Ubisoft Sends Out Political Email For The Division 2, A Game That Is Definitely Not Political

Ubisoft would like you to know that The Division 2, a game with a deeply political setting, is not a political statement. Which is weird, because earlier today the publisher sent out a political email about it.

The Division 2 Is Political, Despite What Its Developers Say

The Division 2 shifts the setting from New York City to a ruined Washington DC. While the gameplay aims to fix issues players had with the original, statements from one of the game's creative directors about the narrative are frustrating.

The goal, we've been told, is not to make a political statement, but in this day and age, that's impossible. It's about time we stop pretending that it is.

Read more

Two emails in total were sent to fans of the game. The first was advertising the upcoming private beta, and while the content of the email was just regular hype cycle stuff, the subject line read:

Not a great choice of words. It’s not that funny even in isolation, but considering how many hundreds of thousands of Americans (and their families!) suffered through the shutdown, it was also in pretty poor taste.

So a follow-up email was sent out a few hours later, which read:

It is very AAA video games that a game with such a bizarre aversion to owning its own politics ends up getting political via a “grave breakdown in process”.


    At least the government shutdown in the game makes sense, and the walls they built didnt contain a thing. Oops was that a political statement? Sorry, not sorry.

      are you saying you think that if completed trumps "wall" wouldn't have any effect on illegal immigration?

        Sure it will have an effect, in some senses anything they do will have an effect, some will have large impact others less so and some will just be an egotistically folly that is massively flawed in so many ways.

        The effect of the wall to illegal immigration, is that they will just find another way, and in doing so it will waste money that could be spent of all kinds of way more important things. Because the hilarious things they say it will stop, dont even exist to begin with.

          really i was under the impression that the only real claim being made was that it will stop people illegally crossing the southern border. I mean i see a lot of bullshit regarding the walls effectiveness on various things but every time it's some lefty arguing with some aspect of illegal immigration he has made up himself.

          For example a lot of illegal immigrants just get a visa and then never leave this is one example constantly used as an attack on the border wall. It is 100% true but the wall isn't even meant to in any way impact that so it is a rubbish argument.

          The wall is meant to stop people crossing the border on foot or in vehicles and it will do that, they have a wall along the border part of it anyway and that area has no documented illegals crossing. That is obviously partly because you can just go somewhere else and cross the border where there is no barrier or cross the areas that have chain link fence with a pair of pliers.

          I have heard a lot of arguments against the wall they have all been completely retarded, hows ur wall gunna stop ppl flying over the border/ tunnels/ expired visa's the list goes on hell even the "ma human catapult" argument surfaced although i'm pretty sure that was a joke. Right now trump is asking for 5.7 billion as i understand it and that is not much if you look at the budget. Considering the cost off illegal immigration to the US i think it is entirely reasonable to spend some money trying to combat it, are there more important things?? probably, but trump ran on "build the wall" and he won which means he has a mandate to build it.

          i'm not sure what the hilarious things you mentioned are but i'm going to guess it's probably an argument made up 100% from start to finish by an angry leftist. It easier for them if they make up something ludicrous and pretend that the wall is meant to fix it.

          Last edited 02/02/19 2:50 pm

            Most immigration - illegal or otherwise - comes into the US via plane, not over the border. It's a metric ton of money to be spending on not tackling the biggest source of the problem, or at least what they've declared as a crisis.

            Kicker is the 5.7 billion won't come close to even finishing the length of wall required to be built, but that's another nightmare for another day. Fortunately it's not one we're dealing with in Australia.

            and he won which means he has a mandate to build it.

            and Mexico was going to pay. Sure he has a mandate to TRY but the way the government of that nation is set up, there are systems and check and balances in place, so that any madman cant just promise anything and it has to become a reality.

            > are there more important things??

            Health. Infrastructure. Education. Water. (see Flint and other such places).

            The hilarious part... there is no real source of information that matches ANY of the figures they are claiming to be a reason to build the wall. Regarding the crime immigrants cause, to the amount of immigrants that physically come across the border. It is all nothing but 'foreigners bad'


              education.... really lol

              america spends out the ass on education already and they have very little to show for it. the last thing they should be spending money on is education. education need help in that country but not more funding it needs a complete overhaul.

              as for the rest sure they are important they are also part of the 4trillion spent last year my dude, 4.7b really is fuck all but the democrats have everyone somehow believing that this money is coming out essential programs, what about defense for example. This is a really messy issue but that wall will stop people walking across the border now you are correct when you malign SOME of the bombastic bullshit generated on the right around this issue but i invite you to really listen to the bullshit the left is coming up with also. Pay attention when the democrats come out and tell you there are only 10 million illegals in the country.

              "Foreigners bad" really dude your better than that don't come at me with that shit it is not fucking racist to want borders for your country and to enforce them. Illegal immigration has a profound effect on many things in the US but the largest impact they have is on then latino and black communities when unemployment rises, wages decrease and crime rates increase. That is 3 facts for you right there the left lies out their asses about the number of illegals in the country they provide sanctuary for them in some places and actively sabotage law enforcement efforts to remove illegals from the country. some more facts but i saved the best for last, only one side of this debate is disgusting enough to blanket the entire other side as racists for simply wanting to enforce immigration LAWS. i don't think your one of those people but if you honestly think the people who voted for Trump are all just racists your delusional.

              If however the hilarious part you mention is about the rhetoric around illegal immigration coming from the right like yeh i'd say 90% or maybe a little more is absolute crap all the numbers are inflated as fuck but then again the other side does the exact same thing in reverse so pot kettle my friend.

              Last edited 06/02/19 6:18 pm

                "They spent 4trillion .. 4.7b really is fuck all"
                Logical fallacy. Just because an amount of money is relatively small in comparison to a larger amount of money, that doesn't mean it's not a waste of money to spend it on something ineffective.

                Enforcing rules on illegal immigration... you mean like Trump didn't do when his resorts hired people who weren't legally allowed to work in the US? Or like many other companies that do the exact same thing to provide work to those people?

                You keep talking about "facts", yet almost all your examples have either been wrong or points so generalised to be inaccurate. Furthermore, when you do have a shred of truth, you've cherry picked and omitted context that actually undermines your point.

                You keep complaining that people are accusing you of being pro-Trump, but the reason for that is that you just keep repeating Trump / conservative talking points - and ones that have only a loose connection with reality.

                Trump didn't get a mandate to build a wall. It's like when pro-Brexit people keep shouting "Brexit voted to leave with deal X" when there were so many conflicting suggestions from the Leave campaign that there's absolutely no clear mandate as to what "the majority of the people wanted".

                Combine that with low voter turnout and there's not a whit of "authority" to do anything. Current polling shows way less than majority support for the wall, so to claim that there is a mandate to build it is completely out of touch with reality.

                  "you lost buddy"

                  you want to talk to me about anything other than the shutdown you first have to admit you were wrong about the shutdown and apologise.

                  i have never heard a leave campaigner say anything about what deal they voted to leave with, i have heard "we voted to leave and leave means leave", so your lying about other random people now using the leave campaign as an excuse. Sure the leave campaign was a scare campaign full of lies and conflicting expectations of what leaving would mean that is 100% correct.

                  Either give me names and show me where i can see these Brexiteers that said "brexit voted to leave with X deal" or admit your lying now instead of just citing irrelevant criminal activity to try and win a debate.

                you want to talk to me about anything other than the shutdown you first have to admit you were wrong about the shutdown and apologise.
                Except you said the shutdown didn't happen because Trump threw a tantrum. Then I pointed out it was... and then you've subsequently admitted it was.

                I don't have to apologise for anything as you were the one who was wrong. But again, facts don't appear to matter in your reality.

                  if you could just read what people write and interpret it properly without bringing your trump derangement syndrome into play it would make my life a lot easier.

                  I think the frustration over how the shutdown is falsely represented in the media as a tantrum by trump is what leads to people making comments like simo above

                  this is the original line you lost your fucking mind over, i realise now that you think i meant "trump did nothing wrong" which i didn't, i used the words "the shutdown" to literally mean the shutdown all of it from the start to the finish the whole thing ok THE WHOLE THING.

                  now i still have no idea if you actually think the democrats made no contribution to the shutdown lasting as long as it has i can only assume that to be the case since you won't give me an answer one way or the other, i don't think your that stupid anymore (to be clear i really did think you were that stupid before).

                  Now you can take this quote i provided you and try and justify your misinterpretation of it if you want but i'm done i don't give a fuck what you say anymore about what you think i mean or whatever, i know what i think and i think that trump started the shutdown and the fucking democrats refusal to negotiate is the reason it continued if you disagree with this. either tell me y trump didn't start it (that would be weird plz don't) or tell me y the democrats refusal to negotiate is not the reason it continued...... OR just leave me alone and continue thinking whatever you want i don't want to hear it.

        When you actually look at the problem of illegal immigration in the US (which is far from being a "crisis" as sold by Trump's administration--it's at its lowest in over a decade) you find out that most drugs entering the country, the #1 justification for the alleged necessity of the wall, enter the country by abusing the legal migration channels. That means that a physical wall would do very little in curtailing the problem presented as its reason to exist.

          i'm really getting sick of people assuming i am defending the bullshit rhetoric either side is using for or against this issue i'm simply saying the people want a fucking wall trump ran on that issue and he won. i can cherry pick bullshit from the other side of the debate too pylgrim it doesn't solve anything.

          The wall should be built given this is an inanimate object that can't harm anybody the whole "checks and balances... madman can't do outrageous shit" argument doesn't apply. Is it a waste of money?? NOBODY KNOWS. we know it will have an impact on illegal immigration across the border so it will save money depending on how much it saves vs how much it costs to upkeep the wall would determine in the long run whether it is cost effective. Not that it even has to be cost effective anyway.

          Trump won and he's actually trying to do something he promised to do it may be a waste of money it won't be completely ineffective but lets just say it will be, okay it's now a completely useless wall, it should still be built the US is a democratic republic and the people voted for trump to build a wall they have every right to build useless shit along the southern border if they want, it is not racist and it is not harming anyone. People have been voting in leaders all across the world for centuries that have pissed away tax payers money on useless shit. It is one of the things your just going to have to live with because one day your going to be in the slim majority on a certain infrastructure project you want built and on that day whether i agree or not i will support your democratic right to build useless shit, and you should do the same.

          Edit: yes ur right about the drugs btw forgot to put that in

          Last edited 06/02/19 1:48 pm

            Yes, but you forget how democracies work: it's not "Hah, we won, so you oughta let us do whatever we want for the next 4/8 years, maybe you'll get a turn later?", for one thing. That's why there's a Congress.

            Also please remember a few important things regarding "people electing Trump for that very reason": First, there was massive vote abstention in the election. Second, Trump actually lost the popular vote. Third, most Trump voters were single-issue. Yes, many voted for him due to his stance on the border; however, others voted for him because he was allegedly anti-abortion, others because his "cleaning the swamp" rhetoric, etc. Compute all that together and you'll realize that the percentage of Americans that really care about the wall is rather small.

            So that's your answer to the question "why cannot you just let him use the money that way?": Because that's not what the majority of Americans want. Expending such a massive amount of money to fulfill the whims of a minority would be unfair to the majority of taxpaying Americans, who have other concerns. That's precisely why the Congress won't let it pass.

              sorry it took me so long to respond i was arguing with some other pillock about this same issue thankfully you actually stick to the topic at hand instead of wandering off into the weeds.

              I don't see anything much in this reply i disagree with to be honest, i understand how this all works and i'm not basing my defense of the wall being built on the fact that he won the election like that gives him a mandate to do it and i'm not assuming everyone who voted for him wants the wall. I'm basing it on the polling done in the states along the border and close to the border (the actual effected area not fkn New York City or Hawaii for example) where the average result were 42% for the wall 37% against and the remainder didn't give a crap either way.

              Expending a massive amount of money?? cmon pylgrim u know better sure it is a lot of money to us but in context of the US budget it's fuck all. The conclusion that you come to is also wrong congress passes shit all the time that the majority of Americans don't want, the reason the democrats are doing anything they can to stop him i mean cmon the cost??? you can't really believe that they throw money around on all sorts of shit, they don't care about the cost. They cannot let him get the wall because he will win in 2020 guaranteed if he does build it, I don't know if you have paid attention so far but the dems haven't got much to offer at the moment running against him they are weaker now than 2016.

              Even though i know you won't do it i do feel the need to say i am not a Trump supporter i don't buy into the swamp bullshit i don't think the wall will do that much etc etc. I actually hate Trump because he's such a divisive asshole that anyone who isn't continually critical of everything he does gets caricatured cruelly as some kind of brainless racist cousin fucker from the boonies.

              I understand what your saying man i just don't think that when your talking about building a wall along the southern border you should give a single shit what the residents in Alaska, Hawaii or Washington think, it should be about the people effected which is low income families and people living in the area.

              Maybe we will disagree on this, probably will ;) at least you won't hurl abuse at me for it.

                I imagine that yes, border states care more about the matter than other states... and yet, you have to admit that 42% for to 37% against is not a massive margin, and that's in the states that care the most! For that very same reason is dubious to say that Trump has a guaranteed win if he builds the wall. He will get a bunch of votes from those few states (though not all), while less and less from other states. His approval has been consistently between 30% and 40% which is pretty damn low for a president that has no experienced ever a high peak of approval. You may be right that so far Dems haven't shown much, but what they have which is "not being Trump" already is seeing their early support soar.

                Also, while 20 billion may seem minuscule against the whole budget is by far more money that is being given to far more pressing matters in the US, such as the opioid epidemic (a real "crisis" by every metric), the appalling status of public education, or a reform to public healthcare which is another thing he promised during campaign, yet was happy to drop after "kill Obamacare but you get nothing instead" proposal was sunk on sight.

                What I really don't understand is the following: you say that you don't like Trump and that really don't care for the wall and admit that may be entirely useless and a waste of money. So why do you insist so much that it should be built? If you don't care and acknowledge that it may do no good, why are you on that side of the discussion and not on the other? Or on the fence, at least?

                  i admit that the margin is small your right and maybe it is even wrong to build it given the rest of the country helps to create the money that would be used to build the wall.

                  second point was about him winning in 2020 if he gets funding for the wall, the democrats have nobody GREAT to run against him they got some decent hopes so far and i think your falling for the hype, the issue at the moment with his supporters is apparently the wall, and i have heard a lot of left and right wing people voicing the same opinion, "if he gets the money then he wins 2020" then again they said Hilary would win 2016 so what do they know.

                  There are with out a doubt much better ways to spend the 20b but education is not one of them pylgrim, they could use 200b it wouldn't do shit according to what i have heard and read on the issue, the schooling in america needs radical change and that is coming from the people working in education they are saying more money thrown into education doesn't work it just vanishes into the blackhole of the federal education system without having any measurable impact. The trump obamacare thing i didn't pay much attention to i knew it was going to be dead on arrival and i have no problem with that.

                  Onto the final point about the wall, i don't really know to be honest i will go off and think about it now for a bit see if i can think of the answer, very good question.

                  i think it's a combination of things i know there is bullshit on both sides of this debate, i am siding with the pro build the wall camp because i feel the bullshit getting shoveled on them is worse, u know the stuff im talking about if u want a wall it's just because your a racist would be the pinnacle of the bullshit im not denying that there is bullshit from the pro wall side either like, we need the wall to stop drugs/criminals etc. But calling people racists for no reason is far worse. The majority of media is against the wall the majority of Americans are against the wall even tho it doesn't effect them one way or the other i mean people aren't crossing the border and getting jobs at MSNBC for example.

                  i guess i find it amusing that in order to be considered not a sociopath in society today you have to be woke to trannys and gender fluidity etc etc defend the minorities ,but a minority that is worthy of defense and solidarity can only be identified by certain traits; skin tone, sexual preference etc. Why not minorities on a certain political topic being harassed? why is it a hate crime when someone is attacking the gays for example but its totally fine to say whatever you like to someone with a different political opinion.

                  to be clear im not arguing for hate speech laws i think they are abhorrent i just wonder y the people who think that way can't see that they bully minorities all the time on many issues. one of the reasons i think that hate speech stuff is crap is because it doesn't work it's just another authoritarian political tool.

                  so conclusions... this has been practically incoherent but ill give it a whirl,
                  The wall is not racist the people supporting it are not racists they are not evil, the people crossing the border are not refugee's the wall will do little to stop illegals/drugs/animals and other smuggling, the people who want this wall might be wrong but they are not lying they believe it will help them, they are outnumbered and constantly attacked; about half the shit i see or hear about them is bullshit and really sadistic, i mean being a racist is a horrible thing you would have to be a sadist to inflict that label on someone without cause.

