Posts made by raphjd

Ok, so we have people that see nothing wrong with it.   I wonder if they are also fine with WHITE ONLY spaces?    Or are they anti-white racists who believe that the other races deserve special rights.

Forcing white people to walk through a creek so they can get to class shows just how anti-white racist college campuses are getting.    If white did that to anyother race, it wouldn't be allowed.  The police would have broken it up and arrested people, if it was anything other than anti-white.

Social media actively bans people for "wrong think"; ie anyone who's to the right.     YouTube lets black supremacists, who advocate violence against whites, to stay.  Yet they do not allow white supremacists to stay.   Twitter explained why it bans for things like #KillAllBlacks, but not #KillAllWhite with some mental gymnastics/apologetics about social justice.   Facebook has done the same.

White hating has become a virtue in the West.

@kinky4play:

So much misinformation as usual. Where to begin.

1. A large number of the "anti-trump" protesters were actually the local anarchist who are very common in the NW region. They joined the protest strictly to cause damage and had nothing to do with the actual protest.
2. The one story about this (all the rest were just repeats of the original story) stated that "they didn't vote.. in Oregon". Many of the protesters were from Washington State, the border being a 10 minute drive from Portland.
3. A large number of protesters were college age and therefore vote in their permanent state of residence, not the one they may be attending school in.
4. 3rd party fact checking sites view the original claim as "unproven" at best

It's also interesting that the vast majority of damage and harassment since the election has been towards the minority communities including many attacks on LGBT people. I still can't understand why an LGBT person could support a Neo-Nazi group, but then I remember there were actually gay men in the upper ranks of the Nazi regime of Hitler.

1.  Ok, so how do you explain the other riots that weren't in the NW?

2.  HUH?  Are you saying the links talking about other cities with riots were actually talking about Portland?  If Portland was part of the article, it doesn't mean the entire article was only about Portland.

3.  You need to prove this, because you can register in either.  At least that was the case back when I was in the Marine Corps and college.

4.  I hope you aren't claiming Snopes as a fact checking source.

@bob5678:

@raphjd:

@bob5678:

I never advocated for violence. Nice strawman…anyway. The number of people who were arrested is minuscule compared to the number of people who went out to protest.

Also it's funny that you mention violence because if Trump had won thousands of innocent people would've been killed already.

Please give me a thumbs down. I love it when deplorables get so angry they give me a thumbs down.

LOL, another SJW that has nothing but name calling.

Unless you are breaking the sites rules and using multiple accounts, then that post wasn't directed to you.

Are you really that brain dead?  It's always the case that only a small amount of rioters get arrested.   So what exactly is your point?

Of course if Trump LOST (because he did win), there would be billions of dead people.  I mean in the meeting we all had the day before the election it was agreed that we had to kill at least 30% of the global poulation to show out outrage.

"nothing but name-calling?" lol you are terrible at debating. I was talking about the ratio of rioters to peaceful protesters not the ratio of arrested rioters to rioters. You can't refute the fact that hundreds of thousands of people protested nationwide and less than 500 were arrested for riots yet, you want to act like all the protesters are an evil force.

And I'll give you a pass on your immense ignorance of American history because you're British but the bloodiest war in American history started over an election. So given the violence, hateful rhetoric, etc coming from your side. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple states seceded and thousands of innocent people died at the hands of disgruntled deplorables.

I'm a dual national; US and UK.    It's because my British, now husband, got pushed back in the queue to get his permanent residency so GWB could give illegelas priotity.  This caused his green card to not be ready by the end of his visa so he had to leave.  We had a choice, separate or move to the UK together.

Umm, you're the one that called anyone who disagrees with you as "deplorables".

AGAIN, in every riot, only a smal amount get arrested.    In the London riots a few years ago, despite hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras, they only mananaged to get about 2,400 and the vast majority of that was afterward by viewing the footage.

LOL, the historionics from your side.  It's funny how your side slagged off Texas for wanting to sucede because of Obama, but now your side is threatening to sucede over Trump.    Hypocrite much?!

