Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Thaluikhain]

I'm aware that is happening now, and I don't like it, but I'm telling you that follows 50 years of Democratic politicians claiming Republicans are all Hitler and/or rapists. Rapist nazi and satanic pedophile are not really that far removed from each other.

One is rather more likely to be true though. Now, if the Republicans were to say that lots of Democrats are rapists and/or Nazis (or at least authoritarian and evil in a similar ish way) that'd be a very valid complaint. Satanism is flat out untrue, and the sexual abuse of minors is probably only a very small part of the sexual abuse the dems are up to.

 

[Silvanus]

That depends on how they say it. A person can talk about their family values without necessarily implying other people lack them. "Family values are important to me" is a neutral statement that says nothing about anyone else. But if you hear something like "OUR candidate cares about family values" or "we need family values back in Washington", they are 1000% saying Dems hate families, that is exactly the intended message.

And I expect, case by case, you'll view these subtleties in such a way as to exonerate Republicans and implicate Democrats in the behaviour you're describing.

I'm aware that is happening now, and I don't like it, but I'm telling you that follows 50 years of Democratic politicians claiming Republicans are all Hitler and/or rapists. Rapist nazi and satanic pedophile are not really that far removed from each other.

OK, but "Hitler and/or rapists" is an insane strawman, whereas "satanic paedophile" is literally the actual accusation.

Buddy, your camp is absolutely mired in the shit, and you're just engaged in a double standard.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And I expect, case by case, you'll view these subtleties in such a way as to exonerate Republicans and implicate Democrats in the behaviour you're describing.



OK, but "Hitler and/or rapists" is an insane strawman, whereas "satanic paedophile" is literally the actual accusation.

Buddy, your camp is absolutely mired in the shit, and you're just engaged in a double standard.

Lmao, he says that like Limbaugh didn't come up with "feminazi" before I was born.

Just ignore him and leave him in his own fictional reality. He's just trolling and says nothing of value

 

[Terminal Blue]

Cowards.

There's a certain irony to all this.

The UK has laws criminalizing religious offence. In the past, films have actually been censored in the UK (not just pulled from viewing by cinemas) out of fear they might cause religious offence, and it's even gone to the EU courts in the past (unsurprisingly, the EU upheld the decision of the UK court). The thing is, because these laws are phrased in terms of the threat to public order they only tend to be applied in defense of the religious majority (namely Christians). Despite the constant assertion that Islam is subject to some kind of special protection or consideration, the reality is that Christians have been far more legally protected from offence in the UK than any other religious group.

I'd go so far as to say that part of the reason why Muslims are so active in publicly protest against perceived offences to their religion is because they know they can't take it to the courts in the way Christians can.

And for some reason, here we are talking about "wokeness" and "cancel culture" when not only have religious offence laws not been invoked but they couldn't be invoked because the law is set up to be inapplicable to minority religions. Heck, I could go see this film today if I had any interest. It's showing at my local cinema in a couple of hours. This is a protest by religious conservatives against the showing of a film made by religious conservatives (of a different religious denomination) at one particular cinema chain who have chosen to pull it from their theatres in what is clearly a business decision. It's kind of nothing.

Meanwhile, we're all just going to ignore the actual reason why laws prohibiting religious offence still exist and pretend its the fault of activists on twitter rather than, say, conservative governments keeping it off the agenda because they don't want to upset their Christian-right voters.

 

[Silvanus]

Just ignore him and leave him in his own fictional reality. He's just trolling and says nothing of value

Eh... while I strenuously disagree with tstorm on just about everything political or religious, I also feel he does put effort and thought into responses.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Eh... while I strenuously disagree with tstorm on just about everything political or religious, I also feel he does put effort and thought into responses.

Never said he wasn't putting in effort and thought. Just not how you think

 

[Silvanus]

Never said he wasn't putting in effort and thought. Just not how you think

I don't think he's trolling.

I've only ever put one person on ignore, and even then I didn't bother to put them back on when we moved to V2.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I don't think he's trolling.

No, he is. He's openly admitted to being a troll, several times.

 

[Silvanus]

No, he is. He's openly admitted to being a troll, several times.