                  So i guess i see them as victims of the political system the people who are siding with them in the media are talking absolute nonsense most of the time trying to help but making the situation worse and more inflamed. About 85% of media coverage about the wall seems to be against it and a good portion of it is slander and misinformation or misdirection.

                  something like that anyway i have been up for 37 hours im going to bed now

                Regarding 2020 I'm not so sure of it being only hype. In fact, I heard that very same word thrown around before the midterms and it actually ended being a massive win for the Democrats. So while I am by no means a political pundit of any proven acumen to predict the results of the next US elections, I can at the very least say that the hype seems to be real. You are right, though, that it needs to be represented by one good and charismatic party nominee. We'll just have to wait and see in that respect.

                While I agree that education in the US needs a massive and radical rework, I disagree that investing money into it while the country gets there has no impact whatsoever: it will benefit the currently massively underpaid teachers across the nation. Who knows if it will directly translate into an improvement of the whole issue? But at the very least, human being with a very sensitive job would be more justly remunerated. Nevertheless, that's not here or there to this discussion, the point is that there are better ways to spend the money (another example, start the expensive but increasingly urgent replacement of lead pipes across the country).

                Regarding your feelings about a more "delicate touch" from society when it comes to minorities, well, that's a huge, different topic, but suffice to say for the time being that regardless of it being "too much" or not, it is understandable. Even if you think that discrimination against minorities is not that bad nowadays, you cannot really claim that it has not been a problem historically speaking. On the other hand, the people who used to discriminate them never really were called out back in the day, so nowadays people make sure of calling them out loud and clear. So nowadays' situation is basically a violent recoil to the other side of a social issue tautly pull towards inequality for decades, if not centuries.

                Finally, I get what you are saying. It offends you that people are being called racist for opposing the wall and I can admit that it's not necessarily true. The problem, though, is that people who are unabashedly racist are almost without exception pro-wall. So while there may be lots of pro-wall people who are not racist, they are siding with people who are racists. They, then, get called "racists" by the rest of society in order to make them reflect whether wanting the same thing that most racists want is a good thing. Sadly, well, that doesn't really work that way. People get defensive and angry by feeling attacked personally which kills any chance of self-introspection.

                  On the topic of minorities i actually until about a year ago thought it was all total horseshit the whole discrimination thing i was just unable to see it, mainly because the people talking about it from the opposite perspective i managed to find were fucking nutters. But eventually i did find someone a Milo Yiannopoulos fan self described as right of centre libertarian that helped me to understand and more importantly see past the vehement nutters at the true discrimination that still exists. I still stumble on the issue occasionally as you know but i have an open mind now like with that Vivian girl and the Overwatch thing you explained why she would feel the way she did and i understood it. (which didn't stop people insinuating i'm a racist and other things)

                  On the subject or racists and the wall the first thing is whether you believe this or not i'm unsure but the sheer amount of racists in America is vastly overestimated in the mainstream media that is something to keep in mind. I don't know for sure how many racists are in favor of the wall but i'm willing to work under the assumption that it is 100% of them and that they only wan't it for racist reasons, i also get what your saying about society wanting them to reflect on their beliefs and while i think that is your genuine belief it is not the reason they get called racists, "racist" is used as a weapon against them to make them stop supporting the wall it isn't about reflecting on whether they should support the wall, you may well think that and your not necessarily wrong i mean if you find yourself in agreement on any issue with a racist you should definitely examine your stance. I think you really give too much credit to the people doing this shit, some of them are just partisan assholes and some of them believe somehow that there a millions of racists in America precious few of them are like yourself and just saying basically "you know a lot of racists want the wall too are you sure that your reasons aren't also based on discrimination?"

                  regarding the whole 2020 election as of right now my position is looking a whole lot stronger (im not in favor of trump just saying hes got a very good chance of winning) given the current issues facing the dems and the very real success of SOTU. But that is just as of right now so what i tired to do was to snapshot the situation when you made the response on feb 8th by ignoring anything that had happened after feb 7th the dems had a really good few days from feb 2nd right up to the 7th so it makes sense you would think what you did. and this got me thinking about the whole predicting the result and how foolish it is the answer veers around wildly depending on what day your making the prediction. I think the most compelling argument for Trump getting 2020 is murphy's law but then i'm cynical =)

                  i think it is largely going to come down to whether Joe Biden runs and whether the dem nominee can somehow hold the party together because they are having a huge problem with the progressive/moderate schism at the moment.

                  I do enjoy our conversations pylgrim let me know what you think.

                I couldn't tell you whether the /number/ of racists in the US is overestimated or not, mostly because the ones who exist, whatever their number are /loud/ and many of them are installed in positions of power. Then you have the fact that you mention that the rest of society recoils harshly away, which may end making the issue seem even bigger than it is. However, I have a question for you: Having how many racists around is ok? Is there really a point where we should say "eh, they are just a few left, let them be"? I personally believe that racism--or any other mentality which allows people to treat others as inferior--should have no room whatsoever in a modern society.

                Regarding the SOTU, I worry that you are exclusively looking at one side of the issue if you believe it was an unmitigated success. Yes, it was a success among Trump's base (from whom anything Trump does is a success) and some Republicans. The opinion of centrists, Democrats and unaligned ranged between total indifference and scorn. The only way you could consider the SOTU a success is if you believe that there are more people in the first group than in the second, but the best estimate you could do in that regard is that there are somewhat evenly divided--if not heavier on the side of the second group, going by approval polls.

                I do agree that Biden would be a good candidate for the Dems, but I personally would like to see some new(-ish) blood.

                  ok shit let me see um racists... well none is just not going to happen i think the last reliable estimate i saw (from lefty source) was 12,000 admittedly they said these are hardcore racists like neo nazi's and white supremacists which are easier to find and while the number is as accurate as possible the real number is definitely higher. Meaning there is no mistake every one of those people is a racist but there are others which are harder to find.

                  My issue with this fucking gotcha bullshit i will list below.
                  first it stems from SJW nonsense.
                  second there is no room for context to be considered.
                  third it is retroactive and there is no room for redemption
                  fourth it leads right into authoritarian bullshit

                  example. Democrat wearing a costume with blackface for some event i don't remember what it was exactly (the event is context that is being ignored) and the fact it happened fucking years ago is the retroactive part where redemption is not considered like even if he was a racist 20 years ago the only thing important is what he believes now right, but the idea seems to be once you do something racist you are done that is it your fucking trash we write you off and never look back. thats 2/4

                  another example. a racist joke on twitter and now people want you banned from twitter and they are trying to find out where u work to get u fired, and where you live so they can tell your neighbors and release your address online so maybe a nearby Antifa nutbag can attack your home and or you. (the joke is the context part and the banning from twitter etc is the authoritarian part.) now i realise that the above situation hasn't ever happened but i was providing example and there is many cases where people have lost a job because of a racist or sexist joke on twitter and people have been doxxed and attacked. many many people have been criminally charge in the UK and sometimes spent time in jail for these things.

                  Now onto the banned form twitch shit lets say it wasn't a joke but just some actual racist shit there is no excuse for banning that person, the correct response is actually a decision at this point there are several options. imagine you receive a racist message "you look like a fucking postbox" this is 100% real example to a Muslim women in England her response is to post a pic with her arm around a post box captioned "me and my bestie" this is the mockery option. When Leslie Jones was having a racist encounter with Milo FANS she just went to war with them and got other people to join her, it turned into a giant meme war with side dishes of death threats and other shit, while this is a stupid response that accomplishes nothing it also doesn't do any harm. (banning Milo was a mistake and twitter has continued making these mistakes which will result in the platform going the way of myspace one day. if u want me to expand on this let me know as twitter shitting the bed in a corporate sense is only mildly related to the subject at hand)

                  And the last realistic option is to block the person, the only other option is to try and find out why they believe the racist thing they said and set them straight which i dont think is very realistic.

                  and the other thing was SOTU right um your wrong on that it was not a complete success obviously and i wasn't trying to argue that only a complete fucking idiot would ever make the argument that something political would be universally accepted. But considering he didn't even win the popular vote and the SOTU approval numbers across all the lefty media had him at between 72 and 76% well that is the SOTU approval numbers not Trump approval. when you look at the breakdown right wingers of any description didn't change much vs his normal approval polls but the SOTU approval with independents and democrats was a fucking giant swing into the green.

                  SOTU was a huge success but it wasn't really Trump that did that it was a combination of several things firstly being the expectation that he would grandstand like a fucking asshole and pitch a fit about the wall funding which he didn't and the fact that Pelosi either acting like a total ass and rolling her eyes on certain statements and then clapping along to others where Bernie and AOC and all the protesters dressed in white sat unmoving and bearing faces that looked like a smacked arse. And there was all the times where he said something completely bipartisan like black unemployment and the dems sat around stony faced and that really hurts them because that is supposed to be a cause that they champion, the dems are meant to be all for minorities right they exist to protect the minorities from the evil republicans yet because the loathe Trump they won't even clap when he does something good for minorities that should therefore also be in line with democrat wishes.

                  as for Joe Biden sure hes a good candidate but only if he gets Obama's endorsement i don't think he will win because he physically can't run any differently than Clinton did he won't be able to match the energy of Trump he also sucks all the air out of the room from anybody else so if he just announces running it is all on him from there. I personally like Tulsi and Gillebrand but she is in shit for always taking the stance that people accused of sexual assault or exploitation resign immediately even if they are a democrat which is not the party line. you may not have noticed that the party line seems to be innocent until proven guilty but only when we do it..... gtg now shit unfinished business oh well it will be a completely different landscape in 3 days anyway.

                  I'm sorry this is so wild and rambling i am racing against the clock to finish before lunch break because i will be flat out after lunch till i finish work and cant be on here that much.

                first it stems from SJW nonsense.

                Sorry, please explain how is this a legitimate argument. "SJW" as some people call them, fight against bigotry (whether you think they overdo it or not is not the point here). So when you say that you've got a problem with it because it stems from the SJW, you're basically saying that you oppose calling out racists because it's an initiative from people known for fighting racists. By calling it "nonsense" you are making a circular logic argument where the thing that some people do is bad because they are bad for doing the thing. The other things you mention (context, retroactivity, etc) are more legitimate concerns, but by starting up with railing against the "SJW", you taint what could be objective criticism with the undeniable subjectivity of disliking some people.

                imagine you receive a racist message "you look like a fucking postbox" this is 100% real example to a Muslim women in England her response is to post a pic with her arm around a post box captioned "me and my bestie" this is the mockery option.

                This is funny and indeed a clever response. However, it only addresses one side of the issue, which is the side that people criticising "SJWs" often focus on: people getting offended. However, there's another side to the issue. Even if you managed to make every single individual from a minority in the world a constantly genial and witty jokester, able to field even the most appalling bigoted insults with a pun or an eyeroll, you are NOT removing the offenders from the equation. Don't know if you know much about high school bullying, but usually "defeating" a bully by not raising to their insults doesn't usually result in the bully giving up and giving you a high five: it results on the bully redoubling their efforts to get a raise from you, becoming even crueler or harsher. Bullies and trolls do what they do to get an emotional high from psychologically harming other people and they are not going to stop wanting that high if you deny it to them.

                Another problem stemming from this: when you fail to remove an offender (even if the target did their best not to be offended) many others watching on receive the message that purposefully offending other people is perfectly fine. So what have you done by merely asking the victims to take the burden of not being offended? You have made the initial offenders more determined to offend, and created more offenders in the process. (And that's the reason Yiannopulis got banned: he was a charismatic entertainer with a cult personality, constantly saying horribly discriminatory "jokes" which his loyal followers absorbed).

                So at what point the person in your example needs to keep being asked to "put up" with it all, if the attempts to offend become more and more frequent and more preposterous? Note that this is not a hypothetical scenario, many people--especially in the entertainment industry--have experienced this sort of ever-increasing harassment. So I ask you, why do we have to ask the victims to do something about it while the perpetrators get away with it? Alternatively, why when, rarely, the perpetrators get called out and experience consequences, there's immediately an outcry from people, like you have done? Why do the victims deserve to put up with harm and the perpetrators deserve to get away carefreely? Wouldn't you say that in a just society, it should be the inverse? That's why there's a J in "SJW", you know. Are you opposed to justice? I expect no, so I hope you can understand why we simply cannot go back to not calling out bigots and visiting upon them retribution that hopefully will deter other bigots or stop young impressionable people from becoming bigots themselves by copying the antics of other bigots.

                I understand your distaste for people losing their jobs over this. But really, until we get clear and concise laws for dealing with hate speech and hatemongers, how else are we, as society going to disincentivize bigotry? We need to produce /real/ consequences because, clearly, calls to conscience only get laughed off. If you think losing your job over being a loud-speaking bigot is bad, do you have any concern left for people from minorities who have lost their jobs (or had to quit) due to incessant, malicious harassment or boycotting? If you think losing your job is too much for saying or doing a bad thing, how much worse is it to lose your job because, for example, you decided that a female superhero could be a strong-willed human being instead of pliant, thinly spandex-clad boobs and ass with superpowers?

                Regarding the SOTU, I apologise because I notice that I could have been clearer in my wording. I didn't mean simply that the SOTU was only popular among Republicans, but rather, that the high approval numbers were measurably skewed by Republican affiliation of those who actually watched it. Read this https://www.vox.com/2019/2/6/18213682/state-of-the-union-approval-ratings-polls. (TL;DR People identifying themselves as Republican constituted a remarkably higher percentage--almost twice as much--of the people who were polled and answered that they had seen the SOTU than they usually appear in other polls.)

                More importantly, although the speech itself was generally /liked/ among those polled, confidence on the intentions stated (such as unity and collaboration) were not as high in those same polls... and how could have they been? Earlier in the same day that he preached about unity and understanding he was tweeting some of his on-brand insult-laced attacks against some Democrats. If you have been listening to Trump (or rather reading his tweets) for any amount of time, it should be very evident that all that sugar-coated championing for understanding and cooperation were written for him and did not actually come from his mind.

                  for SOTU i was only looking for 3 things when i looked at the response to it the general approval rating (over 70%) and the percentage breakdown of independents and democrats which were both way up compared to your normal approval polls, which probably haven't changed much at all it's one thing to approve of the SOTU and another to approve of Trump himself. And this was all MSNBC coverage; hardly trump positive.

                  As far as my circular logic and "SJW nonsense" it is fucking nonsense and I'm obviously referring to the ridiculous side of the movement and the associated behavior, i use the word nonsense for a reason because i am referring to the specific behavior that is nonsense i do not need to explain this any further. I'm sure when you read this and reflect on the behavior of these SJW's you will remember the absolute batshit things they have been caught advocating. That is not a statement regarding all people who are SJW's it is not a statement concerning ALL the behavior of SJW's you are projecting that onto my statement, If i had meant either of those things i would not use the word nonsense.

                  I should have realised this would happen because anytime i criticise these people when they are doing off the wall shit i get the same fucking line "we fight bigotry" i FUCKING KNOW THAT ok, but that does not excuse all the behavior we see coming form SJW's the fact that you are an anti bigotry crusader does not mean you can excuse anything you do with the line "but im fighting bigotry". Feel free to disagree and tell me that SJW's have never behaved like fucking authoritarian jackasses but that will end this conversation immediatly.

                  im going to repeat myself anyway, the phrase "SJW nonsense" does not refer to all SJW's nor all the behavior of SJW's it just refers to the people in that group doing nonsense ok and i know you know what i'm talking about.

                  Your arguments against the admittedly not well fleshed out strategies i provided earlier seems flawed to me, you said something with regards to the mockery angle i provided a specific real life example for, making all minorities witty and something.... well that is obviously stupid because there isn't 100% of any demographic that is witty the obvious thing to do if your not witty is to pick an alternative my recommendation is to block people.

                  you want circular logic pylgrim how about your arguments with regards to people losing their jobs (let me be clear about this) OVER FUCKING JOKES the argument you present me with is what about the people who lose their jobs because of bigotry or have to quit, asking me do i have sympathy for these people? yes.

