Topic: The Charlie Kirk killer trial is gonna be live streamed.
Thunder Balls !saAqdaazn2 started this discussion 1 month ago #131,508
Won't be as good as the Zimmerman trial but still gonna be fun
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,406,612
Candace will be watching to see if Israel gets found out
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 month ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,613
or was it France
I forget who Candace is blaming nowadays
I forget who Candace is blaming nowadays
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 8 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,672
Trials are boring. I don’t care if they let him out or give him him the death penalty.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,683
@previous (Some internet guy)
They should let him out but only after having re-educated him to realize the true enemy (niggers)
They should let him out but only after having re-educated him to realize the true enemy (niggers)
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,691
well that'll give the special channels masturbation material
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,696
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,708
@1,406,683 (D)
im not sure if its possible, tbh. lads got so much niggerfuxation in his head its a miracle he still functions. Glowniggers are just really good at reprogramming.
im not sure if its possible, tbh. lads got so much niggerfuxation in his head its a miracle he still functions. Glowniggers are just really good at reprogramming.
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 27 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,713
Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,714
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 21 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,718
@previous (G)
I’m tired of your low IQ spam. You never say anything funny or interesting, you just make up words and throw random racial slurs into incoherent sentences. I’ve heard schizophrenic homeless people high on drugs yell out more interesting things.
I’m tired of your low IQ spam. You never say anything funny or interesting, you just make up words and throw random racial slurs into incoherent sentences. I’ve heard schizophrenic homeless people high on drugs yell out more interesting things.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 57 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,724
@previous (Some internet guy)
> I’m tired of your low IQ spam. You never say anything funny or interesting, you just make up words and throw random racial slurs into incoherent sentences. I’ve heard schizophrenic homeless people high on drugs yell out more interesting things.
same here nignog.
> I’m tired of your low IQ spam. You never say anything funny or interesting, you just make up words and throw random racial slurs into incoherent sentences. I’ve heard schizophrenic homeless people high on drugs yell out more interesting things.
same here nignog.
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 17 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,728
Meta joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,729
Did we ever get a good answer on why an Egyptian military plane flew out of Provo on the day he got capped?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,906
@previous (Meta)
If Egypt had anything to do with his death I would have a much better opinion of Egypt.
If Egypt had anything to do with his death I would have a much better opinion of Egypt.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,922
@previous (L)> If Egypt had anything to do with his death I would have a much better opinion of Egypt.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,406,923
@OP
> The Charlie Kirk killer trial is gonna be live streamed.
Usually the public execution happens after the trial. This is some innovative justice.
> The Charlie Kirk killer trial is gonna be live streamed.
Usually the public execution happens after the trial. This is some innovative justice.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,060
When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him wrong, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
America's finest scholars congealed into mobs to scare away Kirk because they have no rhetorical skills. They can only parrot whatever lines their professors gave them.
They had to lie about what he said over and over because they couldn't get any good quotes. The fake empathy quote, twisting his words about disparite impact to make it look like he was against civil rights, we even got to see Steven King chime in to spread a lie about Kirk supporting stoning gays.
America's finest scholars congealed into mobs to scare away Kirk because they have no rhetorical skills. They can only parrot whatever lines their professors gave them.
They had to lie about what he said over and over because they couldn't get any good quotes. The fake empathy quote, twisting his words about disparite impact to make it look like he was against civil rights, we even got to see Steven King chime in to spread a lie about Kirk supporting stoning gays.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,076
Some internet dude joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 32 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,094
@1,407,060 (O)
> When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him wrong, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
I wonder why it doesn’t work that way in Russia, or China, or North Korea, or Iran…
> When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him wrong, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
I wonder why it doesn’t work that way in Russia, or China, or North Korea, or Iran…
Some internet dude double-posted this 1 month ago, 25 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,095
I’m being sarcastic by the way.
Some internet dude triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,096
@1,407,060 (O)
> America's finest scholars congealed into mobs to scare away Kirk because they have no rhetorical skills. They can only parrot whatever lines their professors gave them.
Ironically, Mao Zedong would agree with what you just said about professors.
> America's finest scholars congealed into mobs to scare away Kirk because they have no rhetorical skills. They can only parrot whatever lines their professors gave them.
Ironically, Mao Zedong would agree with what you just said about professors.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,183
@previous (Some internet dude)
Mao was the best critic of liberalism. I don't agree with his alternatives, but his work is worth a read.
Mao was the best critic of liberalism. I don't agree with his alternatives, but his work is worth a read.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,190
Some internet dude joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,191
@1,407,183 (O)
I was more pointing out that distrust of academics is common among authoritarians and so is a cult of personality. The idea that one guy is right and all the media and all the universities are conspiring against him is a dumb cliche the populist right uses to appeal to lower class uneducated voters who can’t afford to go to college so they just lie and say the reason why college educated people tend to be more left wing is because the universities promote Marxist propaganda or whatever. When really it’s just that if you have critical thinking you realize the right is filled with a bunch of con artists.
I was more pointing out that distrust of academics is common among authoritarians and so is a cult of personality. The idea that one guy is right and all the media and all the universities are conspiring against him is a dumb cliche the populist right uses to appeal to lower class uneducated voters who can’t afford to go to college so they just lie and say the reason why college educated people tend to be more left wing is because the universities promote Marxist propaganda or whatever. When really it’s just that if you have critical thinking you realize the right is filled with a bunch of con artists.
