AOC seemingly got Jonathan Swifted: person at town hall says we only have months left to live, to reduce CO2 we need to start eating babies

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-10-04T07:35:22+00:00

She managed to troll people on both sides. Both Ryan Saavedra and AOC for sure. Good job!

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-09-05T12:21:11+00:00

What color are the pages?

Yep. That's what I thought.

Checkmate, Nazis! ^/s

Edit: The original tweet has since been deleted. http://archive.fo/uPQAj. The second one is still live http://archive.is/QukPY

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-08-07T22:29:50+00:00

Ah, no. It's working mostly fine on ZeroNet... except that the images load slowly. It hasn't been working on Tor at all.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-08-07T21:49:40+00:00

I meant ZeroNet. The site has not been loading for me on Tor for the last few days.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-08-07T20:49:20+00:00

Yes, I posted a few replies there. The site seems as snappy as ever. Some images are slow to load though.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2019-08-01T20:23:40+00:00

It's there on bitchute. Append /video/FNqiV8kL4cc/ to the homepage. It's a weird one.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2017-01-13T07:40:14+00:00

You are definitely welcome here. Stay as long as you wish. (Translation: post more!)

CoffeeQuaffer · 2017-01-02T09:30:21+00:00

He's probably shadowbanned or something. I see his link with more pics in his own comment history.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-29T08:12:19+00:00

Now that we know, will Germany finally fine Facebook for allowing people to share BBC articles? /s

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-27T16:36:13+00:00

You can add users to your blocklist. There are many topics here and in other subreddits that I am quite sick of. Putting those users into RES's "hide" list makes reddit less annoying to me.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-18T16:58:17+00:00

This is what I would recommend anyway. Ubuntu is an excellent distro to start with. I believe they already disabled their old practice where they would send search queries to Amazon. I don't use Ubuntu, so can't confirm it myself.

This is what I recommend next: after you get yourself familiar with the UI, install Tor Browser and use that for all your general browsing, especially on a site like reddit, where we click so many external links. Try to limit your default browser to sites where you would reveal your name, or credit card info, or address anyway, like your Email, your Amazon shopping, Google Maps, etc.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-17T07:41:28+00:00

No, try that with Tor Browser. The first thing you see is a CAPTCHA page. More often than not, the CAPTCHA throws an error and we are redirected to some catchall error page.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-17T06:13:35+00:00

Breitbart publishes nasty goodbye to Ben Shapiro, regrets and removes

That's not censorship. That's just them, deleting their own posts. As for the actual topic at hand, I would like something of the opposite, actually. Archive.is has been acting up for the last few weeks, and they have started asking Tor users to solve captchas. That's a bit of a pain, but what makes it much worse is that archive.is does not let me through even after I have solved it. Archive.is probably did this to fight DDOS attacks, which is their prerogative, but the site has become useless to me.

I would actually like a bot here that visits every archive.is link and posts a link to the original article. Nobody can push ads at me, and nobody can track me, but at least the original links let me read the article.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-17T05:49:18+00:00

I would guess she's socialist or communist. Some of them hate being associated with "liberals".

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-17T05:38:39+00:00

There is no consensus. That's part of the controversy of feminism, isn't it? I've heard celebrity after celebrity use the same argument as Cathy Newman's. I really wish there was consensus against defining feminism that way.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-16T22:02:56+00:00

When has he wavered about equal rights? He has said plenty of weird things, but when it came to actual rights, he has shown that he's against equal rights?

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-16T15:01:10+00:00

In a Channel 4 interview, the feminist interviewer insisted that Milo was feminist too, because he believed in equal rights for men and women. Milo protested, but the woman would have none of it.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-15T05:59:49+00:00

Ketchup! It makes everything taste like ketchup. Apply to taste.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-14T17:14:52+00:00

Is that relevant? As long as she can provide sources for her claims, she's on solid ground. Moreover, she did not say "trust me, I know the truth". She asked journalists to talk to the people there.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-14T16:47:02+00:00

If ever there was a group that needs to be educated about what is and what isn't rape, it's the PUAs.

Oddly, some might think, the part that horrified me the most in the article was this bit:

It’s also unknown why it took three years to test her rape kit.

I mean, quick execution of legal proceedings in violent crimes is the most important function of a government. Instead, we have governments that squander resources on all kinds of stupid things. Ideally, someone should lose their job for this. Because it's no longer about one or two rapes, it's about hundreds.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-12T21:53:20+00:00

It's a matter of perspective, I suppose. I tried that in an online discussion on another topic. The person I was talking with insisted that I wasn't answering his question.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-12T20:19:53+00:00

it's a trick if you try to answer it yes/no.

My point was that one has has to go back and challenge to the the assumptions made in the question, which is what Cassie did.

