Topic: IF, and it's a huge IF, the Buffalo shooter turns out to be a troll, how would you rate it?
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #104,024
Please vote for how you would rate the Buffalo shooter if it turns out there is actually no reason for it and the shooter just pulled an absurd and meaningless manifesto out of his ass when he was half drunk.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,171,877
Father Dave never intended to give a solution.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,878
Is "maybe he's a troll and did it ironically?" the new cry of false flag?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,879
0/10
Trolling is about making people kill themself.
Trolling is about making people kill themself.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,880
@1,171,878 (C)
Is it not out of the question? It's not like the chans have never trolled the news into reporting a highly distorted story about what its members actually believe.
Is it not out of the question? It's not like the chans have never trolled the news into reporting a highly distorted story about what its members actually believe.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,881
@1,171,879 (D)
So perhaps the trolling here are all the alt right memes that convinced the shooter in the first place? 5D chess move.
So perhaps the trolling here are all the alt right memes that convinced the shooter in the first place? 5D chess move.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 26 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,886
@1,171,880 (A)
> Is it not out of the question?
Since he wrote down that he wanted to kill black people, went out of his way to do so, and wrote down how and where he would do it... Yeah. That does seem out of the question.
It's interesting to watch people struggling with "How do I deny this clearly racist thing that has just happened?" question. It's interesting to see what different takes people have.
This feels like a rhetorical end Merrin would choose. Maybe all those priests did molest those kids, but they did it ironically because that's what the mass media wanted to see. They were just trolling.
> Is it not out of the question?
Since he wrote down that he wanted to kill black people, went out of his way to do so, and wrote down how and where he would do it... Yeah. That does seem out of the question.
It's interesting to watch people struggling with "How do I deny this clearly racist thing that has just happened?" question. It's interesting to see what different takes people have.
This feels like a rhetorical end Merrin would choose. Maybe all those priests did molest those kids, but they did it ironically because that's what the mass media wanted to see. They were just trolling.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,910
@previous (C)
You're assuming a lot of pretense in your interpretation when this pretense is exactly what we're discussing. So it seems you're unable or unwilling to participate in the actual discussion.
You're assuming a lot of pretense in your interpretation when this pretense is exactly what we're discussing. So it seems you're unable or unwilling to participate in the actual discussion.
Anonymous D replied with this 3 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,911
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,921
@1,171,910 (A)
That's an amazing Merrin impersonation! How did you manage to say so little with so many big words?
Anyway, yeah. Racist guy shoots people isn't a hard headline to fuck up. Everyone who bothers to read under the headline can see that's the truth.
That's an amazing Merrin impersonation! How did you manage to say so little with so many big words?
Anyway, yeah. Racist guy shoots people isn't a hard headline to fuck up. Everyone who bothers to read under the headline can see that's the truth.
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,171,924
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,001
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,005
@previous (A)
Maybe "meaningless" is the longest word? I don't fucking care. I know you know how to count.
Anyway, good job on fucking up Clearly racist guy with manifesto seeking to kill people actually kills people. Way to be a disinformation source on that.
Call him a troll, though. Maybe he was a space alien too? Do whatever you can to pretend there wasn't racist domestic terrorism happening.
Maybe "meaningless" is the longest word? I don't fucking care. I know you know how to count.
Anyway, good job on fucking up Clearly racist guy with manifesto seeking to kill people actually kills people. Way to be a disinformation source on that.
Call him a troll, though. Maybe he was a space alien too? Do whatever you can to pretend there wasn't racist domestic terrorism happening.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,009
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,015
@previous (A)
Wow, feeling persecuted much, idiot? I'm actually going to insult you now, shit-for-brains. I haven't been insulting you, fucktard, until now, but since you're going to accuse me of it, cocksucker, I'll just keep doing it for fun.
Wow, feeling persecuted much, idiot? I'm actually going to insult you now, shit-for-brains. I haven't been insulting you, fucktard, until now, but since you're going to accuse me of it, cocksucker, I'll just keep doing it for fun.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,018
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,023
@previous (A)
No, fucktard, I still think the idea that he "turns out to be a troll" is incredibly stupid and can only serve to minimize other actual reporting of the issue.
No, fucktard, I still think the idea that he "turns out to be a troll" is incredibly stupid and can only serve to minimize other actual reporting of the issue.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,024
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,026
@previous (A)
To tell you the truth, I don't even know how you troll shoot 13 people. You're truly an idiot. Do think he was walking around shouting "pew! pew!" and accidentally managed to bring along body armor and loaded weapons?? How do you "troll" do something like that? How do you even suggest that without being a complete fucking retard?
To tell you the truth, I don't even know how you troll shoot 13 people. You're truly an idiot. Do think he was walking around shouting "pew! pew!" and accidentally managed to bring along body armor and loaded weapons?? How do you "troll" do something like that? How do you even suggest that without being a complete fucking retard?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,028
@previous (C)
You seem so triggered by this subject, militant even. Is this a double reverse negated troll that you're pulling on me?
You seem so triggered by this subject, militant even. Is this a double reverse negated troll that you're pulling on me?
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,030
@previous (A)
No, you're just and idiot.
It's fun making you cry persecution and then seeing what you do after that, shit-for-brains.
No, you're just and idiot.
It's fun making you cry persecution and then seeing what you do after that, shit-for-brains.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,032
@previous (C)
None of your posts have addressed any of the points I've raised. While I'd like to say it's been fun, it hasn't. I'm going to have to retire from this discussion with you. Consider this my last response (to you, I'm happy to keep discussing with others). Sorry, not sorry.
None of your posts have addressed any of the points I've raised. While I'd like to say it's been fun, it hasn't. I'm going to have to retire from this discussion with you. Consider this my last response (to you, I'm happy to keep discussing with others). Sorry, not sorry.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,033
@previous (A)
What points have you raised beyond complaining about my posts, asshat?
Talk about what the fuck you meant by troll shooters in the OP. Maybe make that make sense.
What points have you raised beyond complaining about my posts, asshat?
Talk about what the fuck you meant by troll shooters in the OP. Maybe make that make sense.
cccuuunnttt !.cATkimmOo joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 6 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,070
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 8 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,101
@previous (cccuuunnttt !.cATkimmOo)
Replies must be 100% on-topic (of course you can include short off-topic remarks in the same reply which is otherwise on-topic) and helpful (never tell people to "Google it" or something similar (assuming that the topic is a question/request)). Never be afraid of "branching" a discussion by starting a new topic whenever there is even a slight risk that the discussion will drift off-topic.
Replies must be 100% on-topic (of course you can include short off-topic remarks in the same reply which is otherwise on-topic) and helpful (never tell people to "Google it" or something similar (assuming that the topic is a question/request)). Never be afraid of "branching" a discussion by starting a new topic whenever there is even a slight risk that the discussion will drift off-topic.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,102
Friendly reminder:
Respect the topic starter ("Original Poster") and his/her intentions with the topic. Of course you can disagree, but don't hi-jack it to spread your own agenda.
Respect the topic starter ("Original Poster") and his/her intentions with the topic. Of course you can disagree, but don't hi-jack it to spread your own agenda.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,172,119
"I was just joshin' folks" --the guy that killed those people