                  Now im going to assume you want a response and i need to make this clear losing your job as a consequence is wrong whether it is because you made a racist joke or even if you maliciously harass someone, the problem you have is that you think someone losing their job is just, the idea is meant to be social punishment my dude meaning if you find an actual racist go ahead tell everyone let everyone make there own fucking decision ok.

                  If you take someones job away because you have set up your little trial by twitter with a bunch of SJW's decided the person is a bigot then harassed the place they are employed until they are fired you are a cunt that's it you just are. The same way people being accused of sexual assault or wife beating or something getting fired is wrong if it is just accusations then you need to fuck off with that shit, will this lead to many people not getting punished? YES. is that worse than innocents getting caught in the crossfire?? NO

                  Lets say you have someone who is being a bigot at work the manager lets say hes making racist jokes all the fucking time and you say look man i don't like that stop it and he doesn't. That person should lose their job BUT only as a result of being sent to prison for like 6 months.

                  the problem really funny thing about your circular logic argument and the "hay man what if you want a female superhero etc" the boycotting that gets that person fired from making a comic is firstly dubious in my eyes because the way i understand it is this, you need to make people want to buy your comic and when this person pandered to the SJW's and makes a progressive comic book then the fkn SJW's don't buy it and the actual comic book fans don't cos they don't want that in a comic, your dug your own grave there. but lets say the boycotting is the real issue lets just entertain the retarded argument that most comic fans are misogynist males and they boycotted some poor women, which you have a problem with somehow but you don't seem to realise that the retarded portion of the SJW movement does the same fucking thing nearly everyday.

                  My issue with SJW's isn't that they rail against bigotry and try to enact positive social change, my problem is it seems about 60% of them can't even identify an actual bigot if it kicked them in the face, they engage in blackmailing companies to fire people for having opinions "they don't like" (and i mean don't like, not for having actual "problematic" views) and the other 40% do nothing about it accept try and justify this fucking behavior whilst telling everyone else they have circular logic.

                  If you follow the steps i outlined above on social media and find that you are still experiencing even weekly instances of racist remarks your delusional and it's the voices in your own head or maybe your dreaming about it.

                  as to the last thing you said on SOTU about trump not writing it give me a break man you trying to argue nobody ever wrote something for Obama, he said some pretty sugar-coated shit between drone attacks, so yeh just maybe you need to try and look at this with some objectivity my dude.

                  Trump is an asshole but so is almost every single person at that level in US politics so im not gunna cry if he sends some mean tweets to people particularly not rabid socialists if your referencing who i think you are referencing, as mad as it makes me i think this twathammer will win again but if i had a vote i would be voting for Andrew Yang.

                i use the word nonsense for a reason because i am referring to the specific behavior that is nonsense i do not need to explain this any further.

                You have to understand that "nonsense" is a very non-descriptive and subjective word. What is "nonsense" to you may not be to me or vice versa. For example, what if I say that what you said is "bollocks" and refuse to explain myself any further? How can you know what of all the things you said are those "bollocks" and why am I calling them so?

                That is not a statement regarding all people who are SJW's it is not a statement concerning ALL the behavior of SJW's you are projecting that onto my statement, If i had meant either of those things i would not use the word nonsense.

                But again, I cannot tell which behaviours you qualify like that because you are using your own subjective measure. For example, some people I've spoken to think that it is "SJW nonsense" that women are now portrayed in comics as thinking beings with agency, instead of merely being anatomically dubious, spandex-clad eye-candy for their enjoyment. I don't know if that's what you think (I surely hope not) but I have no way of knowing because you keep using vague invectives.

                Also, note that you say that you don't mean "all SJWs" but you keep using the term generally through your post; remember how upset you got when you thought I used the word "racist" generally (even though I was referring to actual racists?) Please use the same standards. If /some/ "SJWs" have done stuff that you disapprove off, then don't rail against the whole group.

                how about your arguments with regards to people losing their jobs (let me be clear about this) OVER FUCKING JOKES

                A few things regarding this, since this matter seems so close to your heart. The first is that while it's real this has happened, it's not anywhere in the vicinity of the size that you are trying to make it. Remember when you told me that "crying racism" is overblown because only a few thousand people or so are actually racists? Well, can you tell me /how many people have lost their jobs over this/? As far as I know, the number doesn't reach the double digits, but please let me know if you know better.

                Second: You and many other people disregard jokes as capable of doing harm, but it's something that is proven. Targeted jokes, especially those again whole groups of people contribute towards normalising discrimination and have a psychological toll. People who don't understand this are usually those who do not belong to a discriminated group and have never experienced the volume and insidiousness of "just joking".

                Third, understand this: "SJWs" didn't fire those people. Their employers did. They had a choice to just ignore the "haters" or even defend their employees (as some have done) but they didn't. Why? Well, take a look at other part in your post where you say that it's perfectly fine when an "SJW" comic writer loses their job for not giving the public what they want. In the same sense, if an employer thinks that they are going to lose more money than they will make by keeping an employee who made an insensitive joke, they are beholden to their stakeholders to get rid of the person. You cannot approve one case and disapprove of the other because both are the same.

                All that without mentioning that one is losing their job over writing a harmless story that some people didn't like, and the other, over being a jerk. If the jerk losing their job over corporate response to criticism pains you, the innocent person losing theirs for the same reason should pain you more on a moral basis (even if you are one of the people who disliked their stories). Why is this not the case?

                If you follow the steps i outlined above on social media and find that you are still experiencing even weekly instances of racist remarks your delusional and it's the voices in your own head or maybe your dreaming about it.

                So what are you trying to say here? That every claim of discrimination is either /delusional/ or /deserved/ for complaining about discrimination? Is this really what you are saying? Because that's how it's coming off.

                Obama, he said some pretty sugar-coated shit between drone attacks, so yeh just maybe you need to try and look at this with some objectivity my dude.

                You keep mentioning Obama and drones, very likely without realising that in his first 2 years, Trump launched almost 50% more drone attacks in Syria than Obama did in his first two years. Or, for example, that he commaded almost three times more drone attacks on Somalia (which is often under-reported) in those two years than Obama launched /during his whole administration/.

                You really need to stop reading /only/ right-wing media, they will always inflate whatever liberals did and underplay what conservatives do and when you repeat it, it makes you seem uninformed.

                  On the whole Obama vs Trump drone attacks bullshit, look at yourself man i never made any argument about Trump and drone strikes i never said anything about him being better than Obama. All i was trying to do was point out that the fucking messiah of the left "Obama" also 1 doesn't write his speeches and 2 often talked some sugar coated shit right after doing something wrong. If you could just suspend your bias for a moment you might notice i'm saying they aren't any different, i mean if using the example of Obama is so offensive i could use someone else since they have all done it, i only say Obama because he is the most recent example to draw upon.

                  The point i was trying to make was yes everything you said about the SOTU was right he didn't write the speech and he said some sugar coated shit he might not even believe, but Obama has done exactly the same thing do you agree or not?

                  I guess the mistake was providing an example like drone strikes and assuming that wouldn't trigger you immensely. What i will say about drone strikes though is there is a world of difference between attacking military targets in Syria and blowing up some random civilians, then using the fact they are male and of a sufficient age that you use the term "combatant" as a scapegoat. And i will admit i don't know that much about Trumps drone strikes in Syria apart form the ones attacking military targets, because after reading about some of it i just went "well fuck it this hasn't changed all that much from what Obama was doing i mean he killed some innocents then tried to shrug it all off as combatants i'm sure trump will do that or has done that too its clearly a winning strategy" I know absolutely nothing about Somalia and drones i also don't see how making the argument they both do it is somehow a refutation of my argument that they are both 2 sides of the same coin.

                  I do not only consume right wing media for the millionth time so stop fucking slandering me. If i was the right wing puppet you try and make me out to be so you can dismiss everything i say i would make the same arguments they do, for example if i was going to go on about drones strikes i wouldn't just mention "Obama dun used drones tehe" i would parrot the right wingers and say something like "OBAMA killed kids with drone strikes and tired to hide it" you see the difference now? i know it's real subtle but give it a go please.

                  social media harassment/abuse:
                  It is a fact that EVERYONE is harassed online if you break it down simply by gender men actually receive more hate yet the narrative is all poor whamen always being harassed, also a fact is that an awfully high proportion of so called "hate incidents" are all fabricated nonsense; the covington kids, Jussie Smollett, the lesbians that spray painted their own garage door, the antifa kids that sprayed swastika's on campus the list goes on.

                  So you come at me with "That every claim of discrimination is either /delusional/ or /deserved/ for complaining about discrimination" every claim? really? i don't know how you can possibly infer that form what i said. NO not every claim is illegitimate just the majority of them and i'm not even saying that the majority are completely made up like the above examples before you assume i'm making that argument. The overwhelming majority of so called discrimination is either made up completely, or just completely blown out of proportion okay we are talking about people that are saying "my life was altered because someone on the internet made an edgy joke" or maybe it's even an actual racist comment on twitter it doesn't matter really which on it is because it does not hurt anyone. The people you are defending because someone hurt their feelings are just being babies and they need to grow the fuck up. Either you make fun of the person or just fucking block them and presto it's over and you move on with your life, this is not some minority opinion or even a right wing opinion this is mainstream majority opinion.

                  I lost my twitter account for harassing and abusing right wingers, white nationalists and nazi's it was probably deserved considering all the things i did but the amount of abuse i got while i was on twitter from these people was not that much, but the abuse from the so called progressives and SJW's was fucking amazing my dude, i'm literally at war with racists and far right douchbags but these people who are supposed to be also against these people were abusing me just as much because i KNOW that racism is not rising in the west and i call them on their bullshit.

                  It's time you wake up and realise that almost all of this stuff is complete nonsense, whether it is completely made up or just someone crying about some mean words it's all used as data especially in the UK, then they come out with irrefutable numbers "25,000 hate incidents in 2016" and your like fuck me that is a lot of hate crime but wait then you realise it's like 24,980 "offensive tweets" and you face palm because you know so many people are going to buy into this bullshit. You are one of the people who is being completely fooled when it comes to racism and discrimination, racism may even be starting to rise again after consistently falling for 60 fucking years and that is a direct result of this "SJW nonsense" almost all the numbers are total fabricated crap but the fucking white middle class college students driving this behemoth are alienating the very minorities they claim to represent from mainstream society, People don't want to be yelled at for deadnaming or misgendering someone so if they see a trans person they just don't interact (which i'm sure makes the trans person feel wonderful) not me though because i don't care about it, if i make a mistake i will appoligise for it but if some random fucking asshole yells at me i will also tell them to fuck off and die. People see all this bullshit in the mainstream media Covington and Jussie Smollett first they see an absolutely insane overreaction but they also find out later that the entire narrative was bullshit and it makes them angry.

                  I'm probably not going to articulate this well so keep an open mind and try and to see where i'm going with this. If your seeing all this race baiting crap happening your going to assume that it's black people pushing the narrative for attention which will impact your views, i have seen the interviews of people i have seen the actual data this movement is mostly white middle class, take the whole Virginia black face thing when they look at the data by race you find that the blacks had less disapproval somewhere around mid 30% where as whites where over 50% and whites were the only demographic to get over 50%, and yes i realise its a narrow example.

                  The thing that becomes clear if you really look into this issue/movement whatever you call it the more you realise it's not minorities pushing it, are their black /gay / trans people in the movement yes is it anywhere near a majority of black/gay/trans people no not even remotely close. You have an awful lot of bored white guilt and a handful of delusional minorities pushing this stuff but they are really fucking loud and they will threaten to boycott your shit to force your hand.

                  You think that the person making a comic that is not making money shouldn't be fired i agree, they should just be doing something else less woke that will make money whether they like it or not. I realise you don't see how this is different to the person who makes an edgy joke and gets fired but that is just because it justifies your perspective these two things are not the same. Firstly the SJW threats to boycott something rarely have any effect because they aren't usually consumers to begin with or because they actually attract customers who buy products just to fuck with the self righteous boycotting for example chick-fil-A and the boycott there they actually had a large spike in revenue during that boycott. So firing someone because of threats from assholes on the internet is wrong i don't care how you try and spin it these people should not be getting fired because of political opinions or edgy jokes.

                  The comic artists who lost jobs over the "wokeness crusade" is completely different because the SJW's pushed for more inclusive comics and they got what they wanted then never fucking bought any comics, it is not a boycott from comics fans they just didn't like the comics so they didn't buy them you can tell this by looking at the sales, most of the comics did okay with the first issue some even got good sales for a few issues, but eventually the fans got tired of the comics and the moralising bullshit in them.

                  Now i don't think the comic artist should be fired you just get them to do something else they obviously have the skill needed to draw comics it was the material itself that alienated fans you can change that, but if you can't see how failing to sell your companies product and getting fired is different from being fired because you offended somebody online with a joke or opinion (keep in mind that this isn't done at the workplace right this person wasn't working at Coles cracking racist jokes at the checkout) are completely different then i don't know what to do.

                  ok so next... this gem of disingenuous tripe "SJWs" didn't fire those people. Their employers did. no the SJW's 100% did fire these people it was a bullshit crusade full of lies and intimidation the fact the the employers gave in also disgusts me in case your curious but that does not excuse the fucking assholes who put them in a position where they had to make a decision one way or the other. You can't be serious with this argument.

                  As for your targeted jokes being proven to cause harm assertion. Absolute bullshit either provide an example for me to tear apart or admit your conflating actual harassment with jokes and memes, i have seen this argument 100 times and i have been subjected to the "evidence" even more times and it is always either not even a joke or it's harassment which is against the law and all social media TOS already. Please provide me with an example of a joke that causes harm i'd love to finally see one because at this point i think i'm more likely to see a fucking unicorn riding a unicycle.

                First off, I'm entirely dropping the discussion about Trump and his wall, including comparisons to Obama. If you reread your last message, I hope you can see how you go almost incoherent with rage and you get really close to hurling at me the abuse that earlier on you were thankful I've never hurled at you. Let's leave it at this: whatever reason I can provide NOT to be a wall is apparently insufficient, you agree that any actual reason to build the wall is a gamble at best, but by God, the wall MUST be built, there's no other possible alternative because... because. (Though apparently it has now been downgraded to some steel fencing, and even that's still a maybe? Interestingly, in the end, you were even more zealous about this wall that Trump ended being. And I still don't know why.)

                NO not every claim is illegitimate just the majority of them and i'm not even saying that the majority are completely made up like the above examples before you assume i'm making that argument.

                Ah, my bad. Not all, simply "the majority". You are more magnanimous than I thought, I guess. So what in your eyes manages to be one of those comparatively few real cases? Also, how come that it is you (or others like you) who get to decide the magnitude of harm instead of the victim? And finally, I'm curious, if the "majority" of false cases are not made up... then what are they? How come they are neither made up nor real?

                The overwhelming majority of so called discrimination is either made up completely, or just completely blown out of proportion

                Ah wait here it is, the "overwhelmingly majority" of those false claims are made up and the few ones which are not are simply overblown. (Note that since you do not provide any data to support your use of percentual comparatives, I have to assume all of this is subjective assumption and as such, I ask you about it as though you are the only relevant authority in the matter.)

                The people you are defending because someone hurt their feelings are just being babies and they need to grow the fuck up.

                For someone who allegedly doesn't consume and parrot far-right rhetoric, you come up with exactly the same talking points: "Don't you dare to lift a finger against those who offend others, precious souls of god that they are! The true evil is the people who get hurt over being told or done offensive stuff to. The offenders deserve to be let alone or protected if someone dares to accuse them, but the offended? They get to man up! It's their fault for being whatever minority they are to begin with!"