Some internet dude double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,193
I also just disagree with the idea that winning a debate means that you’re correct. Winning or losing a debate has nothing to do with what’s actually true or false.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,199
@1,407,191 (Some internet dude)
> I was more pointing out that distrust of academics is common among authoritarians
Censoring views is authoritarian, starting an open discussion is not.
> and so is a cult of personality. The idea that one guy is right and all the media and all the universities are conspiring against him is a dumb cliche the populist right uses
We aren't even talking about Trump, we're talking about Kirk and the universities.
> to appeal to lower class uneducated voters who can’t afford to go to college
There's no occult, secret knowledge that only the colleges can dispense.
Every lecture students sit down for on campus can be replaced by a video they watch at home. Every test can be replaced by an online course that's free.
The fact that leftists continue to push this idea that education doesn't work unless you spend $100K on it is just proof it was never about education, and only about conspicuous consumption.
> so they just lie and say the reason why college educated people tend to be more left wing is because the universities promote Marxist propaganda or whatever.
I made the mistake of going, and many professors openly and explicitly do this. I got my degree, but every single thing my class learned could have been replaced for free with MOOCs or other forms of self-study.
I'll ask, but you'll ignore this question because you cannot answer: what do colleges offer that a free MOOC can't do? Obviously not talking about hands-on training for a trade, or something unique like med school. 99% of programs don't offer anything for the money.
> When really it’s just that if you have critical thinking you realize the right is filled with a bunch of con artists.
So the con artist is saying "don't spend money" and the trustworthy ones are saying "go into lifelong debt for this thing, and we can't actually tell you what it offers over the free version"?
Why is it that every other con artist is the one trying to get your money, but it's the reverse here?
> I was more pointing out that distrust of academics is common among authoritarians
Censoring views is authoritarian, starting an open discussion is not.
> and so is a cult of personality. The idea that one guy is right and all the media and all the universities are conspiring against him is a dumb cliche the populist right uses
We aren't even talking about Trump, we're talking about Kirk and the universities.
> to appeal to lower class uneducated voters who can’t afford to go to college
There's no occult, secret knowledge that only the colleges can dispense.
Every lecture students sit down for on campus can be replaced by a video they watch at home. Every test can be replaced by an online course that's free.
The fact that leftists continue to push this idea that education doesn't work unless you spend $100K on it is just proof it was never about education, and only about conspicuous consumption.
> so they just lie and say the reason why college educated people tend to be more left wing is because the universities promote Marxist propaganda or whatever.
I made the mistake of going, and many professors openly and explicitly do this. I got my degree, but every single thing my class learned could have been replaced for free with MOOCs or other forms of self-study.
I'll ask, but you'll ignore this question because you cannot answer: what do colleges offer that a free MOOC can't do? Obviously not talking about hands-on training for a trade, or something unique like med school. 99% of programs don't offer anything for the money.
> When really it’s just that if you have critical thinking you realize the right is filled with a bunch of con artists.
So the con artist is saying "don't spend money" and the trustworthy ones are saying "go into lifelong debt for this thing, and we can't actually tell you what it offers over the free version"?
Why is it that every other con artist is the one trying to get your money, but it's the reverse here?
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,216
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,217
Although, on the topic of universities, you could make that argument about any product or service in a capitalist economy. I don’t need to spend $1,000 on an iPhone, I could buy the parts myself and build my own smartphone.
For example, this guy went to the world’s largest electronics market in Shenzhen, China and built his own working iPhone from spare parts.
https://youtu.be/leFuF-zoVzA
We could all just reinvent the wheel individually and put together our own lesson plans for 4 years straight.
For example, this guy went to the world’s largest electronics market in Shenzhen, China and built his own working iPhone from spare parts.
https://youtu.be/leFuF-zoVzA
We could all just reinvent the wheel individually and put together our own lesson plans for 4 years straight.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,218
@previous (Some internet guy)
> Although, on the topic of universities, you could make that argument about any product or service in a capitalist economy. I don’t need to spend $1,000 on an iPhone, I could buy the parts myself and build my own smartphone.
That example doesn't work because you're the one paying for the phone.
If your phone cost $100,000 and you got an automatic loan to buy it from the taxpayer that you defaulted on it would be different.
> For example, this guy went to the world’s largest electronics market in Shenzhen, China and built his own working iPhone from spare parts.
>
> https://youtu.be/leFuF-zoVzA
>
> We could all just reinvent the wheel individually and put together our own lesson plans for 4 years straight.
You don't need to put together a lesson plan, you can sign up for free courses now. They're made by the top universities and academics, they have tests and certifications if you can master it.
Right now we have a system to pay for a 4-year resort where you are guaranteed a safe space free from offensive ideas. Graduates have lower job placement rates than high school grads now, and the pay premium is more likely from wealthy students going to begin with. Writing essays about your grievances (or telling gpt to write it) won't make you a good employee. The 6 figure debt might make you a more compliant employee, though.
> Although, on the topic of universities, you could make that argument about any product or service in a capitalist economy. I don’t need to spend $1,000 on an iPhone, I could buy the parts myself and build my own smartphone.
