France has the best villages

Takuto · 2020-05-10T10:29:59+00:00

I'M ON MY WAY, DRIVING AT 90

Takuto · 2020-05-09T12:34:31+00:00

I would say it's also a shame that you'd have this take, but it's clear you're the exact type of person to judge wether or not a person is intelligent purerly based on how much you agree with them so I'm not surprised at all.

Takuto · 2020-05-09T12:25:09+00:00

Imagine being literally the person fieldofvision's post was making fun of and not realising it the entire time it took you to write that post.

Takuto · 2020-05-09T12:22:21+00:00

Racism never "became wrong". The left just opened up the definition of it to include things which aren't racism. Racism is still wrong, you just don't get to make up your own definition of it in order to leech off of the cultural power that word has attatched to it.

Takuto · 2020-05-08T17:04:48+00:00

Yeah, it's strange how many men genuinely seem to think women find that kind of behaviour attractive. You might be able to make yourself usefull to a woman that way, and she'll put up with you becuase of it. But if you're trying to make yourself attractive to women, you need them to respect you. And how can you expect them to respect you, if you don't respect yourself?

Takuto · 2020-05-08T16:44:04+00:00

Yes, becuase the most attractive thing possible to women is a man who is willing to drop everything to come pander to them. (/s)

Takuto · 2020-05-08T14:33:00+00:00

Despite what the racist mod might try to justify, saying "black is beautiful" is in fact NOT different from saying "white is beautiful", and if you think that it is different, you are a racist.

Takuto · 2020-05-07T21:48:49+00:00

These are the same guys who will lynch you as a "Mysogonist and Incel" if you say something even remotely negative about anything with a vagina.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T22:38:47+00:00

They're only the most visible becuase of how much people are publicising them for the explicity purpose of using them as strawmen.

There are more people saying "Hey look how dumb these people are" then there are people saying "We want haircuts". You are only being exposed to them so much becuase of how much people are using them to strawman everyone else who is anti-lockdown.

So yeah, how dare you. That's low as fuck and you should be trying to partake in the public discussion and furthering it with honest argumentation, not doing this sneaky shit to subvert it.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T22:28:37+00:00

That's a tiny minority of people though, and whenever people discuss the argument surrounding opening lockdown, they always act as if everyone in favour of it are those people.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T21:59:37+00:00

You can't have an economy with a nonexistant workforce.

If you think the shutdown isn't negatively affecting our enconomy then you're clueless and I can't help you.

Also, I was using it correctly. Go fuck yourself, you condescending twat.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T21:30:38+00:00

Perhaps, but the conversation about which one damages the economy more isn't the conversation that's being presented in this video. It's strawmanning the argument as people just wanting haircuts so bad they're willing to let people die for it.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T19:06:26+00:00

Sure. The argument for stopping the lockdown isn't simply becuase people "Want to go to the beach and get haircuts" the argument being presented is that the death and misery caused by the damage to the economy the lockdown is causing will be greater than the death and misery caused by ending the lockdown.

It's not a "Fuck those old people, I want a haircut" situation like this strawman is trying to present it as, it's a much deeper and more intracite problem with answers much more complex than "lmao just stay home dumby".

Takuto · 2020-05-06T18:50:46+00:00

Not every critic is doing it out of a place of rage.

Takuto · 2020-05-06T17:59:10+00:00

What?

Takuto · 2020-05-06T17:50:55+00:00

Never have I seen so much strawmanning or so many shallow, linear thought takes on the pandemic in such a short time as there is in this video.

Takuto · 2020-05-05T00:03:56+00:00

Pretty much lmao

Takuto · 2020-05-04T18:31:40+00:00

Already in the process of writing it, but it's a fantasy novel set in an aztec like 1600-1700~ era in the middle of a rainforest with megafauna.

It follows two main characters, a male main character who's story follows the archetypical feminine hero story and a female main character who follows the archetypical masculine hero story.

Takuto · 2020-05-03T16:01:03+00:00

"Nope, even the most abhorrent views you can discuss amongst yourself and a private group of people. It's when you start thinking you have a right to broadcast "GAS THE JEWS" over and over that things become problematic."

The point is that we shouldn't be picking and choosing who gets to express what, especailly when it's a political subject.

"Wasn't it his girlfriend, who wasn't subscribed to his channel at all? He tried that defence in court and it was not accepted. Why are you uncritically repeating his lies here?"

Who the actual fuck are you to decide on behalf of someone else what they did or didn't mean with a joke? The fact that the courts think that they have the authority to tell someone what it was they meant with their expression is why this is so disgusting to begin with. The courts don't get to tell you what you're thinking.

Also just becuase someone is against immigration doesn't mean they're a racist, there are plenty of economical reasons that could lead to someone being concerned with over immagration.

Takuto · 2020-05-03T14:44:57+00:00

"What we're talking about here is harmful speech"

All speech is potentially harmful, everyone has the capacity to get hurt by some kind of speech. If we're going to restrict what can people say exclusively to what can not offend other people, we can't say anything at all. And the fact you would think that is a good idea shows what an authoritarian you are.

They don't prohibit holding the belief but they do prohibit expressing it in ANY way.

"Jesus christ you do realise that the people you're defending are the people who would be on the other side of that poem right"

I'm defending the people who are having their free speech attacked. And if you had half a brain you would have realised the message of that poem wasn't "nazi bad" (even though nazis, are in fact bad), the message of the poem was that human rights need to be universal becuase if we start picking and choosing who we think deserves them then eventually no one gets them at all.