                The truly hilarious thing about this all is the appalling double standards. They go around "joking" and mocking other people and when they get angry or sad they retort "man up, idiot!", but if someone else says "hey man, it's not cool to mock people just for things they cannot change such as race, nationality, sexuality, etc", they go "WAAAAAAH how dare you attack me!! Somebody stop this meanie SJW crusade! They are trying to make the straight white man go extinct!" Indeed, there's I have seen no more easily "triggered snowflake" than a bigot or a jerk being talked back to.

                look at the data by race you find that the blacks had less disapproval somewhere around mid 30% where as whites where over 50% and whites were the only demographic to get over 50%

                Well, let me ask you something: If minorities get abused and only those very minorities are permitted to protest against it... how is it ever going to make ripples? They are minorities! Their numbers are always, by nature going to be statistically low. That's precisely why and how minorities in the past got discriminated to the point they were: even the people who were not bigots could not be moved to care as the issue could always be painted as comparatively irrelevant. Or actually, even worse than irrelevant: due to their comparatively quieter voices, the bigots could control a narrative in which those low numbers proved that it was all fabrications or overblown hyperbole. And boy do people on the conservative side of the conversation love to assume that it's all /mostly/ fabrications or overblown hyperbole, am I right?

                So yes, if we are going to achieve a more just society, minorities need allies within the majority group and finally, in this generation, it is starting to happen in mass, you like it or not.

                Please do your best to explain to me why you fight against it. Regardless of your beliefs that people should just "man up", wouldn't it be even better to live in a society where people don't get to be randomly offended or hurt at the whim of other people? Your arguments set you into an apparent position of believing that offending other people is entirely fine and a right or whatever. Is that truly what you believe? (To not stray too far from my point, please assume that I am talking of objectively offensive stuff such as "all Jews are _____", etc, and not something that you can spin into not being really offensive.)

                Firstly the SJW threats to boycott something rarely have any effect because they aren't usually consumers to begin with

                I can agree with this statement, but then please explain how, if such threats are ineffective, it's still their fault that people get fired?

                ok so next... this gem of disingenuous tripe"SJWs" didn't fire those people. Their employers did.no the SJW's 100% did fire these people it was a bullshit crusade full of lies and intimidation

                But you just said that SJWs have no power because they are not customers, to begin with! So what it is? Moreover, I can prove my point that it's employers and not SJWs who fire people with a simple fact: Not all employers have caved in. In the end, it is their sovereign choice to stand or not with their accused employee, especially if they truly believe that he or she did not do wrong.

                But sure, you can argue that still, a large volume of people complaining could convince the employer that it would be financially damaging to keep the employee. If so, then let me flip your own argument to you: it means that the /majority/ won. You like majorities, right? And I'm sure that you also like Capitalism. Well, then if an employer was "forced" to let go an employee that was losing him money due to his controversial opinions, it means that they understand that the /majority/ has the opposing opinions. If the employer, for a second believed that the majority of his customers agree with the controversial employee he'd keep him because doing otherwise would lose them money.

                The comic artists who lost jobs over the "wokeness crusade" is completely different because the SJW's pushed for more inclusive comics and they got what they wanted then never fucking bought any comics, it is not a boycott from comics fans

                See, for example, I'm going to agree with you here to a point. It is true that generally speaking, the newer, more progressive generation doesn't care that much for the comic book media format (they are, overwhelmingly, audio and video-oriented) which indeed, it meant that not that many of them purchased the books, while many of the old guard chose not to. As I pointed above, that's Capitalism in action and I'm fine with it, sad as I find it. However, I must contradict you in the last sentence: there definitely were concerted efforts to boycott the comics and also harass the author or the employer. If you don't, believe me, I could show you countless twitter and forum threads of "calls to action" to aggressively combat the titles in question.

                As for your targeted jokes being proven to cause harm assertion. Absolute bullshit either provide an example for me to tear apart or admit your conflating actual harassment with jokes and memes, i have seen this argument 100 times and i have been subjected to the "evidence" even more times and it is always either not even a joke or it's harassment which is against the law and all social media TOS already. Please provide me with an example of a joke that causes harm i'd love to finally see one because at this point i think i'm more likely to see a fucking unicorn riding a unicycle.

                Sorry, but I am not even going to try. You have already established yourself to be in an pre-set antagonistic position where even if I presented evidence that target harassment has driven people to suicide, you are going to shrug and call it "bullshit" because it is on the person committing suicide for not being "strong" or whatever.

                  Last thing about the wall then we can just forget about it, if i'm understanding your references to fences and such then i'm going to assume that you thought by "wall" he meant some kind of medieval stone structure or maybe something like the great wall of China, the "fence" your referring to is that the 20ft steel barrier to entry they are trying to build or the chicken wire and poles they have at the moment in some places. I think saying Trump is less zealous than me about the wall because now it's a steel fence is a bit rich since it's your interpretation of what wall meant that is wrong. Now to the point you made insinuating that i'm being unreasonable in my defense of the wall the exact same could be said about you, not only do you make the argument that there is nothing in the budget that can be cut to pay for the wall but you make absolutely no counter argument for a "better" border defense. If i'm some kind of howling zealot set on building the wall do you think maybe you should look in the mirror and examine your own zealotry against building it, are you really some kind of open borders nutter or are you just so anti Trump you would have been fine if someone else built the wall any time over the last 20 years, maybe it's really just a case of "not this guy".

                  I think i have said this before but perhaps i didn't make it clear, i do not believe all the propaganda about the effects the wall will have, and i only bother to say this because i'm constantly accused of being some far right puppet on this website, that being said i think that he should build the wall for these 3 reasons. It will have an impact on illegals entering the USA and it is the first step the USA must take if they are in any way serious about tackling the issue of illegal immigration, that is why i think building it is a good thing to do, the other reasons have to do with the fact that it was one of Trumps core promises when he ran and he won.

                  The argument that his winning is irrelevant because he doesn't have majority support is retarded, firstly that is not how a republic works and secondly the obstructionist shit the dems are pulling now is not their job, pretending that the senate and the house stand to prevent dictatorial power from the executive office is the same thing as fucking around with the wall funding is again absolute nonsense. I didn't like it when the republicans did it to Obama either, they lost the damn election okay so it's time to stow your fucking pride and work with the new president, that means negotiation and compromise i hear a lot about Trump's tantrums and being an unreasonable ass, it probably does look that way when your a lefty because you think he should be giving you like literally the world for his wall funding, and as for Tantrums and not negotiating well id be pissed off if i had the entire left wing establishment calling me a racist etc, and saying he refuses to negotiate just because he says no to your proposal is childish and moronic, one of the reasons you don't expect a president to get much if anything done in the first 2-3 years is how long it takes to come to an agreement both parties can sell to the people who support them. You cannot sell me the bullshit notion that not accepting the dems ultimatums is a sign of not negotiating, you may well be right that Trump is going to act like a child and refuse to negotiate but not if all your going to do is hand him bills or proposals he cannot agree to because they would destroy the support he currently has. To make an example the bills proposed during the shutdown would have annihilated his base support and any that he has with mainstream republicans for what the absurd idea that he would generate support from within the democratic voting block??

                  The issue here seems to be that because i support the wall something you cannot fathom and reason for, you therefore can't understand any reason i might give and assume me to be some kind of right wing partisan. Fundamentally this comes down to holding some principals and i for one was pissed off when the republicans pulled the same shit on Obama and because i have principals i am also pissed off when the dems do the same thing, i don't have partisan support for one side or the other. What i want is the politicians as a whole to stop acting like fucking children and do what needs to be done NEGOTIATE some fucking compromises instead of pissing in everyone's cereal every other week. The idea of winning is the real issue and while Trump is considered to be a divisive character in US and national politics the real problem is this mentality of "winning" the idea that you want to beat the other side, the only people who can possible support just one party in any country wholeheartedly is lying to themselves and lying to you, no one party has all the good solutions it is and has always been a mix, and usually arriving at the correct place will also change the wrong party to become more in line with what we find to be correct look at the the republicans and the overall attitude shift with regards to gay marriage for the most glaring example of what i'm getting at. I don't think i will ever even get you to understand why i am pro building the wall because you don't seem to be willing or maybe able to separate someone who advocates for the wall from your carefully sculpted by the media typical "uninformed" Trump supporter, but i tried anyway to explain both why i support the wall and why i was pissed off with regards to the shutdown, i know your not going to understand why i'm telling you to look at your own views because your coming at everything with a bias because your surely going to think i'm doing the same.

                  I cannot recommend sticking to your principals as a great way to operate politically, it makes it very hard to cast a vote because i have to weigh policy promises that will likely not be followed through on in any case against each other to decide where i cast my vote, at a local level it's not that hard but thinking about it in terms of a national vote is damn annoying.

                  I'm going to make a separate thread to respond to the rest of your post.

                You are 100% correct about me believing that the wall was going to be a structure such as the Great Wall of China. But why did I believe this? Because Trump himself said so for a long time. He /repeatedly/ compared his promised wall to the Great Wall (except that his was going to be even greater, of course) and clearly described the specifications of materials, structure and construction type he expected it to be. He also said that Mexico would pay for it and many other things. Over the years, his bombastic promises have been, time and again downgraded, but each time, he tries to pretend that the downgrade is still exactly what he initially promised. Don't believe me? Take a look at this article compiling chronologically the evolution of the wall penned by the very tweeting thumb of Mr. Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/us/politics/trump-border-wall-immigration.html.

                Also, it is true that I have no offered better alternatives to border security. I guess I was too busy trying to demonstrate that 1) the wall is not needed, at least not in the "emergency" capacity pushed by Trump and 2) that even if the emergency were real, the wall would be a painfully ineffectual way to address the issues in question. But since you ask, I'll say that I'm in no shape or way an expert on border security so I'll defer the answer to actual experts on the matter I've spoken to, who have weighed the true issues and the best way to address them at the most efficient cost: Patrolling drones. A single drone can patrol massive areas of terrain at a fraction of the man-hours and resources that it would otherwise cost and efficiently direct human officers towards potential offenders. This method would also cost an entirely irrelevant fraction of the maintenance cost that a wall would require. (Now, as I said, I'm not the expert and I'm aware that there may be unexpected challenges for this system, but at the very least, I wanted to share with you the fact that there are alternatives that at the very least on paper, are more efficient, effective and inexpensive than a wall. As always, I'm in favour of having a conversation rather than dealing on absolutes.)

                As a small aside, I want to contest the claim that I'm anti-Trump. It's likely that I'd be it if I lived in America, but I don't. I despise the man because he's a liar with a venomous rhetoric who has emboldened some of the worst groups of people in the internet, but other than that, I'm ultimately not affected by what he does (other than by experiencing a general sense of revulsion) so my arguments don't come from a desire to oppose him.

                I'm not sure if you realise how, in the next few paragraphs (talking about negotiating, etc) you apply double standards: Trump doesn't move a finger to compromise or negotiate? Well he has the right to demand that whatever he wants is done with no compromises whatsoever! But the Dems do not compromise or negotiate as well as you'd like? (which seems to me to be "Oh you want 5 billion, Lord Trump? Here are 10!!) Then they are childish, ultimatum-ing partisan reprobates. Even if I were to agree with you that the Dems failed to seek a course of negotiation and compromise, so did Trump. So how come you only have judgment for the Dems and none for Trump?

                the real problem is this mentality of "winning" the idea that you want to beat the other side

                It is interesting to me that you say this (with which I agree) when you yourself have pushed in many instances the idea that Trump's will must be done on the basis that he won the elections even if every.single.metric has consistently shown that he's basically never had the support of the majority of the population. The fact that you talk about how "a Republic works" but almost immediately suggest that the different branches of the government are supposed to unequivocally support the president as opposed to counteract him when necessary is also puzzling: counteracting or ameliorating the actions of a potentially rogue president is precisely the very reason the branches of the government were created. (Also this seems like a good point to remind you /once again/ that the Senate is controlled by the Republicans and that they also controlled the House up to the beginning of this year, and yet, they neither gave Trump whatever he wanted for the wall, in case you want to comment again about partisanism.)

                I generally agree with you regarding the fact that both parties need to work together because you cannot expect a single group to have all the answers not to take into account the concerns of all different kinds of people. That being said, it seems to me that that is not a way of thinking that you don't apply to Trump in particular. When it comes to him, no compromises, no opposition, no nothing other than uncontested support if not outright obedience is permitted.

                  your straw manning me in the second half of this post dramatically but ill leave that for later.

                  With regards to the wall i don't need to read that article i'm familiar with most of his tweets even thought i don't follow them, i don't need a chronological reminder. Your right about his messaging over this issue "big beautiful wall" wasn't it etc etc, what i do find amusing is all of his critics routinely tell everyone how much a liar he is and most even concede occasionally that he's not lying per se he's just a bombastic nutter, but when it comes to the wall they believe what i considered to be just that kind of bombastic rhetoric.

                  I'm not saying hes not a liar by the way, but he doesn't lie as often as portrayed but back to the wall, after being called an idiot by the border patrol he changed his tune, now for several reasons the concrete wall idea (like GWoC) is a bad idea, earthquakes alone make it a nightmare for upkeep expense wise, the steel barrier is cheaper to put in in the first place and would cost less to upkeep, also the border patrol pointed out that having a fucking wall we can't see through isn't much help thanks but no thanks.

                  With a physical barrier like the steel wall it is estimated that less than 50% of immigrants will even attempt to cross, another report i initially got wind of from this right wing guy saying that 80% of people attempting to cross the wall would fail, i read the report and im sure you will find this a huge shock he was misrepresenting what it said.

                  Depending on many factors, how far out into the wilderness away from border stations they attempt to cross will mean they are more fatigued and less likely to make it up the wall, if its a single male his chances are actually not that bad but women and children have nearly no chance of making it over the wall. Anyway i'm sure if you think about it you will come to the same conclusions as the report does when it comes to people being physically able to get over the wall it's more or less just common sense.

                  With regards to the e-wall drone surveillance concept as i understand it, it will be cheaper initially but the argument as to upkeep is kind of murky. It involves an apparently overestimated cost to upkeep the wall with regards to earthquakes which im sure you will agree is pretty impossible to project anyway since we cant even accurately project number or intensity of earthquakes to begin with, and also assumes that there will be some domestic vandalism of the wall from lefty open borders types which i don't believe, but i can't really think of any way the wall would be cheaper to upkeep i just don't think it's a large enough disparity to bother arguing about, i think you keep it simple and just worry about the initial cost.

                  As for the e-wall as a counter proposal firstly i think there is a constitutional problem as raised by the democrats when bush was pushing an e-wall proposal, the democrats also poked a number of other holes in the idea if you interested you might want to look that up. Not having the physical wall that Trump is pushing but instead having the e-wall comes with other costs like the fact that an e-wall absolutely requires more border patrol because 50% of immigrants aren't being discouraged from even trying, which assuming it works as intended and your capturing these people they will also need larger or more detention facilities to process these immigrants. I'm almost 100% sure that the salaries of the additional border patrol agents has not been costed with the e-wall.

                  I honestly side with the democrats on this one well i did the first time when Bush was trying to get the e-wall, i would just like to point out that every time someone is trying to fix the issue along the southern border BOTH parties get the shits, when bush tried the democrats were in charge and they shut him down but one thing some people seem to want to gloss over was he didn't have unanimous support from the Republicans either. Now Trump is trying to do it and as you pointed out couldn't get it done when the republicans had both the senate and the house which i think your using to support your argument about majority support, the reason a southern border barrier e-wall physical wall or otherwise will never make it and the reason that the e-wall and physical wall flip flop from one side to the other is simply because neither side wants it and that is not the people by the way it's the politicians, purely because for the last 30 years it has been continuously used as a political wedge issue to win elections all across the country not just presidential elections. Democrats and republicans in the swing states often use this issue and others as tools to get the slight swing they need the democrats are not anti Trumps wall and pro e-wall they just use it as a pretext so they appear to have an alternative, the last thing they want is Trump to agree because then it's no longer a 2 way wedge issue it becomes a republican tool only and they will use the incontrovertible fact that an e-wall is less effective than a physical wall which even the democrats aren't arguing against they just point out that in terms of cost its more efficient, it will stop less people but it will also cost less to implement and they are right but it won't stop the republicans using the "stops less immigrants" argument, a well timed murder of a young woman by an immigrant could turn 3-5 states red in a presidential election in this scenario.

                  As sick as this all is and i'm sure you would agree with me on that at least it is a political reality that the republicans would use the argument "if only the dems had listened and built an actual wall this man would never have got into the country" despite that being an absurd assertion it would work. This is the reason that tips me over the line to favor the physical wall over the e-wall and the neither wall option is just unacceptable for me because like i said something needs to be done and i'm sick of the politicians using it to con the populace.