That example doesn't work because you're the one paying for the phone.
If your phone cost $100,000 and you got an automatic loan to buy it from the taxpayer that you defaulted on it would be different.
> For example, this guy went to the world’s largest electronics market in Shenzhen, China and built his own working iPhone from spare parts.
>
> https://youtu.be/leFuF-zoVzA
>
> We could all just reinvent the wheel individually and put together our own lesson plans for 4 years straight.
You don't need to put together a lesson plan, you can sign up for free courses now. They're made by the top universities and academics, they have tests and certifications if you can master it.
Right now we have a system to pay for a 4-year resort where you are guaranteed a safe space free from offensive ideas. Graduates have lower job placement rates than high school grads now, and the pay premium is more likely from wealthy students going to begin with. Writing essays about your grievances (or telling gpt to write it) won't make you a good employee. The 6 figure debt might make you a more compliant employee, though.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,219
I also just don’t like this idea that you have that the only point of living is money. Science is important for the technological development of society, and that won’t happen without universities. If Americans stop going to university, China’s not going to stop making smartphones. America will just turn into a third world country.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,220
@1,407,218 (O)
Have you ever actually studied at a university? You seem like you have a very shallow understanding of what a university actually is. University isn’t job training. They can help you with job training, but that’s not why universities exist.
Have you ever actually studied at a university? You seem like you have a very shallow understanding of what a university actually is. University isn’t job training. They can help you with job training, but that’s not why universities exist.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,222
And sure, you can argue that college is useless on the internet. Akira Yoshino, the guy who invented commercially viable lithium ion batteries, did he go to college? Did Allen Turing go to college? Could you even make this argument that college is useless for everybody if nobody ever went to college? I’m not saying everyone has to go to college for every field, but I don’t agree with the belittling of it.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,223
@1,407,219 (S)
> I also just don’t like this idea that you have that the only point of living is money.
That's a strawman.
Rebutting the idea that college makes you money isn't the same thing as saying money is the most important thing.
Here's the actual argument I'm making: the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for a resort where "students" can live in a bubble safe from ideas they don't like.
Universities were supposed to educated people to analyze ideas and defend them, not to scream over anyone who disagrees.
> Science is important for the technological development of society, and that won’t happen without universities.
That's another strawman, because none of the critics of universities are saying it's the hard sciences that are faulty. You know that, and you're playing dumb to avoid addressing the actual point.
> Americans stop going to university, China’s not going to stop making smartphones. America will just turn into a third world country.
Completely irrelevant to anything said.
If a sociology student quits their program, pockets the $100K and signs up for a free online course on business or technical skills from a top-rated university is the US going to become a third-world country?
> I also just don’t like this idea that you have that the only point of living is money.
That's a strawman.
Rebutting the idea that college makes you money isn't the same thing as saying money is the most important thing.
Here's the actual argument I'm making: the taxpayer shouldn't be paying for a resort where "students" can live in a bubble safe from ideas they don't like.
Universities were supposed to educated people to analyze ideas and defend them, not to scream over anyone who disagrees.
> Science is important for the technological development of society, and that won’t happen without universities.
That's another strawman, because none of the critics of universities are saying it's the hard sciences that are faulty. You know that, and you're playing dumb to avoid addressing the actual point.
> Americans stop going to university, China’s not going to stop making smartphones. America will just turn into a third world country.
Completely irrelevant to anything said.
If a sociology student quits their program, pockets the $100K and signs up for a free online course on business or technical skills from a top-rated university is the US going to become a third-world country?
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,224
Or I don’t know, the military, America has the most powerful military. Where did all the research on control systems, physics, electronics, and nuclear energy come from? It didn’t just come out of thin air.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,225
@1,407,222 (Some internet guy)
What is it about your position that forces you into a strawman each post?
What is it about your position that forces you into a strawman each post?
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 25 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,226
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,227
@1,407,223 (O)
I’m not "playing dumb" I’m at university and I’m not studying a natural science, I’m studying computer science. You’re the one making an argument about ideology.
I’m not "playing dumb" I’m at university and I’m not studying a natural science, I’m studying computer science. You’re the one making an argument about ideology.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,228
@1,407,226 (O)
You’re using the term strawman incorrectly. You think everything is a strawman because you think if I mention something that you didn’t mention first you think I’m accusing you of believing the opposite of what I said. But that’s not what a strawman is.
You’re using the term strawman incorrectly. You think everything is a strawman because you think if I mention something that you didn’t mention first you think I’m accusing you of believing the opposite of what I said. But that’s not what a strawman is.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 9 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,229
@1,407,227 (Some internet guy)
Can you link to a time where I criticized the hard sciences?
How about Kirk? Just one video, article, anything you can find.
Can you link to a time where I criticized the hard sciences?
How about Kirk? Just one video, article, anything you can find.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 20 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,230
It’s not a strawman if I come up with an argument that you didn’t think of first.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 47 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,231
@1,407,229 (O)
I never said you criticized the hard sciences. I said that university is important for the technological development of society and you don’t have an argument for why that’s wrong. You want to say that university is useless and totally ignore the point I’m making.
