitian Genocide was justified somehow, but TheReckoning has managed, as usual, to have worse takes than I’ve ever thought possible. At times like these you remember that his first posts on the forum were defending the honor of an SS member and concentration camp guard who was deported to Germany.

Does endorsing the genocide of the black population qualify as a violation of site ToS? I feel like it should be.

Seriously. This stain has put Hitler and Pol Pot in his signature threads, posted crap like this more than a few times.  Nazi defender, racist genocide promoter. Why isn't this guy been banned yet?

[Badger]

Haiti desperately requesting outside help and potentially receiving it is neither "imperialism" or "neocolonialism", particularly when such intervention comes from their Caribbean neighbors rather than distant foreign powers.

Addressing the comment about "stifling Haitian sovereignty": Haitian sovereignty has already effectively ceased to exist. Haiti is a failed state with a government consisting entirely of empty seats and interim officeholders. It is completely unable to control either the gangs or mobs. The best they can manage is for police to control less than one fifth of the neighborhoods in Port-Au-Prince, and nothing anywhere else. The Haitian government only exists as a legal fiction at present, and does not exercise sovereignty over anything.

Haiti would probably be better off today if the French just took a “no mercy” approach to Haitian Revolution, as much as I hate to say it. But I don’t know if it would be worth it for the destruction said approach would’ve caused.

Requires no explanation.

Apparently the problem with Haitian history is that there wasn’t enough genocide. It’s bad enough when certain lunatics claim that the 1804 Haitian Genocide was justified somehow, but TheReckoning has managed, as usual, to have worse takes than I’ve ever thought possible. At times like these you remember that his first posts on the forum were defending the honor of an SS member and concentration camp guard who was deported to Germany.

Does endorsing the genocide of the black population qualify as a violation of site ToS? I feel like it should be.

I never endorsed any genocide. Stop misrepresenting what I was saying.

Except you quite explicitly did. In plain english. And then double down and defended the genocide of Native Americans as just one of those things that has to happen and pointed to the economic prosperity of America and Canada as proof it was necessary.

Forgive us all if we do not take the word of someone who "ironically" put images of Hitler and Pol Pot into their signature, plus objected to the deportation for trial of a Nazi Camp guard by arguing "well, someone had to guard the camps" that they're quite explicit defense of not one but two incidents of historical genocide, and claiming one didn't go far enough, isn't defending genocide.