                  I have stated above the universal political motive for this 30 year long drama, there are also the less universal but still relevant issues, that republicans like having the slave labor force in the US and the democrats like to import voters and whether you like it or not immigrants at least in the first generation overwhelmingly vote democrat, I have also heard unsubstantiated claims of republicans with business ties dealing with illegal workers much like when you i think it was anyway pointed out Trump has been busted using illegals before, which i personally think makes his crusade to build the wall a little more righteous as it will cost him money but hes going to do it anyway because the people who voted for him support it.

                  Your argument about the majority support for the wall is irrelevant please stop making it, governments all over the world implement things every year that don't have majority support and it is even less important in a republic that works off the electoral college than a more pure democracy that works off majority.

                  lastly i have this efficient, effective and inexpensive than a wall efficiency i would say is up in the air because your trying to balance cost against how many people get though under each system and the figures just aren't sure enough, also i think the e-wall costings have not been comprehensive enough. More effective than the wall um no that's just not true at all, the e-wall will not stop more illegals p-wall (physical wall) i haven't even seen anybody trying to argue this even the far far leftists. Cost well i think you got me there it will certainly cost less initially but that was the same argument the fucking liberals used against the NBN and look how that turned out :S

                  Back again to the issue of negotiating and this is where the straw manning occurred, i have not ever said that the branches of government are meant to serve the will of god emperor Trump i merely pointed out that the argument they are meant to keep rogue presidents in check is not applicable in this situation which you damn well know, that entire idea is to stop the president from doing shit like declaring war on Canada or trying to nuke someone, not to stand in the way of popular public works projects regardless of how the majority feels. Much like the 2nd amendment and the armed populace vs the tyrannical government is also not a reason to go and shoot the eventual workers building a wall. These two ideas are two sides of a single coin the government intervention against a tyrant and the populace alternative. Trump is not a tyrant or a despot anybody arguing that loses all claims to being impartial as far as i'm concerned.

                  Now as far as negotiation goes your going to have to eventually pay attention to what i'm saying so once again Pelosi refusing to negotiate is the lynch pin here, it does not matter how many bills the house gave Trump that is not how it works, Trump is certainly belligerent and certainly at times childish you are not wrong about this but you cannot just slap these buzzwords on whatever you like to discredit him when convenient. If you were making the argument that had Pelosi tried negotiating, Trump would have just acted like a shithead and demanded "my way or the highway" and on that i would have to grudgingly agree yes that is probably exactly what would have happened, what you don't get to do is tell me that is what happened during the shutdown because you are wrong. Pelosi refused to negotiate and it was absolutely stupid because part of the money Trump was seeking was for the humanitarian aid for detention centers which should be non partisan firstly and was a huge gift if she wasn't being irrational, counter offering "sure here is your 800m for the centers and not a penny more" then means Trump either takes it (unlikely) or he looks like a complete bastard not helping the children at the border which you can then turn into Trump is a racist with about 2 paragraphs from your friends at the NY times. Or you pretend hes a tyrant and you won't negotiate when in truth your trying desperately to preserve a wedge issue 30 years old for political purposes.

                  I think we can both agree something needs to be done about the border and anybody saying different is either an open borders fucking lunatic that should be ignored on this issue at least, or your a craven political animal trying to preserve this political tool at the expense of the county and it's people.

                  You agree with me that both sides need to start working together and stop this stupid idea of winning considering both sides usually present something flawed because they come at the issue from a certain angle. Take gay marriage for example the democrats pushed it and the republicans stood against it broadly speaking anyway, eventually the republicans gave up even though the majority had a very good reason against it and that was religious freedoms not being guaranteed which since we have seen gay activist types using the gay marriage thing as a club to beat people. Now had these two parties tried to negotiate we may have ended with it in states hands where it belongs or at least a compromise of legalising gay marriage and also preserving religious freedom and not forcing people to make a gay cake.

                  Most gays agree with me on this btw and i'm a militant atheist i have no religious reason to hold this view, gay marriage is a perfect example of how negotiating and not retarded rhetoric could have landed in a better position. The fundamental problem we are having is you seem to be unable to follow what i'm saying about the wall.

                  Trump in particular. When it comes to him, no compromises, no opposition, no nothing other than uncontested support if not outright obedience is permitted.

                  This quote is absolute garbage not least in the fact that i have told you repeatedly i do not agree with him on all that much and secondly because your totally misrepresenting how a negotiation on the wall MUST function given what it is. You can't piecemeal this thing out a few billion a year for 10 years it has to completed while Trump is in office otherwise there is no guarantee it gets finished and if it's not finished like right now then it's just money pissed into the wind, now you can argue about how much funding and when/where he gets it maybe you say here is 20% get the rest somewhere else see you again next year at the next budget. Which you will argue is what ended up happening but it's not quite true he was given the exact amount of money needed to do everything but build even 1cm of wall, which makes the dems look good to their supporters "look we got the humanitarian aid for centers and upgraded border stations etc etc but not a single bit a wall funding" while also attempting to make Trump look bad because he still hasn't got any of the wall built.

                  If your going to have a negotiation on something like the wall that must be completed if it is started or you've wasted money, it comes down to something that looks more like swapping like 5.7b for DACA and the dreamers. Which Trump would have said yes i would love to do that but i can only get you an extension on DACA i don't have the support to get it approved in the senate then the dems maybe say we need 4 year extension and he says i can swing that and they agree (that is an example).

                  As speaker of the house and the default leader of the house because the dems have majority it is Pelosi's responsibility to negotiate with Trump the other members of the house talk to her and tell her what they might individually want, maybe funding for charter schools in Chicago or a hundred other things, Pelosi then has a list of subjects that you have to put up against the wall funding anything that has a cost attached is easy if he wants 5.7b you counter with 6b or so worth of democratic shit. stuff that doesn't have a monetary value like regulatory reforms or whatever it's harder to measure them against the wall funding but what is not negotiation is saying fuck off Trump i will not negotiate, which Pelosi did like a hundred times.

                  You can argue all day about Trump being a childish tantrum thrower but when the other side won't even start negotiations i think your full of shit and making a convenient argument based on his probable behavior which i have to agree your right and he probably would have acted that way. Pity Pelosi made that irrelevant by pitching a fit of her own which she is known to do and it seems one of her triggers for having a tantrum or saying some off the wall shit is Trump. Poor choice for house representative considering hes the president at the moment but hey the democrats don't always make the choices i would like.

                  At this point your probably tempted to point once again the the bills handed to Trump during the shutdown but again they are not relevant to the argument over negotiation because it was Pelosi who was meant to negotiate and she threw a fucking tantrum to protect one of the USA's political wedge issues rather than serve the people.

                  Trump may well have acted the way you say, but Pelosi actually did it on camera to reporters. Trump at least said he would negotiate and the only reasons not to entertain the negotiation is if your somehow financially tied to illegals, want to keep importing them for your parties electoral benefit or you just like having that wedge issue available when you need it. She had the responsibility to act like a fucking adult and at least entertain the negotiation process to begin with and if your right about how Trump would have acted? well the thing is that would have been the absolute best outcome possible from the democrats viewpoint but Pelosi shit the bed.

                  Considering what you keep saying about me and obey the Trump i have to state again that she has to negotiate she doesn't actually ever have to reach an agreement i am not and have never stated that the shutdown negotiations must end in a deal, just what i would have preferred they got out of trump for the funding instead they got fuck all and he got 20%. So really who won that round??

                  Last edited 10/03/19 12:37 pm

    Ubisoft is a publicly traded corporation. Any action by this compay - including just existing - is political. This is unavoidable.

      oof downvoted for stating the obvious.

        upvoted for unironically using "oof"

        ed: seriously though, I appreciated it

        Last edited 02/02/19 2:27 pm

    I thought it was a clever little joke.
    No need to get antsy about this.

    Fancy that. An Australian trying to get shitty over a joke in America about thing that doesn't affect him.

      You don't have to be American to be annoyed that Ubisoft thought over half a million families going without income for over a month would be great marketing.

        your right you don't.

        I think the frustration over how the shutdown is falsely represented in the media as a tantrum by trump is what leads to people making comments like simo above.

        I think there is actually a lot of people who would like to end any discussions regarding the shutdown since the vast majority of people have no idea what they are talking about and just parrot back the dumb shit spoon fed to them. (i'm not saying this is you just trying to provide some context for why you will run into some lets call it passionate responses to this topic)

          "falsely represented in the media as a tantrum by trump"
          Nothing false about it.

          The Republican House and Senate agreed to avoid the Government shutdown. Trump had agreed to sign the bill. Then some radio/tv personalities started saying bad things about Trump because he was going to sign the bill because it wouldn't contain funding for his border wall. Trump subsequently refused to sign that bill. After 35 days of a Government shutdown, after ongoing bad press, Trump agreed to sign a bill almost identical to the one he initially refused to sign.

          Those are facts.

          The shutdown was primarily Trump's fault, and secondary blame should fall on Mitch McConnell for refusing to introduce any bill to the Senate to end the shutdown despite that a 2/3rds majority can overrule Presidential veto (ie where Trump refuses to sign a bill that has passed through Congress).

          I'm sorry that you don't like facts.

            yes it's all trumps fault

            He won the presidency and one of his core promises was to build the wall the american people want a wall. He said repeatedly that he wanted to negotiate about funding the wall Polosi refused to negotiate under any circumstances, despite being offered by Trump many of the things the democrats claim to be trying to get.

            You want facts ill give you some facts, over the last 20 years all of these so called democratic heroes of the shutdown have argued for a wall along the border when they needed certain demographics to vote. They left it out of the 2016 election opting for the strategy of making wanting the wall "racist" because Trump had already claimed the high ground. When bush was in power he wanted an e-wall and the dems said hell no you can't spy on the border we have people living there you can't spy on them we must build a physical barrier. Now they have resurrected bushs e-wall idea as a counter to building the wall because they never intended on building a wall along the border they just wanted the votes originally. And now they won't let him build the wall under any circumstances because if he secures these funds he wins 2020 it is that simple he will win in a landslide if he gets that funding.

            There is only one person in this whole situation who isn't a craven political piece of shit and that is Trump and that's only because he hasn't been in politics long enough. The shutdown is not a Trump tantrum it's a two sided bitch fit and anyone claiming otherwise is just a partisan hack. You can ignore the past of these people and the total hypocrisy of arguing against a wall now when they have all argued for it in the past if you like but don't bother responding if your going to do that, i don't want to talk to people who are brainwashed.

              Congratulations on both simultaneously saying an utter load of tosh, and not refuting my point at all.

              Again, let me make this simple for you:
              1) Republicans passed the bill.
              2) Trump refused to sign the bill.
              3) Blaming the Democrats for Trump's refusal to sign a bill passed by a completely Republican controlled congress is nothing short of utter idiocy.

              When George W Bush was in power, a number of Democrat senators voted for for a physical wall, though it was nowhere on the scale or cost of Trump's proposed wall. It was also done in the context of the Republicans passing a bill that would many any undocumented immigrant a felon. So essentially everything you've said about a wall is a complete fabrication or distortion of the truth - it sounds like it came direct from the Alex Jones or Sean Hannity playbook.

              Secondly, if you want to look at history, then you should take a closer look at Trump. Whether its his active discrimination against people of colour (for which he was found in contempt of court yet STILL KEPT DOING IT) or effective money laundering with his casinos (his father gave him several million dollars via paying for chips and never cashing them out - for which he was fined only a fraction of the money made) or pretty much anything in Trump's business history which showcases him as a conman who preys on the gullible and refuses to honour the deals he has made (with a sustained history of not meeting contractual obligations for his building contracts and simply having enough money to get away with it).

              The only person that is brainwashed here is you. I honestly pity you that you're so deluded by Trump's bravado that you can't even comprehend basic facts, and I pity that the education system is so crippled that you don't even understand how uninformed you are.

              I see you quickly deleted your comment... I love that you say you are not a Trump supporter while voicing your repeated support for him combined with attacks on Democrats and then me for being a "leftwing wanker". If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and craps like a duck... it's a duck. That you then blindly ignore Trump's consistent history of bad and illegal behaviour while simultaneously attempting to quote history you think supports your argument just highlights your own hypocrisy.

              It was a Trump tantrum in refusing to sign the bill no matter what story you try to spin or tell yourself. Again, I'll remind you he said he would sign the bill until conservative commentators started saying bad things about him. His actions predicated the entire shutdown, yet you're still trying to pull a line of "there's blame on both sides."

                i didn't delete my comment i got yeeted for nothing again by the Kotaku feelings police on your behalf.

                Your making up shit again that you have no evidence of i don't blindly blah blah anything and im not ignoring trumps past you pastry, i just don't feel the need like you do to bring up irrelevant shit all the time to try and win an argument.

                You are the hypocrite and you lost this one buddy the only thing that matters in an argument about the shutdown, is what people did that contributed to the shutdown and the issue/s that are causing the problem and the history of those topics.

                i'll break it down for you again; Trump pitched a fit like you said and then some of the democrats led by Pelosi have refused to negotiate since the shutdown began despite being offered things from Trump they apparently desperately want like the DACA extension.
                So yeh there is blame on both sides your problem is you think the only thing that matter is who started the shutdown because that serves your world view "orange man bad".

                Now onto the issue and it's history; the issue is the wall obviously and the history as i already previously stated and you couldn't refute is that all the prominent democratic figures have at some point in the last 20 or so years supported building a wall along the border, they did this at the time for votes with no intention of following through.

                I'm ignoring your second paragraph because it doesn't change anything get over it your wrong.

                So in conclusion Trump threw a tantrum and started the shutdown, the democrats refusal to negotiate keeps it going, blame on both sides you bias hack.

                Now you can keep coming back at me trying to argue that because trump started it he's worse and we should ignore everyone else involved then simultaneously call me a hypocrite (oh the irony) but the only response you will get from me going forward is "you lost buddy", maybe something else after that i'll have to think about it.

                EDIT: in case it didn't get through to you Trumps behavior illegal or legal or carnal or otherwise is completely irrelevant unless it has to do with his position on the actual contentious issue of the shutdown which is the wall, i am not a hypocrite you have consistently tried to shift the focus of the argument to irrelevant topics so you can win and i'm not going to let you do it.

                Last edited 09/02/19 11:32 am

          the shutdown is falsely represented in the media as a tantrum by trump
          i'll break it down for you again; Trump pitched a fit like you said

          So, in other words, your argument was completely false?

          As I said to begin with, I'm sorry that you don't like facts.

            i can do it too u know...(irrelevant shit incoming) Clinton has settled 3 rape cases

            Quote mining now wow you really are disingenuous, trump did pitch a fit i never argued otherwise and i have proven many times now why i was correct that both sides have played a roll in the shutdown. Which you haven't been able to refute not that you even try you just keep saying irrelevant crap about how much a dick Trump is.

            here another quote "you lost buddy"

            @pylgrim i don't want you to get involved but i need an objective analysis is this guy trolling me or have i not explained well enough how wrong he is?

              Quote mining now wow you really are disingenuous, trump did pitch a fit i never argued otherwise
              Yes, you did, and there's nothing disingenuous about pointing that out. My entire first post was demonstrating how wrong you were on that point and then YOU were the one who started whataboutism to distract from that.

              You started going "what about the history of the Democrats" but dismiss the history of Trump" Now you're bringing up Clinton... who is NOT PRESIDENT of the US. Why are you still obsessed with her/him?

              The fact that you think you are winning when you've undermined the continually shifting goalpost premises of your argument with your own "rebuttals" is hilarious.

                i mentioned clinton because it is irrelevant just like you did with trump
                ok let me use small words for you and please imagine you are gagged and tied up unable to do anything but pay attention as i scream this into your ear maybe that will help.


                i never ever argued that trump didn't pitch a fit or that he didn't start the shutdown and you know it which is why you cant find a quote of me saying that, your entire first post outlined how trump started the shutdown and why he is responsible for that, the reason you felt a need to do that has nothing to do with my post, it's a result of your apoplectic rage regarding trump and anybody you PERCEIVE to be a supporter of him. I have been entirely consistent on this issue there is blame on both sides you are the hypocrite trying to obfuscate the responsibility of the people you support and the role they played in the shutdown.