I never said you criticized the hard sciences. I said that university is important for the technological development of society and you don’t have an argument for why that’s wrong. You want to say that university is useless and totally ignore the point I’m making.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,232
And the reason you think university is useless is because you noticed that people who graduate from university have different political beliefs than you. Which is a stupid reason to be against university. You’re making other weak arguments about it to try and pretend that’s not the real thing, but you’re not good at hiding the real motivation. That’s why I brought up Mao Zedong in the first place, you sorts are like cultural revolutionaries in China.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 52 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,233
@1,407,228 (Some internet guy)
> You think everything is a strawman because you think if I mention something that you didn’t mention first you think I’m accusing you of believing the opposite of what I said.
So it's not a strawman, you're just rambling about something completely irrelevant?
How is that better?
No one, not me, not Kirk, has said that colleges shouldn't have hard sciences. So what are you bringing it up for?
> You think everything is a strawman because you think if I mention something that you didn’t mention first you think I’m accusing you of believing the opposite of what I said.
So it's not a strawman, you're just rambling about something completely irrelevant?
How is that better?
No one, not me, not Kirk, has said that colleges shouldn't have hard sciences. So what are you bringing it up for?
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,234
@previous (O)
It is relevant, and I think that you’re smart enough to understand why it’s relevant, but you’re too emotional to actually want to listen to what I’m saying because you don’t like that I don’t agree with you.
It is relevant, and I think that you’re smart enough to understand why it’s relevant, but you’re too emotional to actually want to listen to what I’m saying because you don’t like that I don’t agree with you.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,235
Bringing up China, I was actually mentioning something important. Part of the reason why the United States is so technologically advanced is because we have some of the world’s best universities and we have a government that’s less repressive than China. So we attract international students from all over the world to study here and some of them start businesses here and work for tech companies here once they graduate. If Americans start trashing their universities, all those students will go to China or the EU, which will hurt the United States geopolitically in the long run.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 52 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,236
Don’t get me wrong, we need plumbers and electricians. But plumbers don’t design rocket engines, and electricians don’t design smartphones and laptops.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 47 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,237
@1,407,232 (Some internet guy)
> And the reason you think university is useless is because you noticed that people who graduate from university have different political beliefs than you.
That's a strawman, because I never expressed that view at all.
My actual view was that people need to defend their different views. If they can't do that, and everyone is expected not to question the dogma, then it's failed as a college.
> You’re making other weak arguments about it
You just lied about my original argument.
> you sorts are like cultural revolutionaries in China.
The cultural revolution has students advocating for censorship. That's a clear parallel between it and your side now.
> And the reason you think university is useless is because you noticed that people who graduate from university have different political beliefs than you.
That's a strawman, because I never expressed that view at all.
My actual view was that people need to defend their different views. If they can't do that, and everyone is expected not to question the dogma, then it's failed as a college.
> You’re making other weak arguments about it
You just lied about my original argument.
> you sorts are like cultural revolutionaries in China.
The cultural revolution has students advocating for censorship. That's a clear parallel between it and your side now.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,238
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 37 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,239
@1,407,234 (Some internet guy)
> It is relevant, and I think that you’re smart enough to understand why it’s relevant, but you’re too emotional to actually want to listen to what I’m saying because you don’t like that I don’t agree with you.
So you can't even say it once for one of the other people reading who might be curious?
That's a transparent cop-out. Each post you make is another strawman. You're unable to respond to the points I made, so you keep defending things no one argued against.
> It is relevant, and I think that you’re smart enough to understand why it’s relevant, but you’re too emotional to actually want to listen to what I’m saying because you don’t like that I don’t agree with you.
So you can't even say it once for one of the other people reading who might be curious?
That's a transparent cop-out. Each post you make is another strawman. You're unable to respond to the points I made, so you keep defending things no one argued against.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,240
@previous (O)
Any reasonable person can see how what I’m saying is relevant. You’re just not being a reasonable person. I don’t have to think for you, you can figure out the meaning of what I’m saying yourself. You don’t need me to hold your hand and walk you through understand every single sentence I write. But you’re too busy franticly trying to respond with some bullshit complaint about the only logical fallacy you know the name of to interrupt me.
Any reasonable person can see how what I’m saying is relevant. You’re just not being a reasonable person. I don’t have to think for you, you can figure out the meaning of what I’m saying yourself. You don’t need me to hold your hand and walk you through understand every single sentence I write. But you’re too busy franticly trying to respond with some bullshit complaint about the only logical fallacy you know the name of to interrupt me.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 37 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,241
If you actually talk to people this way IRL, I think people will get tired of talking with you.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 15 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,242
@1,407,238 (Some internet guy)
Quote one time I said they need to agree with me.
You can prove me wrong right now.
Quote one time I said they need to agree with me.
You can prove me wrong right now.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 month ago, 15 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,243
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,244
@1,407,218 (O)
> Right now we have a system to pay for a 4-year resort where you are guaranteed a safe space free from offensive ideas. Graduates have lower job placement rates than high school grads now, and the pay premium is more likely from wealthy students going to begin with. Writing essays about your grievances (or telling gpt to write it) won't make you a good employee. The 6 figure debt might make you a more compliant employee, though.
