President Donald J Trump

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, stconquest said:

You are probably better off not using the term "SJW".  Stick to policy issues, and be skeptical of radical verbiage coming from the right or the left.

Actually except for the "Warrior" part most SJWs do not frown from the term "Social Justice" and use it to self identify.

 

The only issue is that it is over used between the factions so SJW (much like "Cuck") get's thrown around indiscrimnately as much as "Alt righter" is on the opposite side (In addition to the usual: sexist, racist, islamophobic: the Tri-force of preemtive dismissiveness)

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Canada EH said:

I dont know about radical verbage, but if you mean words not commonly used in everyday society. This is done in every aspect of our society.

It reeks of "Look at me I am smart" so it boils down to ego. Or, its a contractual or legal element which is why I stated facts.

No, I meant social and economic ideas and there political counterparts.

 

AKA:  Climate change is not real; or white genocide;  or lizard people among us; or intercourse is rape, etc...

[Praesi]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

I read that but sadly i think my english just isn't good enough to understand it.

The only thing i can make of it is that a SJW is like a person from greenpeace or whatever trying to ruin a boat that's doing illegal fishing for example trying to make a point, or something... But instead of fighting for nature they fight for stuff like equal rights, same-sex marriage and things like that.

 

Or there is nothing more about it and i'm a twat for not being able to figure that out, that's also an option O_o

No, Greenpeace are real Warriors.

SJW dont fight at all. They are uniformed "Twitter Heroes" who bitch about things they dont understand and call everyone who has a different opinion "racist""fashist""womenhater" or "antisemitic".

In short, People who add nothing usefull whatsoever.

[stconquest]

1 minute ago, Praesi said:

No, Greenpeace are real Warriors.

SJW dont fight at all. They are uniformed "Twitter Heroes" who bitch about things they dont understand and call everyone who has a different opinion "racist""fashist""womenhater" or "antisemitic".

In short, People who add nothing usefull whatsoever.

Sooooo... SJW's are relatively inert and "ignorable".  ...mostly.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Praesi said:

No, Greenpeace are real Warriors.

SJW dont fight at all. They are uniformed "Twitter Heroes" who bitch about things they dont understand and call everyone who has a different opinion "racist""fashist""womenhater" or "antisemitic".

In short, People who add nothing usefull whatsoever.

Some of them sure, but most people are getting the rthetoric from University professors in fields like Sociology and such. And those actually are warriors.

[samcool55]

Just now, Praesi said:

No, Greenpeace are real Warriors.

SJW dont fight at all. They are uniformed "Twitter Heroes" who bitch about things they dont understand and call everyone who has a different opinion "racist""fashist""womenhater" or "antisemitic".

In short, People who add nothing usefull whatsoever.

Oh, they are even worse, ok, didn't expect that

Tbh it sounds like they are the average 12 yo whining kid that gets too much attention from its parents.

 

Anyway, thanks for explaining, i understand now why people hate them. 

[Praesi]

3 minutes ago, stconquest said:

Sooooo... SJW's are relatively inert and "ignorable".  ...mostly.

But sometimes it feels like you cant spit without hitting one of those.

[stconquest]

3 minutes ago, Praesi said:

But sometimes it feels you cant spit without hitting one of those.

That might be more on you, then them.  I have asked people in my family/friends over the past year... I have a big family.  None of them knew the term SJW.  It is out of their scope. 

 

Tunnel vision dude?  Maybe?   

[Praesi]

Just now, stconquest said:

That might be more on you, then them.  I have asked people in my family over the past year... I have a big family.  None of them knew the term SJW.  It is out of there scope. 

 

Tunnel vision dude?  Maybe?   

Nope. SJW is a cummon term in the Gaming World. Boobs!! Oh no..there are BOOOOOOBBBSSSS in this Game.....HATE in 3..2..1

[TidaLWaveZ]

47 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Might be a noob question but, what exactly is a SJW? google told me it's a social justice warrior but tbh i have no idea what that means O_o

The only thing i can figure out is that they are a form of protesters, but that's as far as i can figure it out...

Social activists that are so extreme that they don't care about being civil, at least that's my view on them.