With other stuff. We all take the piss sometimes, be honest.

 

[Schadrach]

especially against someone with access to expensive lawyers.

For the civil cases case it needs be pointed out that actresses can generally also afford expensive lawyers to litigate on their behalf.

And yes, Wood and her friend and (ex?)partner Gore are "imperfect victims", by which I mean there's some evidence that needs evaluated that they coordinated with other accusers prior to the accusations coming out (including possibly coaching or even writing scripts for them), possibly forged the signature of an FBI agent (Manson claims the agent mentioned in that document claims not to have written or signed it), created email accounts to impersonate Manson, you know, that sort of thing. And those are just things mentioned in Manson's suit against Wood and Gore that media got shown some evidence of.

Another one of the accusations that should be trivial to prove or disprove is the one that he made a short film in the 90s that featured an underage girl and included child pornography - Manson claims the girl was 22 at the time. If she can be identified, then how old she was at time of filming is trivial to determine. As opposed to the Heart Shaped Glasses video, where again you have a whole heap of witnesses and possibly even excess footage of the alleged rape. It's just now we have to jump into the whole "just because there were a bunch of witnesses, doesn't mean they aren't all lying because believe women" bit that seems to be the go to.

Again, I fully expect the accusations against him to be a mixed bag - I doubt he did none of them, but certain ones just feel like they should be easy to resolve one way or the other.

At the time the video was released, Manson himself was ambiguous and contradictory about whether it was simulated or not, but refused to concretely deny that it wasn't and, on several occasions, made statements that clearly implied it wasn't. Following Wood's allegations, he has concretely claimed that it was simulated.

He kept it vague when the vagueness was good for his image, and switched to a firm answer years later when one was required. Again, heap of potential witnesses, shouldn't be hard to get more testimony or evidence than her accusation and his denial over this one.

Also, bear in mind that there were certainly multiple takes and cuts in that scene and it's possible the footage used in the final video was indeed simulated, but that doesn't mean the events described by Wood didn't take place.

Yes, there may still exist some unused footage that might be helpful, and also editing staff who may have seen such footage even if it no longer exists.

 

[tstorm823]

And I expect, case by case, you'll view these subtleties in such a way as to exonerate Republicans and implicate Democrats in the behaviour you're describing.

Nope.

OK, but "Hitler and/or rapists" is an insane strawman, whereas "satanic paedophile" is literally the actual accusation.

Buddy, your camp is absolutely mired in the shit, and you're just engaged in a double standard.

Well, we're currently talking about how people think Trump is fascist, and half the conservative justices on the Supreme Court were accused of rape, so no, that isn't an insane straw man, those are the actual accusations. In the year 2005, on a random Thursday, I was on a trip to New York, and there was a small crowd of people with posters calling George W Bush the same as Hitler. There is a chrome extension that changes all instances of "Trump" or "Donald Trump" to "Orange Hitler".

You are being presented with a magnified view of a handful of crazies in one party while all the questionable activities in the other are whitewashed over.

Eh... while I strenuously disagree with tstorm on just about everything political or religious, I also feel he does put effort and thought into responses.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

No, he is. He's openly admitted to being a troll, several times.

I do not recall saying such a thing. You may be confusing me with one of the...like...3 other conservatives on the site. I've made stupid jokes, and I've said things that get a rise out of people, but I'm not particularly interested in being disingenuous to get a rise out of people.

 

[Trunkage]

I do not recall saying such a thing. You may be confusing me with one of the...like...3 other conservatives on the site. I've made stupid jokes, and I've said things that get a rise out of people, but I'm not particularly interested in being disingenuous to get a rise out of people.

No, you definitely said that you were deliberately trolling at least once this year

 

[tstorm823]

No, you definitely said that you were deliberately trolling at least once this year

I mean, I come from the era where even saying that word meant your forum health bar suffered. Not saying it's impossible, but it really doesn't sound like me.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, I come from the era where even saying that word meant your forum health bar suffered. Not saying it's impossible, but it really doesn't sound like me.

It's not often. I'm also in this camp...

With other stuff. We all take the piss sometimes, be honest.