> Right now we have a system to pay for a 4-year resort where you are guaranteed a safe space free from offensive ideas. Graduates have lower job placement rates than high school grads now, and the pay premium is more likely from wealthy students going to begin with. Writing essays about your grievances (or telling gpt to write it) won't make you a good employee. The 6 figure debt might make you a more compliant employee, though.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 56 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,245
You made your ideological position on university pretty clear. You think that university makes people more left wing and you don’t like that. You don’t actually care about science or whether or not university benefits society.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 48 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,246
@1,407,244 (Some internet guy)
So right here in the quote:
> a safe space free from offensive ideas.
is where I said that my issue was censorship.
Now where in that paragraph did I say everyone needed to agree with me.
So right here in the quote:
> a safe space free from offensive ideas.
is where I said that my issue was censorship.
Now where in that paragraph did I say everyone needed to agree with me.
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 34 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,247
@1,407,245 (Some internet guy)
No, I said that they disallow ideas they don't agree with.
If they have to censor ideas, and can't refute them, then they are failing as colleges.
No, I said that they disallow ideas they don't agree with.
If they have to censor ideas, and can't refute them, then they are failing as colleges.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,248
@1,407,246 (O)
See, this is what I’m saying. That’s what your framework on university is. You think universities spread left wing ideas and you think that the act of spreading left wing ideas is equivalent to censorship because you desire to censor any ideas that aren’t right wing which is why you are against university.
See, this is what I’m saying. That’s what your framework on university is. You think universities spread left wing ideas and you think that the act of spreading left wing ideas is equivalent to censorship because you desire to censor any ideas that aren’t right wing which is why you are against university.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,249
@1,407,247 (O)
You’re advocating against universities, which you believe are places where people spread ideas that you disagree with. You’re actually the one calling for censorship, you’re just so radicalized that you’re incapable of admitting it.
You’re advocating against universities, which you believe are places where people spread ideas that you disagree with. You’re actually the one calling for censorship, you’re just so radicalized that you’re incapable of admitting it.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 52 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,251
I’m not advocating for silencing anyone actually. I’m not saying we should get rid of some right wing think tank or university or anything. You’re the one advocating against something where ideas that you don’t like are spreading not me.
Some internet guy quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,252
And I am making an important point, which is that is exactly how you destroy a society.
Some internet guy quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,254
Also, like honestly, to tell you the truth, college students are actually a lot less political than you probably think. This year I’ve only seen one protest and it was like 2 or 3 people. The vast majority of my classes aren’t even subjects that are political in nature.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 second later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,255
@1,407,248 (Some internet guy)
> you think that the act of spreading left wing ideas is equivalent to censorship
No, that's another strawman.
Each time you try and prove it's not a strawman, you do it by citing another strawman, not something I've actually said.
> because you desire to censor any ideas that aren’t right wing
This isn't happening. There are not right wing administrators or mobs of right wing students shutting down debates.
And its another strawman, because nowhere did I say that left-wing ideas should be censored. The only thing I said was that colleges are failing if they are censoring ideas.
@1,407,249 (Some internet guy)
I'm advocating against the censorship at universities. I'm advocating against funding colleges that allow it.
I never said science and technology research are bad, I never said colleges were bad for researching in that.
> you think that the act of spreading left wing ideas is equivalent to censorship
No, that's another strawman.
Each time you try and prove it's not a strawman, you do it by citing another strawman, not something I've actually said.
> because you desire to censor any ideas that aren’t right wing
This isn't happening. There are not right wing administrators or mobs of right wing students shutting down debates.
And its another strawman, because nowhere did I say that left-wing ideas should be censored. The only thing I said was that colleges are failing if they are censoring ideas.
@1,407,249 (Some internet guy)
I'm advocating against the censorship at universities. I'm advocating against funding colleges that allow it.
I never said science and technology research are bad, I never said colleges were bad for researching in that.
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,256
@1,407,251 (Some internet guy)
Then you disagree with the students and staff that tried to shut down Kirk's discussions? And you disagree that people should be killed for asking questions like "what is a woman?".
Then you disagree with the students and staff that tried to shut down Kirk's discussions? And you disagree that people should be killed for asking questions like "what is a woman?".
Anonymous O triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,258
@1,407,254 (Some internet guy)
I think the majority just try to stay out trouble and repeat whatever the consensus is.
On a censored campus, that means they'll either parrot approved slogans or be quiet. They won't be exposed to alternative ideas because the person responsible will be punished.
I think the majority just try to stay out trouble and repeat whatever the consensus is.
On a censored campus, that means they'll either parrot approved slogans or be quiet. They won't be exposed to alternative ideas because the person responsible will be punished.
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 17 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,259
@1,407,256 (O)
You have a right to speak freely, and other people have a right to decide whether or not they feel like listening.
You have a right to speak freely, and other people have a right to decide whether or not they feel like listening.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,260
You have the right to say whatever you want, but other people aren’t obligated by law to invite you to speak. Any university that doesn’t have a commitment to free expression can arbitrary decide to not invite somebody to speak on campus for whatever arbitrary reason they want. Especially private universities.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,262
@1,407,259 (Some internet guy)
Irrelevant to what we're talking about.
No one said people have to listen, once again your choice fallacy comes up. Acting like someone said this is a strawman argument.
The actual critique is of students and staff who censored him. That could be disrupting conversations to knock things off his table, yelling a lot to drown out others, or trying to get him kicked off campus. It escalated to murder, and now there are a lot of people saying it was justified.
If you are prevented from talking, or you deal with the threat of violence from it, that's censorship.