                YOU LOST BUDDY.

                you thought you had found a trumper you could bully based merely on the fact someone defended him on one minuscule thing.

                Trying to reign in you from going off on some irrelevant tangent about trumps past actions and get you to focus on the fucking shutdown the thing we are meant to be arguing about is not shifting the goal posts.

                I'm done with you honestly i can't make it any simpler for you if you can't understand how your wrong by now your either trolling me deliberately or you completely ideologically possessed and there is no help for you anyway.

                  i never ever argued that trump didn't pitch a fit or that he didn't start the shutdown and you know it which is why you cant find a quote of me saying that
                  I think the frustration over how the shutdown is falsely represented in the media as a tantrum by trump

                  Also to quote you:
                  YOU LOST BUDDY.

                  I'm done arguing with you.

                  Funnily enough, it's like arguing with Trump, because just like you, he claims never to have said something even when explicitly presented with evidence he did.

                yeh your a coward and a troll

                so again try using ur fucking eyes and read the words THE SHUTDOWN from that quote

                as in the event known as the shutdown it has a beginning (trump) and a middle (trump and some dems).... what the fuck am i doing i know your a troll just trying to wind me up, well that's enough explanation anyway it proves my point blame to go around, your turn now i wanna yet another post where you fail to address your assertion that the shutdown is all and only trumps fault, go ahead dribble some more shit into my life troll boy

                  I really don't want to continue this argument further, but let me put this simply.

                  You made a claim.
                  I refuted that claim.
                  You flew off the handle. (Repeatedly)

                  I'm sorry you didn't say what you meant to say. I'm not a mind reader so I can only read your words and interpret them literally. It was not possible or reasonable to infer that you think that the Democrats wanting a deal that the President had initially agreed to (backed by his own Republican party) and then both the President and Republicans doing an about face is somehow a problem that is the responsibility of the Democrats. From your words it was also not possible to infer that believe that the Democrats should be responsible for negotiating towards a worse deal (from their perspective) than had been previously agreed to. I couldn't infer that, because that simply makes no logical sense.

                  I understand now that is what you're arguing, but I repeat, that makes absolutely no sense. Government decisions should not be dictated by a handful of political commentators, and Trump's change in position was predicated on exactly that. You have even agreed with that point. Yet you somehow think that the Democrats should have simply allowed that to happen? If anything the Democrats should be APPLAUDED for not allowing a couple of vocal people with a platform to determine legislation.

                  I'm not responsible for your unrepentant aggression after you weren't able to provide a consistent or logic argument. That's on you. That you are so outraged and accuse me of being a troll for pointing out the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in your argument is again, your problem, not mine. If you're getting angry because you're unable to defend your position with logic, maybe that should give you cause to reconsider your position.

                The first part of your response i will never agree with you on, the fact that you misinterpreted me saying "the shutdown" as something else is not my problem but i also don't give a shit about it anymore.

                Most of this argument comes down primarily to 2 things my aggression and your insulting behavior which i notice you didn't mention in your last response, maybe you can't see it but comparing me to someone who listens to Alex Jones is very insulting and you know it is which is why you said it, that is just one example i'm not going to go on any more about it because there is something more important.

                I understood where you were coming from from the first post you made, i think the misunderstanding portion of this argument stems almost entirely from the fact that i assumed your knowledge of trump's screw ups and therefore didn't think i needed bother saying what you already know, which obviously came across as me being ignorant of these facts that is something i should have noticed earlier. (fyi i have never watched Alex Jones aside from some memes about gay frogs)

                "I understand now that is what you're arguing," It's not what i was trying to argue at all my argument was so shallow you seem to have missed it, the only argument i was trying to make at least originally was that the shutdown isn't 100% trumps fault not picking a side even though i have one. If you suspend your idea of what should be happening and try and look at the issue purely from the perspective of what has happened so far you know that the shutdown started under lets say dubious circumstances i think we can agree on that, refusing to negotiate is a heroic stand against the tyranny of a few in your eyes which i will concede makes perfect sense to some people, but if you think about it dispassionately refusing to negotiate is absurd, i do get what your saying but the reality is that the shutdown has started and the opponent they face is a belligerent narcissist refusing to negotiate is not a winning strategy nor is it fair on the people effected. The idea that Trump will eventually back down is moronic if you know anything about how he operates and everyone does hes not exactly a subtle individual, once the shutdown starts it is up to the democrats to negotiate (not to be confused with capitulate), the advantage lies in the fact that now Trump had started the shutdown and made it all about the wall gives the democrats license to go nuts on him and he will end up having to make a deal that is totally skewed against the republican interests, essentially im saying he backed \himself into a corner and now is the time to strike but this is wandering off topic.

                The refusal to negotiate part of my argument is another area where i have not explained myself well enough, again it's the rage component of my personality which i have previously conceded is a major character flaw. What i mean is that they should not be refusing to negotiate and it seems that having not fleshed out this statement you have inferred i meant capitulate or at least referring to the things like DACA and the dreamers that they should accept the offers Trump is making. I don't care what they demand from him they could demand his resignation in exchange for wall funding for all i care I am just trying to make the point that refusing to negotiate is just as bad as how trump starting this shit show in the first place which i am sure you won't agree with anyway but who is more in the wrong is always going to be subjective.

                Once the orange clown pulls this trigger the unfortunate reality is that you have to negotiate with him otherwise your just as guilty for the continued shutdown, If the democrats were negotiating regardless of what they are asking for or whether they are knocking back his offers, just agreeing to negotiate shifts almost all of the responsibility back onto Trump.

                i realise this isn't really a subject one can be right or wrong about it's more a matter of perspective and beliefs, but i was trying to win an argument which is why i was talking about the democrats hypocrisy regarding southern border walls. I hope i have made myself clear that as far as the shutdown is concerned as a very narrow concept what i believe.

                If you are interested in what i think they should do which i consider to be a separate issue then keep reading, given what Trump has already offered and the corner i believe he is backed into i think that they can get at least one more thing from him for the wall funding, so DACA, Dreamers and X i don't know what X would be but i think that they can get more out of him. OR the other thing i was thinking is that in exchange for DACA and dreamers you give him some funding i think 800M for the humanitarian aid to the border is part of the 5.7b you can give that straight away it makes you look good to, money for the kids in detention on the border is how you spin it i'm sure trump will try that anyway so you wanna beat him to it.

                i don't know the exact breakdown of the 5.7b but you want to trade about half the funding for the DACA and dreamers but you want to include the humanitarian stuff so you might end up going over 50% that is 2 options i think the democrats should consider if your interested.

              As you said, I don't want to get involved, but just generally speaking you should remember that in any argument, there's a third possibility to the two you mention and is that it's you the one who is in the wrong. Whether by a misunderstanding, incorrect sources or flawed logic, we are all prone to be wrong from time to time... and it never feels good.

              That's why it's important to be humble and keep an open mind: it means that if in fact you are in the right and the other person is not getting it, you'll have better chances of getting it through than if you just unilaterally claim winners and losers in the argument. And well, if you are wrong, it means that you eat less crow and maybe get the chance of learning something.

                um no this guy is just trolling

                hes literally linking the exact same quote i did and he either deliberately takes it out of context which i provided for him to troll me, or he has like some brain damage or something there is something happening in his mind where he is reading what i'm typing but none of it sinks instead some other shit ends up in there.

                EDIT: all i said was the shutdown is not just trump having a tantrum it is also the fault of people refusing to negotiate about the wall, that is 100% fact and nobody has even made a counter argument so yeh maybe i am wrong but the least he could do was actually address my point and make a counter argument he never does just tries to selectively quote me and talk about irrelevant shit like trumps criminal history. you say i might be wrong but i cannot understand how? are you falling for the same thing this guy seems to have fallen for, Trump derangement syndrome i believe it is called he sees the issue of the shutdown but all he can see is trump was involved therefore "orange man bad" everyone else is an angel.... fuck my life

                Last edited 10/02/19 3:15 pm

                  Seeing as you appear to have missed my above post, I'll try to make this simple. You're complaining that I'm missing context. I think you're the one that's missing the bigger picture here.

                  Here's what we agree on:
                  Republican controlled House and Senate pass bill to fund Government (but not border wall).
                  Trump says he will sign said bill.
                  Conservative political commentators (e.g. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Fox and Friends) criticise Trump for saying he will sign said bill.
                  Trump subsequently refuses to sign said bill.
                  Government shuts down.
                  Democrats assume control of House.
                  Democrats refuse to provide funding for border wall in negotiations to fund Government.

                  Where we disagree:
                  You are arguing that the Democrats should have given in to Trump's demands for border wall funding in order to fund the Government. These demands only occurred AFTER the political commentators criticised Trump. So in that context, you are saying that those select political commentators that Trump pays attention to should effectively be allowed to dictate Government policy.

                  That'd be like if Australia allowed Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to dictate what bills passed into law by ranting about it on their respective platforms. That's insanity, not to mention the antithesis of democracy. And that's what you're arguing for.

                  You are correct that the people unwilling to negotiate with him are technically at fault too... but only as much as you agree that parents who are unwilling to give a kid whatever he wants in order to stop him from making a scene at the supermarket are "at fault". I mean, they are, but aren't they in the right to do so?

                  Just consider this: you and I, somewhere else in this thread, have probably discussed the pros, cons and ultimate necessity of the wall more than Trump has with his opposition during the last couple years. He has not allowed conversations regarding the possible lack of efficacy, or the possible wastefulness of the effort, environmental or social consequences, etc, etc. He's only, once and again, /demanded/ the money and accused whoever says "no" of being America-hating socialists. More recently, he has moved to say "give me the money or else". Don't you see how that is more of a tantrum than a negotiation? How are the people who oppose it expected to "negotiate" when the only allowed answer is "fine, here's what you want"?

                  That was especially highlighted during the shutdown, throughout which Democrats attempted to pass by him EIGHT bills to end the shutdown, a few of them including a portion of the money he was asking for, in exchange of some policy concessions. In other words, negotiation. They were shut down every.single.time. Trump could have easily sat with them and say "I don't entirely like this proposal, but let's use it as a starting point and see where it takes us". Instead, he just dismissed every attempt that was not giving him all he wanted with no conditions, and then complained "The Dems don't want to negotiate!"

      Fancy that, someone on the internet thinking you have to be directly affected by something in order to have an opinion on it.

    This article is like someone saying "I saw a politician on the news talking about stuff..." and the author then accuses the viewer of making a political statement for simply being witness to a news clip.

    In both the snide headline and its content the article acts like Ubisoft went and took a side or stance on something, and it is very much not the case. They made an arguably poor comment referring to something political, nothing more.

    Yet Kotaku apparently keeps wanting to harp on about how Division 2 is political this, political that, like they know more than the game developers themselves as to the developers own intentions.

    It is ridiculous currently, and fast approaching moronic.

      isn't Rage 2 also getting crap for a Trump reference they keep denying and the 'reference' only sorta resembles him by his hair?

      I think I'll listen to the developers first. play the game and then see if it has any message in it. otherwise it's just people spouting nonsense.

        Can't say I've seen anything about that on here, but since it's an overweight character with ridiculous hair I'm sure Kotaku would be onboard anyway since it wouldn't be painting Trump in a good light...

        Because you know, 'professional journalism' is where personal biases are definitely not a problem at all.

          Tell me...how can you paint a womanising, lying megalomaniac in a good light?

            With a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors.

            Seriously though, I was actually thinking the same thing as you when I wrote that comment... But the point is about basically anything getting Kotaku on board purely because it's "Fuck Trump!" and nothing more.

              Exactly right, that's all Trump is, is smoke and mirrors. Most of the developed world understands this, not just Kotaku!

        Rage 2 isn't getting crap, Well at least from sane intelligent people anyway.

        They have been doing press rounds for the game and this windowlicking journo from some blog that wasn't polygon for once asked if a character in the game was a reference to trump.

        The dev said it wasn't and that the game contained no political statements at all.

        Said journo refused to accept this and kept pressing on it.

        This is the full transcript:

        TSA: So, Klegg’s an interesting one… I’m assuming that he’s running for President or something?

        Tim: See? It’s so funny. All of you Europeans… I’ve never got that question from an American journalist.

        So no, we are not political! I promise you we are not making a statement. [leans in to the mic] We are not political in the game.

        TSA: But you are taking the piss out of him.

        Tim: No we’re not! Klegg was actually designed before he became president. […] Our writer in Stockholm came up with him, but no he’s not a Donald Trump reference, I promise.

        TSA: OK, well he’s clearly Trump, but maybe not Trump as President? He’s even got the same hair! You can’t deny that.

        Tim: [laughs] I’m saying we’re not political. We have a Trump on our board of directors. The president’s brother is on the Zenimax board of directors!

        TSA: [laughs] So maybe that’s why you’re not allowed to be political? Fine.

      We need more games that take a bold stance and have the balls to say that Orange Man Bad.

        are you being sarcastic, i hope so.

        i don't think i can handle any more "orange man bad" shit creeping into my life it's already too much.

        says the guy reading Kotaku........

    Kasterix is right on the money; Ubisoft made a poor taste joke about politics, but isn't political. It's not saying the government shutdown is a good/bad thing, it's just using it to advertise itself somehow.
    Improve yourself, Luke.

    @pylgrim @amstradhero

    this comment section is a complete mess i apparently missed one of your responses hero i'm sorry it wasn't intentional and while i have already written a response that contains what i'm about to say i think we should start over down here for the sake of clarity. one other detail i want to add before i begin, i did a personality test a long time ago and i'm in the 97th percentile for aggression try and put yourself in my shoes enduring the things you have said to me hero.

    I don't watch fox i hate Rush for the record, about the "what we agree on:" section all true although i thought the dems already had control of the house or was it just not handed over till after the shutdown started? honest question there would love an answer.

    with regard to what we disagree on. Umm no this section is utter crap i am not arguing what you think i'm arguing and i have already written a response to this but ill do it all again in case you miss that one. I have clearly made some mistakes explaining myself mostly due to my barely controlled rage, pylgrim knows i am aware of this character flaw but seem to fall for it all the damn time anyway.

    I do not believe and i was not trying to argue that the dems should capitulate to Trumps demands but the refusal to negotiate leaves them also holding the bag on the shutdown, hypothetically speaking had the dems agreed to negotiate i would say the earliest they could have done that was 2 weeks because that is about the point when the public started to turn on them in small numbers, now i don't really care what the dems ask for in return for the wall although i will say i think they can get a lot out of Trump in exchange for the wall funding enough that it becomes a net loss politically for Trump.

    In the event that the dems come to the negotiating table the shutdown then becomes 100% on Trump because he is the one asking for something to be added, and that is significantly different to just changing funding on something that exists in the documentation. If you want to add shit and your going to start a shutdown over it (even if he is a proxy for some pundits it's his ass in the fire now) you better fucking deliver. In the other post i went into some detail about what i think the dems should be doing in the negotiation.

    This comes down to me not explaining well enough my position that it doesn't matter how the negotiations are going it is the very basic idea that if you won't even participate regardless of the shady shit that led to the shutdown in the first place you are now an equal partner in perpetuating the issue.

    ok i just re read the comment to this point and realise that it kinda sounds like im excusing Trump and the media cronies over how this started so i better address that. The shutdown as a political tool I don't like it but that is how they do it over in America, I have no problem with how Obama used them and i don't have a problem with Trump using it either. My problem isn't even really that it seems he did a 180 when people starting saying bad shit about him it's conceivable that that is a coincidence, but whether it is coincidence or not makes no difference to me. I would say given his behavior (since becoming president) it is vastly more likely that he had no idea what was in the bill but was going to sign it anyway and then spat the dummy when people started criticising him.

    I don't like the shutdown as a tool because it victimises the general public and uses them like a fucking hostage to force a certain issue, but given that i supported Obama's right to do it even though i acknowledge that the circumstances are different this time regarding both the substance and the shady shit leading up to it, i consider it hypocritical of me not to allow him the same latitude.

    I don't know if your looking for some kind of emotional condemnation from me regarding the way the shutdown started it's not going to happen. I also don't like that you keep trying to tell me what i think i am not arguing that these pundits should have control over the negotiation
    only a moron would think that. You seem to think when i say negotiate what i really mean is capitulate, and the pundits by the way can be completely cut off from influencing trump in the negotiations (something you seem to be worried about) by making them secret "behind closed doors" is the term used i believe.