If you are doing it incredibly frequently, we'd be having a different conversation. I try to give people some grace here because we generally aren't dishonest and grifting

It's also was freshing at that moment when someone, who was playing devil advocate/trolling or whatever, admit it and not pretend that the evil liberals were trying get them. That's how trolling normally ends

 

[Thaluikhain]

Another one of the accusations that should be trivial to prove or disprove is the one that he made a short film in the 90s that featured an underage girl and included child pornography - Manson claims the girl was 22 at the time. If she can be identified, then how old she was at time of filming is trivial to determine.

But can it be proven that Manson knew (or maybe should have known) she was underage, if she was? Otherwise, he can plead ignorance.

Well, we're currently talking about how people think Trump is fascist, and half the conservative justices on the Supreme Court were accused of rape, so no, that isn't an insane straw man, those are the actual accusations.

Some of the conservative justices on the SCotUS were accused of rape, and Trump has been cosying up to fascists, so the accusation has validity, though. Satanic pedophiles, not so much.

 

[tstorm823]

Some of the conservative justices on the SCotUS were accused of rape, and Trump has been cosying up to fascists, so the accusation has validity, though. Satanic pedophiles, not so much.

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court aren't rapists, Democrats just try to torpedo public perceptions of Republican justices character, and Donald Trump isn't a fascist, the accusation has no validity.

On the other hand, there are efforts to put statues of satan outside government buildings (not by Democrats, but certainly more opposed by Republicans), and in the short list of names we have connected to Epstein's "Lolita Express", the only Republican is Trump from 20 years before he entered politics, compared to 3 Democratic Senators while they were in office and former president Bill Clinton.

To be clear, I'm not saying either accusation is reasonable. But if you're taking the flimsiest arguments with the least evidence and think "Democrats are obviously not satanic pedophiles, but Republicans are prooooobably fascist rapist" you're on a pretty extreme double standard.

 

[Agema]

It's interesting to note that Hayek did talk about social security being beneficial not long after winning the Nobel prize (or whatever the economics one is called)

Hayek is interesting, because throughout his life he supports welfare systems, and yet also writes that welfare systems lead to totalitarianism and that's really bad.

Maybe Hayek is simply inconsistent - although it's odd for someone like that to be so blatantly inconsistent over such a major issue. Alternatively, I wonder if he had some wishful thinking that a welfare system could be run in such a way that it could not be abused (by which I mean abused in his thinking: ever-expanded and made more generous).

 

[Gergar12]

The problem with the Biden admin's policy arm is that Biden refuses to do executive orders, and defers to congress which he then uses as a talking point to say the republicans are stopping this with the filibuster. If I was a republican I would just say the democrats could fix this would executive orders, but X Y Z bad demcorats are bad.

Remarks by President Biden on Inflation and Actions Taken to Lower Prices and Address Supply Chain Challenges | The White House

USS IowaPort of Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 10:51 A.M. PDT THE PRESIDENT: As we used to say in the United States Senate, I hope you’ll

www.whitehouse.gov

No not everything needs an executive order, but we are about to hit a recession, so mitigating actions need to be taken.

 

[Trunkage]

The problem with the Biden admin's policy arm is that Biden refuses to do executive orders, and defers to congress which he then uses as a talking point to say the republicans are stopping this with the filibuster. If I was a republican I would just say the democrats could fix this would executive orders, but X Y Z bad demcorats are bad.

Remarks by President Biden on Inflation and Actions Taken to Lower Prices and Address Supply Chain Challenges | The White House

USS IowaPort of Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 10:51 A.M. PDT THE PRESIDENT: As we used to say in the United States Senate, I hope you’ll

www.whitehouse.gov

No not everything needs an executive order, but we are about to hit a recession, so mitigating actions need to be taken.

I don't disagree with the assessment...

But I really dont like how the US runs on EOs or Supreme Court rulings and not actually pass any laws. It's completely fucked up

 

[Agema]

If I was a republican I would just say the democrats could fix this would executive orders, but X Y Z bad demcorats are bad.

At which point Biden starts to employs EOs, and the Republicans would complain about abuse of EOs to bypass Congress.