You do know, probably not, that pretty much every news story of pro-Trump violence turned out to be lies.    Both of the girls who were attacked for wear head scarfs, in 2 separate cases, lied about it.  The same with the muslim woman who had her car graffittied.  Many others have since been proven to be lies.      We do know, however, thanks to people videoing themselves and their friends attacking white people.

@bob5678:

I never advocated for violence. Nice strawman…anyway. The number of people who were arrested is minuscule compared to the number of people who went out to protest.

Also it's funny that you mention violence because if Trump had won thousands of innocent people would've been killed already.

Please give me a thumbs down. I love it when deplorables get so angry they give me a thumbs down.

LOL, another SJW that has nothing but name calling.

Unless you are breaking the sites rules and using multiple accounts, then that post wasn't directed to you.

Are you really that brain dead?  It's always the case that only a small amount of rioters get arrested.  So what exactly is your point?

Of course if Trump LOST (because he did win), there would be billions of dead people.  I mean in the meeting we all had the day before the election it was agreed that we had to kill at least 30% of the global poulation to show out outrage.

@bob5678:

I don't think you should be surprised. Most of the people on this site are old white guys who have lived their entire lives pretending to be straight (aka they've lived under hetero white cis male privilege). While others (ie SJWs) were advancing rights for gay people, trans people, etc they were still acting like teenagers and repressing their sexuality. These people have never experienced discrimination due to their sexual orientation let alone gender or race and probably aren't even out. They hang out on these torrent websites to download porn because they are too afraid to even find someone to have sex with in real life.

LOL.  You are funny.

@Domosuke:

I can't say I'm really shocked at the clusterfuck of this thread.

You would think that a message board centered around gay pornography would be open minded to people that are different from them, but no. I already envisioned this whole thread panned out which is why I've been avoiding it for a few days now. I can hold back no longer.

You would think a bunch of homosexual (or same gender attracted men) would understand issues like this. But I totally see it now.

Anything to take the heat off their skillet or the weight off their scale to move it to somewhere else. Which just makes the situation worse.

This is turn creates a butterfly effect for people to either become "SJW", or for people to become the oppressors. It makes the situation worse and everything is a pity party now. Nobody is appreciate for what they have, nobody wishes to or wants to empathize anymore,

I'm not nessarily a "SJW", but I'm not going to bite my tongue on things which are clearly not right.

Call me an "SJW" for saying that gay porn is racist, especially to black people. Call me an "SJW" for saying that men should be allowed to wear makeup and dresses. Call me an "SJW" for saying that Muslim women have the right to wear a burka or not.  I don't give a fuck.

"same gender attracted men"    That sounds extremely familiar.

That's what the black supremacists call being gay, because "gay" is what the "toilet complectioned cave beasts" are.  Or some shit like that.

"UHURU, YA'LL" as YouTube's black Hitler would say.

@alibix:

@Eridanos:

@alibix:

Has anyone ever asked you to refer to them as 'Xer' or 'Xel'?

Maybe that's why I find the pronoun thing utterly stupid.  And giving more thought to it, is almost self-segregating, since you're putting yourself apart from the others on the basis of your sexual identity.

That's why barely anyone fucking asks people that! Because it is counter-productive The vast majority of trans people just want to be called 'him' or 'her' when they identify as 'him' or 'her'.

And yet, we have Canada's Bill C-16.

Blair White, well known Trans YouTuber, get called all kinds of names because she doesn't support all that BS gender crap.

@BloodySunday:

@raphjd:

Where are the so-called good feminists that believe in true gender equality?!

Here.

So. What do we now?
Are you going to tell me, that I am not, or just not true?

Ok, other than spouting the feminist dogma, what have you done for TRUE gender equality?

Have you campaigned to get equal funding for prostate cancer, that breast cancer gets since their rates are virtually identical?  I doubt it.

Have you campaigned for gender equality in the UK court system, so judges are forced to comply with UK equality laws?  I doubt it.

I'm going to say that as a feminist, you haven't done anything to help men become equal to women.

@alibix:

@Loki100:

@raphjd:

:police:  You are violating our forum rules, by repeatedly calling me a troll.   :police:

Care to show me where, considering it isn't in your posted rules? It also seems quite a little self serving, might I ask just how often you are accused of trolling?