 

I don't consider all feminists or other social activists SJW's but this woman is a prime example of what the term describes. She's gone so far that she's not willing to be civil.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 - EXPLICIT (Many F bombs)

 

[Citadelen]

On ‎09‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 9:33 AM, AlwaysFSX said:

-snip-

Personally, I'm more scared of what he stands for, what Pence stands for, and the doubtless surges in racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and transphobia and violent actions related to them, that will accompany his election. It happened with Brexit, since the referendum homophobic hate crime has tripled, and racism has risen by 57%.

[Praesi]

5 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 - EXPLICIT (Many F bombs)

Vomit in 3..2..1

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Citadelen said:

since the referendum homophobic hate crime has tripled, and racism has risen by 57%.

Citation needed.

[Citadelen]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

-snip-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/steep-rise-in-racist-incidents-after-eu-referendum-cataloged-by/

Oops it wasn't tripled, it was 147%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-hate-crime-hatred-homophobia-lgbt-147-per-cent-rise-double-attacks-on-gays-lesbians-a7352411.html

Sufficient citation?

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/steep-rise-in-racist-incidents-after-eu-referendum-cataloged-by/

Oops it wasn't tripled, it was 147%.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-hate-crime-hatred-homophobia-lgbt-147-per-cent-rise-double-attacks-on-gays-lesbians-a7352411.html

Sufficient citation?

Yes I've located the stories from the usual British sources. Also located this:

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/brexit-the-myth-of-a-racist-surge/18566#.WCTje6BMHqA

 

"According to the Institute of Race Relations (IRR), the EU referendum result has ‘taken the shame out of racism’. To confirm this assertion, the IRR has been busy appealing to the public to send it reports of racist incidents. London mayor Sadiq Khan clearly shares the IRR’s concern. A few days after the referendum, he said: ‘I’ve asked our police to be extra vigilant for any rise in cases of hate crime and I’m calling on all Londoners to pull together.’ "

 

Sounds like "report more cases to fit our narrative"  To me. 

 

[samcool55]

22 minutes ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

Social activists that are so extreme that they don't care about being civil, at least that's my view on them.

 

I don't consider all feminists or other social activists SJW's but this woman is a prime example of what the term describes. She's gone so far that she's not willing to be civil.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 - EXPLICIT (Many F bombs)

 

Ooh it's the one from the triggered meme!

And oh my god it's 12 minutes long, i can't handle that good god...

 

Anyway if the average SJW is like that, i'm not that surprised anymore so many people are protesting.

 

Also, flippin hilarious! At least she isn't the new president

 

A lot of blabla but that's about it. Also, is she still alive? Not a troll question btw, i can't imagine something like that surviving long in an area where people have guns.

[CtrlAltELITE]

As a non-American I honestly see him as a lesser evil, Trump is isolationist and his primary campaign related only to America and making it 'great' again, I am not sure of the intricacies of his plan but he has ran semi-successful  businesses, including one in my country, for many years so I believe he will be an interesting breath of fresh air into American politics, especially if he creates a cabinet of business leaders rather than a conventional political line up, and ultimately if he ball's up it is a problem primarily for America and nowhere else.

Clinton on the other hand is a globalist with some very scary foreign agenda's from a family who has a history of breeding warmongers. She also has a history of very underhanded dealings which would be toxic, not only for America but for the majority of the western world.

 

On top of that the absolute outrage from the American extreme social left (you know who I mean :D) is becoming hilarious.

[Canada EH]

1 minute ago, CtrlAltELITE said:

I am not sure of the intricacies of his plan

What an under statement.

[Tech Inquisition]

Is it just me or are the majority of these rioters actually people who didn't bother to vote? So now they are angry because they didn't bother voting against him?

 

IDIOTS...

[Urishima]

Fuck, I quoted the wrong guy!

 

Ok, here is the right one:

6 minutes ago, Tech Inquisition said:

Is it just me or are the majority of these rioters actually people who didn't bother to vote? So now they are angry because they didn't bother voting against him?

 

IDIOTS...

Same shit happened after Brexit. what  bunch of cuntwaffles.

[CtrlAltELITE]

34 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

What an under statement.

Care to elabourate? It is my understanding that his plan is very economically minded in nature and amounts mainly to:

-A crack down on ILLEGAL immigration, again dont know the intricacies, the 'wall' is never going to happen but I believe this plan may involve expediting deportation processes, which is something many nations are sorely in need of.