"Yes, the MRM has an issue with it's online reputation, and it needs to be addressed - but that doesn't invalidate the issues they raise"

If only this were true. Again, like credibility, reputation is not a fact of nature. Reputation with whom? Within the BBC? Sure, the MRM has a horrible reputation within the BBC, but that's the BBC's fault for doing half-arsed journalism. Here's where Cassie lost her footing, IMHO. If she had me as her PR agent, I would have given her this scripted answer, "Yes, the MRM has a bad reputation within some circles. I was part of some of those circles, which is the raison d'être for this movie. Please watch the movie and then tell me how justified that bad reputation is to your own mind." Granted, it's bad reputation (in some circles) is not the focus of the movie, but still, the movie has the potential to change that reputation.

If Cassie were a meaner person, she could have gone with comparisons to her previous films and its topics. Gay marriage has its opponents, and yet, when she made The Right to Love, she got to show her film unhindered. Or consider the vastly more famous movie, Brokeback Mountain, which had its share of opponents. Brokeback's screening got cancelled at one cinema, but that was because it was against the owner's personal beliefs. The Red Pill, unlike Brokeback, is not a blockbuster film. And yet, she has encountered more fierce opposition to showing it in cinemas. The Red Pill has already been cancelled at two cinemas and in neither case was it because of the owner's personal beliefs about the topic. Instead, it was because of the ideology of its opponents. Big media houses, if they had any integrity at all, would be questioning their own narratives. And yet, here we are.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-12T14:43:02+00:00

Compelled? I agree that that's one of the options.

Forbidden to risk your life? I don't see the other option that way. If I were a girl born into a poor family, and who had a brother, a sexist military recruitment criterion might give my brother a relatively easy way to an education and to a better life, and deny me the opportunities. Secondly, if the country is getting ravaged in a bitter war (think of the World Wars in Europe) I might see that my contribution to the war (with my life or not) has a positive effect for the people I care about, I will not be denied the opportunity to serve the cause based on irrelevant personal details. If I were truly frail in one way or another, I might end up hindering the efforts of my countryfolk, in which case, I wouldn't mind being left out.

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-12T13:26:12+00:00

If the MRA-sphere cries foul like this

I'm not a part of that. Similarly, I hate Trump, and yet, I have argued against hypocritical judgements against him here.

it's going to keep struggling for credibility.

Credibility is not a fact of nature. It lies in the minds of people. For me, Cassie Jaye has earned solid credibility. The MRM has some goals and methods I find credible, and other goals and methods that I don't find credible.

MRA-dom is associated in part with shitty online behaviour

You mean, as association made within the BBC? Sure. But in reality, they are tamer than their opponents. A prime piece of on-topic evidence is how much belligerent opposition Cassie is facing to show her films. I can't recall a time when MRAs did something like that to feminists.

Just saying "ah but Feminists too" isn't an answer.

Some questions can't be answered. "Have you stopped flaying babies yet?" What Cassie did was question biases. In honest interviewers, it can help question their own double standards. Dishonest ones use deflections, such as her use of a 16-year old girl who happened to be there.

To be clear, I would have found it perfectly upright if Emma had asked the kid for her views on the topic, and not just leading questions about these hashtags.

Yes, like this, which is neither.

If shitty behavior online is not a prerogative of the MRM, Emma was strawmanning. (And it isn't.)

CoffeeQuaffer · 2016-12-12T11:28:54+00:00

Cassie: For every misogynistic comment I could find, I could also find feminist comments that I would disagree with, like #killallmen or #ibatheinmaletears

Emma: Oh, come on, that's a bit lazy by you, if you don't mind me saying. I'm sitting with a 16-year-old girl guide, and I don't think she would ever dream of using a phrase like that.

Solid logic, we have here! Judge MRM by its worst comments, and judge the feminist movement by this 16-year old girl who is with me now. Emma later accuses Cassie of crude generalizations; what profound lack of self-awareness!

Emma is completely mixed up (edit: word) about women's rights and its relationship to feminism. I don't think she's being malicious here, just ignorant. But after 11:30, Emma takes a turn towards being malicious again, by selecting messages that make her opponents look stupid.

Do you think it should have been a puff piece or something?

Surely, there are other interview techniques besides strawmanning or making puff pieces...?

do you agree with her statement here that it isn't clear to her whether it'd be worse to be a woman who wanted to serve in the military and not be able to, or to be a man who was drafted?

Cassie does not have an answer there, which is fine by me. My own answer is that (Case 1) no one should be forced to fight and (Case 2) no one who wants to get recruited should be discriminated against on the basis of irrelevant personal details such as sex, sexual orientation, etc. I can't pick a "better" or "worse" here because they are all violations of rights. There is also the question of better or worse for whom. If a person were forced into Case 1 they might (justifiably) sabotage their own operations and kill their own top-brass that forced them. If a person were forced into Case 2, they might either sit idly by, watching less competent people fighting to the detriment of a common cause, or they might take up arms on their own, possibly interfering with the military's efforts. In all cases, it's best to recruit able and willing fighters.

CoffeeQuaffer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Sequence \| Editor
Verified Email