Irrelevant to what we're talking about.
No one said people have to listen, once again your choice fallacy comes up. Acting like someone said this is a strawman argument.
The actual critique is of students and staff who censored him. That could be disrupting conversations to knock things off his table, yelling a lot to drown out others, or trying to get him kicked off campus. It escalated to murder, and now there are a lot of people saying it was justified.
If you are prevented from talking, or you deal with the threat of violence from it, that's censorship.
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,263
@1,407,260 (Some internet guy)
Another strawman, and you can go reread that comment to see I clearly critiqued censorship and never once said anyone had to listen to him.
Another strawman, and you can go reread that comment to see I clearly critiqued censorship and never once said anyone had to listen to him.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 3 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,264
@1,407,262 (O)
What I’m saying is that a university can’t censor him. He doesn’t have a constitutional entitlement to be invited to speak at a university. If a university doesn’t want to invite him to speak, he can still say whatever he wants, just not on their property. That’s not censorship. That would be like me saying if you don’t let me stand on your lawn and ask you questions that’s censoring me.
What I’m saying is that a university can’t censor him. He doesn’t have a constitutional entitlement to be invited to speak at a university. If a university doesn’t want to invite him to speak, he can still say whatever he wants, just not on their property. That’s not censorship. That would be like me saying if you don’t let me stand on your lawn and ask you questions that’s censoring me.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,265
@1,407,263 (O)
The first amendment is protection from the government, not all universities are owned by the government.
The first amendment is protection from the government, not all universities are owned by the government.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,266
Even at a public university owned by the government, they don’t have enough time to let everyone in the whole world speak, they have to still select who they’re going to invite to speak and they have to choose some people over other people. Even if a university did have a commitment to freedom of expression, it would be incredibly easy to make up a legitimate excuse to not let a particular person speak that isn’t considered censorship.
Some internet guy quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,267
Like, say I asked congress to let me give a speech at the US capitol, and they said no. That’s not equivalent to the federal government censoring me, they don’t have to invite a random guy to speak.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,268
@1,407,264 (Some internet guy)
> What I’m saying is that a university can’t censor him.
They shouldn't, but they try.
> He doesn’t have a constitutional entitlement to be invited to speak at a university.
That's another strawman, no one said he had a right to be invited.
> If a university doesn’t want to invite him to speak, he can still say whatever he wants, just not on their property. That’s not censorship.
That's only true of private universities, public universities do have spaces designated for the public and he was setting up in accordance with the law always.
> That would be like me saying if you don’t let me stand on your lawn and ask you questions that’s censoring me.
Not the argument being made.
If he has a permit, or is on a public space, then knocking over his stuff and yelling at him is actually against the law. This was even established when police came up a few times.
And there are students who sign up, are allowed to be there, and are silenced because there is an unwritten policy of censoring certain ideas too.
Even private schools should follow certain standards if they want federal grants, and have students getting federal aid. Those universities are not entitled to that money, it comes with rules, and free speech should be part of that.
> What I’m saying is that a university can’t censor him.
They shouldn't, but they try.
> He doesn’t have a constitutional entitlement to be invited to speak at a university.
That's another strawman, no one said he had a right to be invited.
> If a university doesn’t want to invite him to speak, he can still say whatever he wants, just not on their property. That’s not censorship.
That's only true of private universities, public universities do have spaces designated for the public and he was setting up in accordance with the law always.
> That would be like me saying if you don’t let me stand on your lawn and ask you questions that’s censoring me.
Not the argument being made.
If he has a permit, or is on a public space, then knocking over his stuff and yelling at him is actually against the law. This was even established when police came up a few times.
And there are students who sign up, are allowed to be there, and are silenced because there is an unwritten policy of censoring certain ideas too.
Even private schools should follow certain standards if they want federal grants, and have students getting federal aid. Those universities are not entitled to that money, it comes with rules, and free speech should be part of that.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,269
@previous (O)
I disagree with that. The constitutional protection of free speech applies to the government only. There’s no reason why organizations outside of the government should need to let their employees for example say whatever they want without consequence. Lockheed Martin receives money from the government when the government purchases weapons. Should Lockheed Martin be forced to let their employees say whatever they want to their bosses without consequence? This would be a policy which would be impossible to enforce because anyone could lie and say they were fired for saying something when they were fired for something else and anyone could lie and say they fired someone for a non-speech related reason.
I disagree with that. The constitutional protection of free speech applies to the government only. There’s no reason why organizations outside of the government should need to let their employees for example say whatever they want without consequence. Lockheed Martin receives money from the government when the government purchases weapons. Should Lockheed Martin be forced to let their employees say whatever they want to their bosses without consequence? This would be a policy which would be impossible to enforce because anyone could lie and say they were fired for saying something when they were fired for something else and anyone could lie and say they fired someone for a non-speech related reason.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,270
If you intentionally go into a public space and start saying things that are unpopular, it’s unreasonable to expect that people won’t behave in the way you would expect them to. That’s just human nature. Maybe it’s unfortunate, but if you go to any part of the world and start saying things in public most people in that place disagree with, you probably won’t end up being treated well, universally.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,271
@1,407,269 (Some internet guy)
The government is the one awarding grants and paying for the students...