-Support for the American petrochemical industry, a booming industry and job provider

-Defunding of several UN programs, including humanitarian aid and climate change programs, whilst I believe these programs are somewhat important the UN is a beuraucratic nightmare and honestly they are not the most efficient way to spend funds, besides we are talking about a country which is us$19TRILLION in debt and due for a large financial collapse, America should be doing everything in its power to reduce its financial budget deficit, this is somewhere where I believe a business minded cabinet could make much positive progress.

- Removing Obamacare, Honestly dont know anything about this, initially I thought it was a startings of an NHS style system but based on what Ive been told from American friends it is just a useless inefficient system which the American private hospitals have already worked around, if this is the case then hell it may be better torn down and starting from the begining.

 

None of these points are particularly bad for the US and some of them are things which seem to be sorely needed.

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

4 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

To be fair, Clinton won the vote majority. 

 

Tbh my worst part is the Republican habit of Denying science. Looming doom includes failing antibiotics , climate change, and the energy crises yet everyone's caught up in trivial shit or Denying everything. I supported Hillary on the grounds that my vote will never move towards someone who denies basic science for the popular vote. 

I can share that sentiment, but it's worth pointing out that Hillary winning would have resulted in the end of "generic" (aka affordable) medication, via the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

Also worth pointing out that I care little about global warming (the other stuff you mention is important though) because I'm of the belief (slash fact) that our only chance for survival as a species is to colonize other planets. Sooner or later, this planet will become uninhabitable, whether it's by our hand or some sort of cosmic calamity. Even the sun will eventually destroy this solar system (granted, that's a LONG way off.), not to mention asteroids, black holes, gamma ray bursts, some kind of seismic activity (yellowstone super-volcano is overdue according to science, and it would be a global extinction event).

 

I'm more worried about getting the fuck off of this rock, than I am about the ice caps, polar bears, and the sea level. We can adapt to that shit if need be. It might not be easy, and we might lose a significant portion of the population, but we can adapt none-the-less.

 

I'm not saying do nothing, or make it worse, I'm saying "yeah, let's pay attention to that and do what we can, but let's dump a shit load of our time, effort, resources, and money, into colonizing other planets". Chances are that that process, would actually result in the technology we need to prevent global warming (even if it's only preventing it on another planet. Like, fusion as a power source and ridiculously better recycling technology).

 

Also, why are we not building giant sky-scraper style "aero/hydro-ponic farms" near the major cities? I feel like that might help employ people, and maybe soak up some carbon while we're at it.

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

Just a thought. Could also use the sewage from said cities, as fertilizer. (we do already, to some extent)

 

My major problem with the democrats is that they want to do all of these things, purely using government. Which I do not agree with. Government should be there to enforce rules. We need to do these things, using corporations, and ACTUALLY MAKE THEM DO IT.

 

Example of what should be happening: We (the government) paid ISP's tax payer money to upgrade their infrastructure, they basically didn't do it. We should be breaking them apart, and imprisoning those who had something to do with the breach of contract. But this doesn't happen because the corporations funnel that money back into the politicians via "political donations", and this is why corporations should not be considered people, or allowed to make campaign donations (I can demonstrate how to fix the "well then only rich people could afford to run political campaigns" argument as well, if you wish)

 

Government should exist to set a course, and direct corporations to follow that course, and hold them responsible when it doesn't happen. Not do the job itself, because government is horribly inefficient and should never be allowed to oversee itself. (Who watches the watchers? Who makes sure that those who enforce the rules, are following the rules? Sure, WE are supposed to do that but.....well we don't because "I'm too busy" or "politics is boring" or "Who cars, nothing will change anyways" )

 

It's about having a separation between those who do a thing, and those who ensure that said thing gets done. If you don't have that separation, you end up with lazy assholes who find any excuse to not do the thing, and justify themselves not getting it done. (or making excuses as to why they cannot get it done. See: Congress for an example)

[Praesi]

You cant stump the Trump.

 

[SurvivorNVL]

When a woman with a political career of 40 years, loses to a man who picked up politics as a hobby a year ago - hehehehehehe.  Welcome to my America.



'The world is against you, Athanasius!', the people screamed. The saint replied, 'Then I am against the world'.

[Praesi]

1 minute ago, SurvivorNVL said:

When a woman with a political career of 40 years, loses to a man who picked up politics as a hobby a year ago - hehehehehehe.  Welcome to my America.



'The world is against you, Athanasius!', the people screamed. The saint replied, 'Then I am against the world'.

Lets hope we can add some more marks to that sheet.