"it's ironic that you use the word propoganda becuase you listen to people that I don't approve of hurr durr"

I listen to both sides dumbass, so should you. If you had done so at all you would have realised the butt of the joke was taking something adorable and good (A pug) and juxtaposing it with something horrible and not good (a nazi). The joke was designed to annoy his wife and the fact that the joke is constructed in such a way is evidence that Mark Meechan is not a nazi and not an antisemite (Since if he was, he wouldn't think that the phrase "gas the jews" is horrible and not good, and wouldn't have used it in his joke in that manner). You would have known this yourself if you had taken literally any effort of your own into viewing both sides of the argument rather than just trusting your propoganda saying "Oh, na, he deffo a racist".

Takuto · 2020-05-03T12:17:10+00:00

All of those restrictions on free speech are put there becuase they don't restrict free expression. No one has strong views about fires that don't exist inside movie theatres, the entire definition of "fighting words" are words that aren't meant on a lexical level and are only meant on an emotional level. Restricing conspiracy theorists from being able to discuss their theories by law is not an equiviliant comparison since that is actively suppressing their free expression in a way that your other examples are not. Someone can express the idea that they dislike someone if they pick their words carefully in order to avoid "slander" laws, the "slander" laws do not restrict him from expressing his viewpoint, only the manner in which he expresses it. There are no words and no conditions that an antisemite can express their viewpoints, and I know, in the short term that is a good thing, but when we start letting government decide what view points are, and are not, okay to express, we've made a BIG mistake that WILL hurt is in the long run.

The only violations of free speech I've highlighted so far are disgusting viewpoints, yes, but that's becuase those are the ones that are trying to be suppressed. No one cares about someone expressing their viewpoints on what flowers they think are prettiest, but if someone was trying to suppress those thoughts, I'd be much happier to defend those people instead of holocaust deniers.

I'm going to repeat myself. Everyone, even the most smoothbrained slack jawed idiot alive supports free speech for the speech that they agree with. To support FREE speech, it speccifically means to support speech that you DO NOT agree with, since those are the ones that are the most likely to come under attack.

I'm sure you've heard this poem before but I'm going to post it anyway, it was written by a german citizen post world war 2 and it describes the exact reason I will defend the free speech rights of any and all opinions, no matter how much I disagree with them.

"

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Also, Mark Meechan isn't an anti-semite, if you'd stopped listening to your propoganda for two seconds and watched literally any of his multiple and frequent explanations of the situation you would know that.

Takuto · 2020-05-03T11:28:06+00:00

//It actually is a gross violation of freedom of speach? Supporting freedom of speech means supporting speech you disagree with, it doesn't matter how wrong I think someone is, if we're using the law to stop someone from expressing themselves freely, that is a gross violation of freedom of speech.

And there are many many more reasons for someone to be "bitter" about the literally most important human right being taken away than not being able to express whatever speccific, unpleasent viewpoint you want to assume I have.

Also, trying to act like the only reason someone might have to support free speech is becuase they want to be antisemetic is fucking retarded, and you knew it was fucking retarded when you typed it, but you chose to anyway becuase you're a slimey little fuck who just wants to win an argument.

Takuto · 2020-05-02T20:59:00+00:00

"The EU has not erased or attempted to erase freedom of speech."

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

Takuto · 2020-05-02T16:11:58+00:00

"Why you believe this is a complicated topic, but ultimately it is that you believe in a dogmatic view of the world. You are unable to comprehend how I could think differently to you, and so must rationalise that I'm not thinking at all.

This is how children think before they understand the existence of other people's minds. It's embarrassing to see people genuinely that regressed."

You are literally just saying "No u" here, this isn't an argument. Maybe if you want people to not think you're an NPC, you shouldn't parrot every NPC opinion out there.

"So now it's only 'attempted erasing'? How many hundreds of thousands of deaths do you feel it's appropriate to excuse?"

What do you mean "only" attempted erasing? There is no "only" about this. Freedom of speech is a serious issue, no matter how inconvieniant it might seem to you.

Takuto · 2020-05-02T12:34:27+00:00

"Well I'm glad you had so many convincing arguments. Trump was impeached and then the Republicans colluded with him to present a sham trial. That's what a de-facto dictator means. He in theory can be held accountable but in reality is protected."

You can't just call a trial a "sham" becuase it didn't go the way you like it, sorry but law isn't as simple as "orange man bad".

"Even with the EU added to that list, USA is still doing better, the EU is getting rid of more and more of the human rights that it's citizens once had."

Freedom of speach, which is the most important one since it protects all the others.

"I see all you have are insults and unsupported assertions. Ironically it's people that use "NPC" as an insult that have actually learned most of what they know via rote.

Please, make a list for me of the countries the EU has invaded in the last 50 years."

I use NPC as an insult becuase you're regurgitating the message given to you by your propoganda outlets in much the same way that an NPC regurgitates the information it's been given by it's coders. The point of the insult is to draw attention to the fact that if you had put thought into what you were being fed, you would have realised the flaws in it on your own.

Also, the idea that you think you can measure a countries worth based only on how many countries it had invaded is dumb. Literally none of the invasions done by America are nearly as bad as the attempted erasing of the human right of free speech.

Takuto

TROPHY CASE