No private organization is entitled to government money, if they want it they need to follow certain rules. Civil rights protections are part of that, and free speech should be included in that.
If a private organization wants to create a space where only their approved dogma can be spoken they should use their own money.
The government is the one awarding grants and paying for the students...
No private organization is entitled to government money, if they want it they need to follow certain rules. Civil rights protections are part of that, and free speech should be included in that.
If a private organization wants to create a space where only their approved dogma can be spoken they should use their own money.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 38 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,272
Also, universities often have tens of thousands of students. It’s not fair to take away federal grants that could be helping researchers develop for example, medical innovations which could be life saving to a lot of people, just because one guy shouted at another guy. That’s redicous.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 56 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,273
@1,407,271 (O)
It’s your opinion that free speech should be included in that, but legally, that’s not how freedom of expression works in the United States. As a citizen I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression.
It’s your opinion that free speech should be included in that, but legally, that’s not how freedom of expression works in the United States. As a citizen I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,274
@1,407,270 (Some internet guy)
> If you intentionally go into a public space and start saying things that are unpopular, it’s unreasonable to expect that people won’t behave in the way you would expect them to. That’s just human nature.
No one is arguing that it's unexpected. Once again, that's a strawman. Every single post has one, and you don't seem bothered by it.
The actual argument many are making is that people who harass others in public (actual harassment, not just having different beliefs) need to be punished.
> Maybe it’s unfortunate, but if you go to any part of the world and start saying things in public most people in that place disagree with, you probably won’t end up being treated well, universally.
Some of us would prefer to live in a part of the world where people can speak freely, rather than a society where censors dictate a dogma you can't question.
> If you intentionally go into a public space and start saying things that are unpopular, it’s unreasonable to expect that people won’t behave in the way you would expect them to. That’s just human nature.
No one is arguing that it's unexpected. Once again, that's a strawman. Every single post has one, and you don't seem bothered by it.
The actual argument many are making is that people who harass others in public (actual harassment, not just having different beliefs) need to be punished.
> Maybe it’s unfortunate, but if you go to any part of the world and start saying things in public most people in that place disagree with, you probably won’t end up being treated well, universally.
Some of us would prefer to live in a part of the world where people can speak freely, rather than a society where censors dictate a dogma you can't question.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,275
@previous (O)
> > If you intentionally go into a public space and start saying things that are unpopular, it’s unreasonable to expect that people won’t behave in the way you would expect them to. That’s just human nature.
>
> No one is arguing that it's unexpected. Once again, that's a strawman. Every single post has one, and you don't seem bothered by it.
>
> The actual argument many are making is that people who harass others in public (actual harassment, not just having different beliefs) need to be punished.
>
> > Maybe it’s unfortunate, but if you go to any part of the world and start saying things in public most people in that place disagree with, you probably won’t end up being treated well, universally.
>
> Some of us would prefer to live in a part of the world where people can speak freely, rather than a society where censors dictate a dogma you can't question.
You really overuse the term strawman. A strawman is when I accuse you of making an argument you’re not making.
> > If you intentionally go into a public space and start saying things that are unpopular, it’s unreasonable to expect that people won’t behave in the way you would expect them to. That’s just human nature.
>
> No one is arguing that it's unexpected. Once again, that's a strawman. Every single post has one, and you don't seem bothered by it.
>
> The actual argument many are making is that people who harass others in public (actual harassment, not just having different beliefs) need to be punished.
>
> > Maybe it’s unfortunate, but if you go to any part of the world and start saying things in public most people in that place disagree with, you probably won’t end up being treated well, universally.
>
> Some of us would prefer to live in a part of the world where people can speak freely, rather than a society where censors dictate a dogma you can't question.
You really overuse the term strawman. A strawman is when I accuse you of making an argument you’re not making.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,276
@1,407,274 (O)
I would much rather live in a part of the world where people aren’t this ideological. I don’t care if I can’t say certain things. I’m not a political person, I just want to live my life. I have no interest in your political mission.
I would much rather live in a part of the world where people aren’t this ideological. I don’t care if I can’t say certain things. I’m not a political person, I just want to live my life. I have no interest in your political mission.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,278
@1,407,273 (Some internet guy)
> As a citizen I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression.
Another strawman, never said random citizens have to protect others.
> As a citizen I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression.
Another strawman, never said random citizens have to protect others.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,279
@previous (O)
I didn’t say that you said that random citizens have to protect others. That’s why what I said isn’t a strawman.
I didn’t say that you said that random citizens have to protect others. That’s why what I said isn’t a strawman.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 3 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,280
@1,407,276 (Some internet guy)
You don't care about ideology, so you'd rather live in a place where one ideology is forced onto everyone?
I'm not attached to ideology, which is why I'm OK with any ideology being questioned. We can live peacefully in a world where people ask questions, but we can't live peacefully when people attack others for having the wrong beliefs.
You don't care about ideology, so you'd rather live in a place where one ideology is forced onto everyone?
I'm not attached to ideology, which is why I'm OK with any ideology being questioned. We can live peacefully in a world where people ask questions, but we can't live peacefully when people attack others for having the wrong beliefs.
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,281
@1,407,279 (Some internet guy)
Saying "I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression." implies someones suggesting you do.
Implying a strawman isn't any better than explicitly making strawman arguments like before.