@raphjd:

Those are my posts, whether you like it or not.     And like I said before, you can't debunk what I said, so you are only left with name calling.

Okay fine. Let's play the debunk game. You said, "Feminists have taken Due Process away from men when accused of sexual assault on college campuses." Due process is fairly specific to the US, and pertains to US laws. College campuses don't pass laws, so they can't actually infringe upon due process. What college campuses do is have policies, which are enacted through various bureaucratic processes. Of course then you have to acknowledge that each college is its own unique institution with its own unique set of policies, and massive variation between them. And since you didn't actually name a college, we can't actually look up what its policies actually are. So what you actually mean is, "Some college boards/presidents/administrators have enacted policies that _feel are unfairly biased in favor of the victims of sexual assault." Which is a very, very, very long way from your initial statement.

@raphjd:

I responded to your comments by posting my rebuttal with facts.    If you are not willing to have a proper respectful conversation, then do not reply.

:police:  You can disagree with me and have a civil discussion and there is no problem.  If all you have is name calling, then you are risking being muted on the forums.   :police:

Actually you didn't. Note again that you didn't actually name a college. And if you at everything else you have posted, it is similarly long on claims, short of facts to actually examine.

These people are professional victims. There's no use trying to reason with them. They jack themselves sore to crazy feminists on tumblr each night to confirm their worldview. There's nothing you can do to help.

LOL.  How sad are you?

Again, another feminist who can't debunk a single thing I said so it's the well worn name calling. _

@alibix:

@ffuck:

@alibix:

Could you give any example of this stuff in real life and not tumblr?

Oh honey, trust me, everyone has met radical misandrists (self-proclaimed feminists) in real life. I'm part of the Anarcha-queer community in my country and I have seen a lot of women shaming men just because they are men. As well as shaming other women just because they consider themselves 100% heterosexual and like going with men. This year I even encountered someone who claimed that men should not take off their t-shirts cause it's making women uncomfortable. But it doesn't end there, women should also not take their top off, if they fall into the stereotypical "beauty" category cause it's making other women uncomfortable too. This is not what Feminism is about. Feminism is about freedom and equality: if a guy (or a girl or anyone) takes their shirt off as a sign of personal freedom, you don't shame them and tell them to put it on again. You take your shirt off too. Screaming onto other people's ideas of freedom won't help anyone. You are just being a jerk if you do so.

That's strange, I wasn't there a huge feminist free the nipple movement early this year? 
Do you think that person you met represents all feminists?

We constantly see the man hating feminists and their campaigns.  We never see the "good" feminists  and their campaigns.

Where are the so-called good feminists that believe in true gender equality?!    Either they don't actually exist or they are sitting on their sofas will the man haters are out doing feminist campaigns.

We do see women MRAs and Egalitarians and their campaigns.

So you forgot about the thread which talks about Portland?    The police don't arrest 112 "peaceful protestors" in a single night.

Here, I'll help you out with that;  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/13/anti-trump-protest-portland-devolves-into-riot/93760244/

Here's another article; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/violence-erupts-in-portland-riot-as-anti-trump-protests-continue-in-cities-across-the-nation/?utm_term=.398e00eff4c9

The above link talks about various peaceful protests.  It also mentions that 185 "peaceful protestors" got arrested in Los Angeles.  It also talks about a group of peaceful protesters in Chicago getting their fists and feet attacked by a 49yo man.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/video-shows-group-beating-man-in-chicago-yelling-you-voted-trump-and-dont-vote-trump/?utm_term=.6b4551697271

The video of the 49yo man beating the fists and feet of the peaceful protests with his face and body, was removed by YouTube.  They probaby removed it because it they thought it was bad publicity for the peaceful protestors.

Sad how your copy of Google omits articles about anti-Trump riots, even when you type in "anti-trump riots".  Maybe you should contact Google and complain.

Vocal Minority? To be honest, the only time I EVER hear about SJWs is when other people on the internet complain about them.

Show me the part of that statement, FROM YOU, that shows you admit that SJWs exist other than because people complain about them.