    I concede that my anger has caused a lot of issues during this debate it would be nice if you would also admit that your slanted views of me as some kinda of right wing nutbag the evidence being you continually trying to associate my views with those of Alex Jones and other far out the right social commentators. Not a nice thing and also a transparent tactic that is unfortunately very effective on me because it makes me very angry which is not your fault but might help you to understand how this got so out of control.

    I'm not all that confident that you will read this but if you do, now that i have clarified what i mean when i say negotiate ( i see that when i was talking in the past i mention the things trump offered at the same time so i understand why you thought i was saying they have to capitulate) maybe we can agree and move on to something else.

      Hey, glad you've come at this with a reasoned response. What you've posted is actually a lot more helpful and productive, so I'll respond in kind.

      First point re shutdown timing - the shutdown commenced on December 22, 2018, and Democrats took control of the House on January 3, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

      Regarding blame for the shutdown, I would apportion secondary blame to Mitch McConnell as Senate leader for refusing to entertain the same bill that the Senate had previously approved that would have averted it, because it is possible for the Congress to overrule the President and pass a bill that the President refuses to sign, simply so that one person does not have ultimate control over the Government (aka a dictatorship).

      I also dislike the use of the shutdown as a tool for political point scoring and believe it never should have occurred. I don't count the Democrats as entirely blameless, but given they tried to push something that the Republicans had previously agreed to pass (and could do so), I sincerely believe that the reason for their obstinate refusal to cede the point was simply to fall in line behind Trump's temper tantrum. This is why I would argue that he holds the vast majority of blame for the shutdown, as his position countermanded the previously stated wishes of both the House and the Senate when controlled by Republicans.

      Also, I only mentioned Alex Jones once, when your train of argument seemed incoherent. My second mention was not Alex Jones but *Alan* Jones. I was making a comparison to Australian politics when I brought up Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. They fall into a similar ultra conservative stable as those US commentators who criticized Trump when he was about to avoid the shutdown by signing the bill that would have avoided the shutdown. I equally believe they have no business in assisting to dictate Government policy like their US counterparts.

      I apologise if I cast you as a right wing lunatic. Your aggression fit with that mould that I am used to seeing from such people, but in light of your most recent two posts, I can see that you do not appear to fit that cast.

      I think there are some significant flaws with some aspects of the political platform of the US Democrats (much as I do with Liberal and Labor here in Australia), but I honestly think that Trump is not a suitable nor stable head of state given his propensity to lie and mislead on a constant basis, or switch position based on the latest television report he watched. I think he has contributed to increased instability in the US and the wider world geopolitical climate, and the US shutdown was merely another symptom of his constant seeking of public approval.

        he's definitely not a stable leader and he has certainly shaken things up, but like most presidents and leaders it's never all bad or all good, taking a different approach with North Korea finally has had some great results so far, this is partly due to China's decision not to put up with north Korea anymore. If the US and China can get north and south Korea to enter peace which will probably involve some guarantees that japan never become a nuclear power. Russia wants Korea unified also, i mean not the Russian smugglers but Putin is no friend to the current arrangement, and given the resources locked up in North Korea it's good for the whole world in terms of trade. This is just an example of good things Trump has done, while i don't think he makes a good leader the problem lies in a 2 party system that ran Hilary against him, someone who might even win a competition to be the most corrupt individual to ever run for president.

        At first glance i also believed he was a compulsive liar I think i was influenced to that end in 2 ways first a lot of the lying he is accused of is just because he talks in sweeping generalities, like when he said we have been at war in the middle east for 19 years and he gets called a liar you find out yeah sure it's not right but the truth is 18 years like meh who cares right, the second reason more important to me the difference between lying and bullshiting a liar needs to be somewhat grounded in reality because they are trying to convince you of something that isn't true, while a bullshiter need not tie themselves to or even acknowledge reality, which one really sounds like Trump?

        The problem i have with US politics is that because i defend Trump when i think hes being lied about; like the whole offending Japan by not feeding the fish correctly which was a complete load of shit, to just getting more blame than i think he deserves like the shutdown, i get accused of being a Trump supporter which is not an unreasonable conclusion to come to, but considering i don't live in the US i obviously don't know that much about most of the people who ran last time for president because it's not that important to me, which leads to me not having the alternate candidate defense. So i am paying much more attention right now hoping to have that answer after 2020 regardless of who gets in.


    In response to your post the first paragraph about parents etc you should have put that at the bottom after all the other stuff.

    The dems have refused to negotiate with Trump is maybe a bit disingenuous on my part i use the term loosely to mean Pelosi and a few others among the leadership of the house democrats. Others have tried to pass bills that have even been approved of by the dems in question i only know of 3/8. Of those 3 only 1 had wall funding and only a fraction of the funding.(considering that the 5.7b is already partial funding i think we need another term for offers less than 5.7b i will use fraction/fractional)

    So 1/3 had some wall funds but 3/3 were asking for concessions Trump would never sign off on in any case so they are playing you for a fool my friend those 3 bills are no different than Trump saying "gimme or else" i don't know about the other 5 but i have my suspicions.

    Let me try and condense your argument then counter it.

    Trump is a baby having a tantrum and is making it impossible to negotiate because he wont concede to any of the 8 bills thrown at him.

    Pelosi is a baby having a tantrum refusing to negotiate over the wall funding but simultaneously endorsing bills that either don't even give trump any wall funding in exchange for shit or give him some wall funding in exchange for shit.

    One thing you neglected to mention while trying to make me believe the dems are great and are actually the ones trying to negotiate *look at all these bills they tried to pass* while pelosi sits in the high chair saying "we will not fund the wall period, i will not negotiate" you never mentioned that at the same time Trump has said i will give you the dreamer policies you have been after and i will give you a 4 year i think it was extension on DACA.

    If these 8 bills are proof of intent to negotiate than so is the things Trump has offered, it is also a glaring hole in your argument that Trump will accept nothing other then "fine, here's what you want" i think your being partisan on this issue and ignoring some of the facts to support you point of view.

    i don't think the bills count as negotiating so maybe i'm doing the same but i think negotiation is between Trump and Pelosi and the other guy who's name i can't remember right now. i don't know exactly what the plan is but i did make a post on what i think the democrats should do in the negotiations at least to begin with i shall briefly reiterate.

    5.7b dollars for wall/800m of that is for humanitarian use along the border detention facilities but further than that i don't know the breakdown monetarily speaking.

    given that i propose they make 2 offers: if i assume that DACA and Dreamers is not enough for them.

    offer 1: Fractional funding of the wall including the 800m humanitarian aid and some division of the rest getting as close to half as possible in exchange for DACA and Dreamers.

    Offer 2: full funding of 5.7b for the wall in exchange for DACA Dreamers and something else that only hurts Trump about as much as conceding the wall funding will hurt them.

    the problem atm at least with the bills i have seen is they are asking for shit that he cannot sign off on without catastrophic damage to his 2020 race which is part of the reason he sounds so belligerent about the whole issue.

    neither side is clean on this problem my dude, Trump and the murky circumstances around the start of the shutdown is evenly balanced by the simultaneous grandstanding of Pelosi and offering bills that are sometimes just a slap in the face and other times dressed up as concessions when in reality they would get him some money in exchange for him almost guaranteeing a loss in 2020.

    Seems like the more we delve into this issue the more it seems to rely on your original position on the wall, our positions are basically the same with regards to its effects but we differ on the cost effectiveness and something loosely translated as the right to build it, i don't think it is prohibitively costly i believe your position is the opposite, and i think that as a campaign promise that has majority support among the people most effected by illegal immigration it passes the base requirements to be a viable project, this last fact actually making it more legitimate than some other projects that were implemented by presidents that were not only unpopular but not even campaign promises.

      But I'm not simply trying to make the Dems appear good, merely countering the notion that they were as intransigent as Trump. You may be right in thinking that Trump wouldn't like their attempts at negotiation, but that's how it works. You don't negotiate by giving away most of your position in the hopes of making it attractive enough, you just show the parts where you are willing to concede. /Then/ the ball is on the other person's court: A skilled negotiator would have said "only 1b out of the 5.7 I'm asking for? You are crazy, I wouldn't take less than 5b, but let's say I agree to your other conditions." Then the ball changes sides again and the first side has to say something along "No way 5b, but what if we say 2.5b and in exchange, you also agree with this..." and so on.

      Do you see what happened there? You don't have to accept the first deal proposed to you, no, that'd be ridiculous. But you take it as a willingness to sit down and further negotiate by setting the terms you'd be willing to accept. Now consider this: The Dems attempted this EIGHT times and they were rebuked every time. Further consider this: They did this while pretty much holding most of the power. First, they control the House meaning that absolutely nothing would happen unless they approve it. Second, Trump himself took the whole responsibility for the shutdown before it started (when he foolishly thought it would be a winning gambit), so every day the government remained shut and people suffered from it, more people blamed Trump that the ones that blamed /both/ him and the Dems--very few people blamed the Dems only. Third, as we have discussed before, the wall is an issue that the majority of Americans, regardless of party, doesn't care for; in other words, more Americans would be in favour of the Dems NOT giving in, that those who demanded them to do it.

      In other words, the Dems could have done absolutely nothing at all, and in the end, with airports threatening strikes, Trump still would have had to end the shutdown and get most of the blame. And yet, they tried several times to at least start negotiations. Hell, if Trump had been more intelligent than he proved to be, he could have taken any of those offers, and even without further negotiating, he'd have ended the shutdown ahead of what he actually ended with: nothing and a loss of popular confidence.

      So even if you don't like the Dems, if you believe that their attempts to end the shutdown were painfully insufficient, and that they were acting out of a partisan agenda, you still cannot take away the fact that they were the only side who did /anything at all/ to end the shutdown that was affecting hundreds of thousands of Americans.

        i can actually argue that about your conclusion, it is not a fact that the dems are the only people who tried to negotiate given that there was no formal negotiation Trump has only 2 courses of action to take that is accept one of the bills and give in, or do what he did and offer publicly some idea of the things he is willing to give the other side which was the DACA and dreamers thing these btw lost him some popularity among the old school republicans.

        So that right there is a fact that clearly demonstrates Trump trying to negotiate, now your assertion that these 8 bills where the dems attempts at negotiation, i was unable to refute much last time because i only knew 3 of them but i looked into the other 5 and i can tell you some things i learned that really sink you argument.

        2/8 bills were actually carbon copies of the original that was already rejected, so they cannot be considered negotiation period please don't try and argue they are you know better. Ok so we are down to 6 and from what i was able to gather only 3 of them mention any wall funding at all and all 3 of those where essentially for lack of a better term memes, containing concessions form Trump that the dems know full well would destroy him probably offered with that shit eating politician grin we all know. The last 3 didn't contain any wall funding but two of them seem to be legitimate attempts to negotiate i wish i could have found out who proposed them, now while these did not contain any wall funding for the obvious reason Pelosi would veto them anyway they did have some other things trump might like and Pelosi might accept, BUT just as you defend the dems saying they should just accept the offer of DACA and dreamers Trump made (which i'm not saying they have to i just think its a fair trade personally) why is it that you think he should have accepted any of these 8 bills? you are totally bias on this issue because you don't like the idea of the wall being built.

        Tell me how is any of them doing anything any different, we got trump saying i will offer DACA and Dreamers vs Pelosi saying no wall funding go fuck yourself vs pthers in the house proposing bill after bill after bill designed to achieve nothing for the most part accept trick people (looks like they got you) into thinking they are heroes trying to stop evil trump and restore the government knowing that almost nobody is going to look at the bills and see its a load of crap.

        Proposing bills is absolutely meaningless unless someone can find some miracle middle ground that makes both sides happy, which to me seems impossible because Trump wants wall money but Pelosi will never allow that; Meanwhile Trump will never sign anything without funding for the wall that is the situation they had at the time.

        So while proposing bills certainly had the desired effect of convincing people that Trump was the only thing keeping the shutdown going and that they were desperately trying to end it (sarcasm) it was not at all a legitimate attempt at negotiation.

        Given that Pelosi refused to talk to Trump the only thing he can really do is make it known what he was willing to budge on which is also a 2 part strategy of allowing the public to perhaps change to his side if they want those things and make the dems look bad and himself look good "hey guys look what im offering to them, they have been after this shit for years and im willing to give it to them, if only Pelosi would talk to me"(a single tear rolls down his cheek) you get the idea.

        Neither side really negotiated my dude the bills were a smokescreen of deception and the only saving grace Trump had was he at least named some shit that he would move on, the only argument against this cannot be proven one way or the other because you would have to know whether he was serious or not and we can't know that. If he was serious then he was the only person involved that legitimately tried if not then he was play acting at being a generous benevolent "hey guys look how generous i am and they won't even talk to me"

        So yeah in conclusion only a total partisan that is against the wall could find these 8 bills to be some kind of negotiation, and while Trump did practically fuck all he at least made clear he knew that he needed to provide something in exchange for his wall funding, so the argument that he was being a belligerent jackass and having a tantrum until they give into him and give him what he wants, i believe you likened it to a child in the supermarket, well in a tantrum you don't offer DACA and Dreamers in exchange for the candy bar do you.

        I maintain that i'm right and the only correct course of action once the shutdown has started is for those two leather faced assholes to get in a room and try to come to a compromise. Now i am not saying that they had to actually get to one just that if they don't try then they now equally share responsibility for the shutdown with Trump.

        A precise breakdown now Trump is 100% responsible for the shutdown starting but it's kind of irrelevant once the shutdowns started because once that happens you have to shift to what must be done to end it, so the dem leadership in the house namely Pelosi and Trump share responsibility 50/50. IF however they had entered negotiations given that Trump started the shitshow (and assuming both sides negotiating in good faith) he assumes full responsibility and has to just eat an unfair compromise if it's offered. Obviously not if its something outrageous that will destroy him like hes your wall funding but we also want abortion legalised federally up to 40 weeks.

        On the subject of majority support which you seem to think he should require majority support for the wall to build the wall, total rubbish but interestingly the left wing media stopped reporting the popularity data on Trump, and i wondered if that was because they didn't have any or they were hiding something. Miraculously it's the latter and as of the day after SOTU Trumps approval rating was at 52% which is a majority so can he now build the wall?

        Last edited 13/02/19 1:12 pm

          That is right, I had actually forgotten that at some point Trump did mention the DACA thing (although he quickly dropped it like it was hot after it gained him /immediate/ backlash from the most entrenched anti-immigrant side of the Conservative Right), so yeah I admit that point. However, I don't agree with the claim that he could not negotiate with the bills provided by the Dems. Again, even if he had reason to dislike them, they were an opportunity to start a conversation; it was not just as black or white as you put it "accept the bills or not".

          Let us say, for the sake of the argument, that Trump's mention of DACA proves that he was willing to negotiate. Alright, then, that moves the blame from Trump to the far-right people who criticised him for doing so AND to Mitch McConnell who was the one to simply turn down the Dems' attempts at negotiating without possibility for further exchanges. If that were the scenario, I'd still say that Trump is to blame for not exercising his power to do what it was necessary (sit down and negotiate). That always has been a problem with Trump: he's super harsh and strong when it comes to making shows of power to his opposition, but he folds like a wet napkin to criticism or intervention from his own side.

          Lastly, let's not forget that Trump started the shutdown as yourself cannot refute. If you agree that negotiating with the Dems was the right way to go about it, why didn't he do that as a first measure, rather than starting a sort of hostage scenario to try to force a favourable outcome? I remind you that the House was still under the GOP when he started the shutdown, and flipped to the Dems during the shutdown. So I ask you to ask yourself: why nobody is talking about Trump shutting down the government when his party controlled both Senate and the House? How come that a GOP-controlled House didn't give Trump the money either and why aren't the pro-wall people more outraged by the fact that a conservative House didn't get him the money? And lastly, how come that after almost two weeks of that, when the Dems took the House, it became all of a sudden their fault? (You may not be aware of this, but when the shutdown first started, the Senate and House quickly approved a bill containing a comprehensive plan for border security--but not the money for the wall-- and that could have been the end of it all, but /again/, Trump got heat from far-right pro-wallers and he backed down from taking that bill.)