Either way you are avoiding the real points being made.
Saying "I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression." implies someones suggesting you do.
Implying a strawman isn't any better than explicitly making strawman arguments like before.
Either way you are avoiding the real points being made.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 3 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,282
@1,407,280 (O)
Well, I don’t want to live in a place where ideology is forced on everyone, but I’d rather live in a place where ideology is forced on me than live in a place with your specific ideology. It’s just a personal preference, I don’t agree with your ideology, and I find it more irritating than just shutting up and not talking.
Well, I don’t want to live in a place where ideology is forced on everyone, but I’d rather live in a place where ideology is forced on me than live in a place with your specific ideology. It’s just a personal preference, I don’t agree with your ideology, and I find it more irritating than just shutting up and not talking.
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,283
That said I don’t think that you should shut up, I’m just saying I’d enjoy it more if you did.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,284
@1,407,280 (O)
> I'm not attached to ideology, which is why I'm OK with any ideology being questioned. We can live peacefully in a world where people ask questions, but we can't live peacefully when people attack others for having the wrong beliefs.
Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.
> I'm not attached to ideology, which is why I'm OK with any ideology being questioned. We can live peacefully in a world where people ask questions, but we can't live peacefully when people attack others for having the wrong beliefs.
Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.
Some internet guy quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,285
@1,407,281 (O)
> Saying "I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression." implies someone’s suggesting you do.
No it doesn’t. It means what it means, nothing more and nothing less.
> Saying "I have no obligation to protect anyone’s freedom of expression." implies someone’s suggesting you do.
No it doesn’t. It means what it means, nothing more and nothing less.
Some internet guy quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,286
You just use your own loose idea of what an implied strawman is to claim that literally everything I ever say if I’m not directly quoting you is a strawman, but it’s not. I can have my own ideas and make statements about the world that aren’t based on what you said. I’m my own person I can do that!
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,287
@1,407,285 (Some internet guy)
Then you just randomly threw it in, even though no one suggested it?
Stating irrelevant things is just as bad as a strawman. Both would be red herrings.
Instead of one red herring or the other, can you tell me why censorship is good?
Then you just randomly threw it in, even though no one suggested it?
Stating irrelevant things is just as bad as a strawman. Both would be red herrings.
Instead of one red herring or the other, can you tell me why censorship is good?
Anonymous O double-posted this 1 month ago, 27 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,288
@1,407,286 (Some internet guy)
If it's not a strawman, it's just irrelevant. Either way you aren't responding to the actual argument.
If it's not a strawman, it's just irrelevant. Either way you aren't responding to the actual argument.
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 30 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,289
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,290
You’re not the center of the universe.
Some internet guy triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,291
If everything I ever said was actually a strawman, I don’t think you’d be the only person in the entire world who ever thought that about me.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,292
@1,407,289 (Some internet guy)
It's changing the subject to something no one questions.
You're stopping to say "the sky is blue on a clear day". It's not relevant, everyone knows, it's a lame excuse to distract.
@1,407,290 (Some internet guy)
Good excuse to avoid anyone who disagrees with you. It's not that you can refute them, it's that it just doesn't matter.
@previous (Some internet guy)
Many people don't realize it's happening and get off topic.
It's changing the subject to something no one questions.
You're stopping to say "the sky is blue on a clear day". It's not relevant, everyone knows, it's a lame excuse to distract.
@1,407,290 (Some internet guy)
Good excuse to avoid anyone who disagrees with you. It's not that you can refute them, it's that it just doesn't matter.
@previous (Some internet guy)
Many people don't realize it's happening and get off topic.
Some internet guy joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,293
@previous (O)
> You're stopping to say "the sky is blue on a clear day". It's not relevant, everyone knows, it's a lame excuse to distract.
Now that’s a strawman! You quoted me as saying something I didn’t say. Congratulations, you’re learning.
> You're stopping to say "the sky is blue on a clear day". It's not relevant, everyone knows, it's a lame excuse to distract.
Now that’s a strawman! You quoted me as saying something I didn’t say. Congratulations, you’re learning.
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 32 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,294
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 44 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,295
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,296
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 39 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,297
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,298
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,299
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,300
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,301
Anonymous O replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,302
Some internet guy replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,305
Some internet guy double-posted this 1 month ago, 18 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,306
Swastikapenis
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,324
@1,407,301 (Some internet guy)
> You look like a Nazi because you shop at hot topic.
https://m.soundcloud.com/itsrucka/emo-like-a-nazi
> You look like a Nazi because you shop at hot topic.
https://m.soundcloud.com/itsrucka/emo-like-a-nazi
Anonymous V double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,325
They say when old people become senile one of the last things they forget is the melodies of songs they’ve heard. When I’m senile in bed at the hospital and the nurse hears me sing, "When I was a kid I wish grandpa would get off me," God will smile at me.
Anonymous V triple-posted this 1 month ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,328
Anonymous W joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 17 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,405
Imagine having your entire personality based on copying right wing political commentators you saw on TikTok.
Anonymous X joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 38 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,407,409
@previous (W)
Imagine making your entire personality based on obsessing over postsrs copying right wing political commentators they saw on TikTok.
Imagine making your entire personality based on obsessing over postsrs copying right wing political commentators they saw on TikTok.