Vocal Minority? To be honest, the only time I EVER hear about SJWs is when other people on the internet complain about them.

That is what you said.

Where in that statement do yo admit they exist?  Nowhere.

You want people to think SJWs only exist in the minds of those that complain about them.

@Spintendo:

@raphjd:

Claremont McKenna College creates a "safe space" where students can be free from white people

So far these 'safe spaces' have included such highly trafficked areas of Claremont as the Motley Coffeehouse sitting room and ASCMC's office annex.

 

I think barring white students from at least two locations that 40% of them have probably never heard of/or been to just might be a restriction they can live with.

Imagine the outrage if anyone even attempted to get a White only student group on campus.   It would be called racist by the other single race student groups.   You know, racial equality and all that.

We have over 30 fruit trees in our back yard.

@Diakon:

"SJW" is just the new cool fearmongering term that conservatives and some centrists like to use, just like the "uppities" and the Great Feminist Menace of yesteryear (even though some people today still seem to be stuck in the past, tragically).

The reality is that save for a few misguided folks, usually teens who don't have a very in-depth grasp of social politics, as well as a good lot of blatant trolls who know very well what they're doing, the majority of what gets classified as "some kind of SJW bullshit" can be anything from centrist/mainstream/"normal" equality politics (the kind your local law already accounts for, probably, unless you live in some fundie haven), to politics further on the left that favour equity over equality, to radical left politics which don't beat around the bush when it comes to identifying and bringing attention to inequality and "heavier" forms of oppression (like fascism or imperialism), and which are generally known for not being very nice, as they forego all forms of respectability politics.

It's a lot easier to just call everything you don't like or wish to comprehend "SJW bullshit" and label everyone who tries to have a rational discussion about these politics a "pesky SJW" or a "tumblrina" even if they aren't as per the words' definitions, which is why threads like these end up being created everywhere on the Internet, including gay porn sites apparently.

EDIT: Also, according to a lot of people, even something as simple as bringing up LGBT topics or just mentioning that gay people exist is considered "SJW bullshit" and "pandering", which should give you an idea of just how useful that term is in general.

Ah, so a few folks are causing all the crap we see all over the west.

What exactly are you saying is mainstream or centrist that got labeled SJW?    I'd love to know.

Which is worse; #KillAllWhites  or  #KillAllBlacks  I can tell you that this experiment was done on Twitter by several people and Twitter only banned accounts that post one of these, but not the other.    Similar thing on Facebook and YouTube.

YouTube bans for racist videos unless it's anti-white racist videos.    The same as Facebook.    Both have countless channels/pages of black supremacists and nothing happens to them, but white supremacists get their channels deleted.  I believe that ALL racism is bad and should be deleted.

@bob5678:

And? Voting isn't a requirement to exercise your Constitutional rights…

Ah, so you don't have to vote to help your side win, but if your side loses you can riot and loot.

You don't have the right, constitutional or otherwise, to riot and loot.  Nor do you have the right to pour piss over the head of a reporter like they did to Lauren Southern because she was asking about all the made up genders.  Nor do you have the right to force white people to walk through a creek to get to classes.  The list is never ending of things we've seen from the left that they have no right to do.

@alibix:

@raphjd:

Umm, that quote is exactly what you said.

Let's compare:

"SJWs do not exist"

"To be honest, the only time I EVER hear about SJWs is when other people on the internet complain about them. "

No it is not what I said. What are you not getting?

SOOOOOO dishonest.

In your quote, you are claiming that SJWs only exist on the internet and only because people complain about them.  Nowhere in the quote do you admit that you have seen any SJWs anywhere, in real life or on the internet.  You act as if they are mythical creatures that right-wingers made up.

How hard is it to google anti-Trump riots, especially someone who claims to be so clued up on what's going on?

@alibix:

No isn't the same thing. A country of people =/= SJWs. Are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors. The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: "If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal". d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used."

"I only ever see SJWs on the internet so they must not exist"

vs

"I only see Americans on the Internet so they must not exist".

Both are the same, except for the subject.

We both know that both groups exist because how else would they be on the internet and in news articles.