          As you see, at this point it should be clear that the wall is pushed aggressively by a very small but very loud minority (and let's not kid ourselves, it's mostly comprised of racists) who unfortunately, can directly control the POTUS by calling him a "pussy" in far-right media whenever he doesn't seem to be fighting for the wall as hard as he could, to the exclusion of everything else.

          At this point, I feel the need to ask you again: what are your stakes on this wall business? You dislike Trump, you don't think that the wall is truly necessary or that it will necessarily be efficient... so what is it to you? I have a theory, please tell me if I'm not close: you may dislike Trump but you /hate/ the Dems (strongly hinted by several turns of phrase you use when talking about them). I imagine that it is because they are the party more associated with progressive stances to which you have railed against in different threads? Regardless, you personally may not give a crap for the wall as you have admitted, but you really want the Dems to lose in what's probably the biggest "tug-of-war" between the US parties in modern history, isn't that it? That's why in your conversations with me and another person in this thread you keep calling "I'm right/you are wrong". The discussion is ultimately not about the wall, but about validation about political positions.

          Last but not least, I must refute this:

          interestingly the left wing media stopped reporting the popularity data on Trump, and i wondered if that was because they didn't have any or they were hiding something.

          Nobody has been hiding anything, the data is still there and it's pretty much the same it's been for the last two years: ping-ponging between 36 and 42% approval https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo (hence why you don't hear much about it nowadays, it's not remarkable news anymore--his entrenched supporters approve of him religiously, while the rest of America generally disapproves). I really don't know where you got 52%; as you can see in the graph and accompanying details, even the pollers with the most generous results for Trump have not reported that much approval to Trump in at least three months. On the other hand, 52% is his average disapproval for the last year. Maybe is that the number you saw?

          Last edited 14/02/19 2:20 pm

            i cannot find the 52% again but i think i got bait n switched by rasmussen my point was only that his approval has risen due to a couple of things, at the time i made the statement anyway things may have changed i haven't paid much attention the last few days, the dems don't have a centrist candidate (at least they didn't last time i looked) that is gathering any significant support. SOTU was well received by independents and the left wing, his approval from the right didn't shift much at all, progressives and the further left still hate him but they can never be persuaded otherwise no matter what he does. And the dems have made some gaffs green new deal etc. Anyway this is irrelevant your either going to agree his approval rose or your going to argue with me about it still not reaching 50% i don't care what it is really just that it was rising due to the above mentioned developments.

            I do not hate the democrats on the whole the same way i don't hate the republicans i certainly hate more of the dems at the moment but 10 years ago i would have been left of centre now i'm on the right so it only makes sense i would have more of a problem with them.

            Trump not being able to push through a deal after the midterms but before the change in the house? seriously my dude he was able to sign or not sign he wasn't able to get something new drawn up by people who at the time are just placeholders until the new house was formed. That being said the things you talk about with regards to the far right conservatives and the "mah racists" argument, i'm not playing that game period, i don't have the time nor the inclination to go through with you each of these people and argue which ones are racists and which aren't the idea that most of them are tells me enough about your views to move on. Trump has an issue within the republican party you probably know about already but there are some people referred to as the never trumpers, they have been getting in his way a lot actually almost always when trying to compromise in some way with the more ridiculous conservative positions, being that they are mostly far right or just jealous he managed to accomplish what they could not like John McCain. They don't like him because he basically a 90's democrat thats y we saw all that bible thumping crap during the election etc you know all the stupid lies and shit hes pulled over the last few years to try and placate these people.

            So as far as the shutdown goes yes Trump started it under dubious circumstances but he cannot negotiate with an outgoing house especially knowing that the dems will be in control by the time it comes to signing a new Bill, im not going to bother trying to convince you that the 8 bills proposed where total crap i mad the argument you ignored it. However they were not proposed by the people who's role it is to negotiate with Trump that was Pelosi and fucking whats his face, anyway the point is that responsibility for negotiating a new deal falls squarely on Trump and Pelosi now you can argue about whether Trump was being sincere and about whether he really would have let them have the DACA extension i think he would, BUT you cannot argue that Pelosi was willing to negotiate because some other people proposed bills. The bills themselves are not negotiation in any case and you know that, if he is presented with a bill his only choice is sign it or not sign it, the whole idea is that you negotiate between 2 parties in this case Trump (representing the executive branch) and Pelosi (representing the house) you come to some agreement and compromise. Pelosi refused point blank like 100 times to negotiate with Trump, yet you still argue that it is all Trumps fault i just don't understand anybody looking at this entire situation objectively would come to the conclusion that both sides played a role. The only wiggle room you have is arguing who was worse and i don't really give a shit who behaved worse i mean i say wiggle room but i don't think you will ever have a situation while Trump is president where there is some kind of clash and he doesn't behave worse that is just who he is.

            I have found that arguing about the wall with people who are against it well they fall into 2 categories, the first is just an imbecile who thinks the wall is racist; and may have many other arguments that they use but if you press them enough they always breakdown and tell the truth at which point you can ignore them because they have the IQ of a cauliflower. The other and this is where i would place you have legitimate points to make about the efficacy of the wall and it's potential impact on immigration, drugs etc. The other argument they make i find is always bullshit and that is the cost argument 5.7b or 23b either number it makes no difference because they either don't know how a budget works or they pray that i don't.

            Lets ignore all the other arguments about the wall because i probably agree with all of them yet i still say let him build the fucking wall, lets focus on the cost argument. We will use 5.7b as that was the figure that caused the shutdown, the argument is always about better things to spend it on like education, opioid epidemic etc but the wall funding is not being taken away from these things in fact Trump has tried to solve this issue any number of different ways, 10b a year is sent to Mexico alone in humanitarian aide most of it probably never even lands within the neighborhood of the poor let alone does anything to help Mexico in a humanitarian way, so why not let him use that money to build the wall, NO NO NO the poor in mexico need that money how could you why won't anyone think of the children blah blah blah.

            So next it was y not take it out of defense spending and what do you know the fucking dems went apeshit because at least 30% of them are fucking warmongers hell pulling out of Syria should save some money already. I could keep going but i will just get to the point and the point is that no matter what it is that you ask people to cut the spending on people who are against the wall always argue that it can't be used because it is vital, and that stinks to high heaven anybody arguing that the budget (remember its like 4 trillion dollars) is not pissing away at least 5.7b somewhere ineffectively is lying. You probably won't admit it but i wan't you to seriously consider the idea that nowhere in the budget is 5.7b being spent on something completely ineffective, it's not possible for this to be true and as much as you argue the wall is useless my position is that there is at least 50-100b spent every single year on useless shit. Think how much we in Australia waste every year on completely useless red tape bureaucratic bloat. Consider the education argument we were having the other day when i was trying to point out how useless more money would be for the US federal education system, College has gotten twice as expensive and 25% less good. (wish i could remember the phrasing from the fkn study it's basically saying people pay twice as much to be 75% as qualified). That cost is almost entirely due to administrative bloat, it's not costing twice as much to learn less fkn shit, it's the explosion in admin positions needing to be paid and i'm telling you right now almost all colleges in the US rely very heavily on government funding, if they are told to reduce the student/administrator ratio back to what it was 10-15 years ago they will fucking cry about it but if you make the government funding conditional on it they will make it work.

            You ask me to reflect on why i advocate for the wall to be built like it is inherently a bad thing, it's just a fucking wall my dude and walls are not racist, i also believe in doors on my house so people can't just walk in make a sandwich and then fuck off with my TV. I realise it is a very simple comparison but that is exactly the kind of thing people who advocate for the wall think. They aren't thinking "well there just too much Mexican food in my suburb, time to get rid of all the brown people" now i would like to point out these people are distinct from the politicians who advocate for the wall i don't know why they care, the people crossing the border aren't ever coming into contact with them unless it's a cleaning lady or a fkn pool boy.

            The economic argument doesn't make sense from a macro perspective it only makes sense if your look at it on a micro level as X thing loses 5.7b. You maybe think that spending the money fighting the opioid crisis is better i would agree but these are not the alternatives we are looking at my dude. That 5.7b might not be spent on the wall which i'm sure would make you happy but the idea it will be spent more effectively or on something more worthy is complete nonsense and we both know that.

    Anyway this is irrelevant your either going to agree his approval rose or your going to argue with me about it still not reaching 50% i don't care what it is really just that it was rising due to the above mentioned developments.

    Please just check the link I posted in my previous comment. While it's true that the SOTU caused a modest spike in approval (which is already cooling down) that spike didn't even truly manage to get his approval back to the place it was before the shutdown (which was his highest in two years... a whopping 42.8%). No tides are turning, no masses are coming around... you just got enthusiastic because one feel-good speech recovered /some/ of the popularity lost to the shutdown. (Please, if you're going to try to refute this, provide hard, numerical evidence as I have, instead of anecdotal or subjective readings on the population's mood.)

    Trump not being able to push through a deal after the midterms but before the change in the house? seriously my dude he was able to sign or not sign he wasn't able to get something new drawn up by people who at the time are just placeholders until the new house was formed.

    I'll repeat it in case you missed it: Right after the shutdown, a satisfactory Republican-controlled-Congress Border Security bill was drafted and almost approved right away by Trump, ending the shutdown. Far-righters pressured Trump to step back. Also, not sure if you have read the news but a bill very similar to that one was just finally passed an approved--still sans the money, after Trump realised how unsuccessful and chaotic (and damaging to his popularity) a second shutdown would be. (Obviously, this, once again attracted the wrath of the far-righters, but to Trump's credit, he--for once--pushed through.) I hope I don't have to point out to you how this literally means that the shutdown was entirely unnecessary and a waste of everybody's time and money.

    the "mah racists" argument, i'm not playing that game period, i don't have the time nor the inclination to go through with you each of these people and argue which ones are racists and which aren't

    Yep, you and I both know who are the racists. They display it proudly on their sleeves and talk loudly about it. The only difference between you and I is that you'd prefer if the word "racist" was never uttered again and the whole argument was shut down. I, on the other hand, will call racists by what they are and acknowledge when they use their bigotry in positions of power and popularity to sway the masses with distorted narratives. Do you resent that people who are not racist are called "racist"? Then you, too, should do your part to expose and excise the true racists so they would stop selling racist narratives to thoughtless partisans--which is what gets them called "racist".

    im not going to bother trying to convince you that the 8 bills proposed where total crap i mad the argument you ignored it.

    You keep making my argument something that it is not in order to refute it. I haven't claimed the bills were good, I've claimed that they were demonstrations of willingness to negotiate. Again: no attempt to negotiate EVER is going to start with "Yes, sir, here's 99.9% of what you want... m-maybe, it would be fine if we don't give you the 0.01% left? P-pretty please, sir?" So yes, of course that the bills were blatantly unfavourable. But that's when a skilled negotiator rises to the challenge: declines the bill but offers a counterproposal. This is what Trump and McConnel failed to do, time after time for their own detriment. As I said, if they had taken any of those deals, they would have come ahead from where they started PLUS get to claim that they ended the shutdown. Imagine how much better they could have got away with if they had agreed to negotiate? But in the end, they didn't and they were left with the same they started with (nothing) plus a massive hit to their popularity.

    Lets ignore all the other arguments about the wall because i probably agree with all of them yet i still say let him build the fucking wall

    WHY? Whyyyy??? You keep trying to, at best, minimise or downplay the reasons why a wall should NOT be built and have basically nothing to support why it should be built, so why at the end of the argument, your conclusion is /still/ "just let him build it"? It's unnecessary (unexistent "crisis" as illegal immigration numbers are lowest in a decade), most likely useless (as most experts on the matter consistently agree), very expensive (regardless what you think about other uses for the money--for each of your concerns regarding the efficiency or necessity of such expenditure, you cannot say they would be any more wasteful and inefficient than the wall itself), has environmental and legal implications (privately-owned lands would have to be seized or split-up, to mention one) and is pushed mainly by a loud minority (including people with dubious motivations). On the other side, you only have "the Dems should have negotiated better with Trump" and "why not, it's just a fucking wall". If it's just a fucking wall, then why not NOT build it? The government was shut down, causing financial harm to thousands of people over this matter, so again: if it's "just a fucking wall" and it's dividing the country and harming its citizens... why not just stop trying to build it? Why not? It's just a fucking wall!

    How can you say that you sit "in the centre" for this matter when time after time, objection after objection, you keep arriving at the same indulgent conclusion? Since you deny that it's out of dislike for the Dems, please explain it to me (because you still haven't done it). It's kind of useless for me to argue about something when I cannot even tell what is your angle.

      i never said anything about tides or any of the shit you said, what i said was at the time his approval had risen which you also just conceded While it's true that the SOTU caused a modest spike in approval and i was hoodwinked by rasmussen because i looked for the most recent polling data and they happened to be the most recent saying 52% i was in a hurry and i didn't read the by line. not that it makes any difference as i wasn't making any of the arguments you are attributing to me. If your trying to throw shade at my other comments about the dems shitting the bed at the time as subjective whatever then i can't help you because your not arguing in good faith, that is how political discourse works my dude they don't poll the country every 2 days to find out how the latest gaffs have impacted voting intentions.

      You linked aggregate polls i am not retarded ok i can fucking read, how about you tell me what is the magic number Trump can reach that will stop you being 100% against anything that comes out of his mouth huh. Because anything above about 35% is pretty good, i simply made an argument about his current approval rising and i was right at the time you admit that, then i went on to talk about completely different issues regarding his 2020 chances something you have completely ignored.

      I hope I don't have to point out to you how this literally means that the shutdown was entirely unnecessary and a waste of everybody's time and money.

      firstly the media was constantly talking about trump fighting for the wall that is good for him, secondly does he now have some wall funding that he did not have before the shutdown? the answer is yes.

      and now onto the well beaten drum of racists.
      are there racist in US politics? yes
      are there anywhere near the number you seem to think? nope
      are there racists among the US population? yes
      are there anywhere near enough to effect policy? nope
      12,000 approximately is the number and that is from left wing sources my dude not fucking fox news or whatever you assume i would watch, think about the population of the US then tell me how 12,000 people spread over the whole country are effecting anything on a national scale.

      again with the fucking 8 bills you are being completely partisan man you cannot see the truth.

      HI IM A BILL (this is my contents) = option a sign or option b don't sign.
      Trump says i want to negotiate with Polosi, again that is how negotiation is done the speaker talks to the president and they try to work out a compromise, the problem is you want the bill signed because it doesn't give Trump what he wants which happens to be what you want (no wall funding). 2 of the 8 bills where identical to the first one he rejected Y SHOULD HE SIGN IT i only know of 1 that even had a single cent in it for the wall, where the fuck do u get this 99.9% to 0.1% comparison??? they offered him 7 bills with not a single cent for the wall how is that 99.9% of what he wanted?? your so utterly partisan in this discussion Jesus man that is a completely ridiculous comparison. Hell the deal he ended up with was what 20% of the money he was asking for and he still according to you "defied the far right" and accepted it.

      if they had taken any of those deals, they would have come ahead from where they started PLUS get to claim that they ended the shutdown. no they fucking wouldn't because the whole reason for the shutdown was to fund the wall and only 1/8 even had wall funding in it meaning that no 7/8 of the fucking bills would have completely fucked them over with their supporters.

      I get it your absolutely 100% opposed to the wall being built you don't care how its funded and you see racists everywhere, you try and imply that i think racism is ok just because i disagree with you about the size and scope of racism in the US... that is just wow.. so rude man.

      You can't see my angle because you can't look at this issue with any objectivity, you cant even separate the wall from your fear of rampant racism. You say why build the wall illegal immigration is at its lowest etc... do you think all illegal immigrants go home like at Christmas or something? the fact that Trumps rhetoric against illegal immigration has been enough to stifle the flow of illegals is actually amazing but the US already has over 30 million illegals in the US and it is impossible to tell how much they are draining the system. And i know all the arguments from both sides so just do me a favor and don't ok. It is a fact depending on what predictive models you use that a slight to overwhelming majority of illegals drain more out of the economy than they provide, the KEY detail is that no matter which models your using you at least starting with a slim majority, meaning that illegals are a net detriment to the US it is nowhere near the amounts quoted by right wingers i will concede that, but you seem to be missing the point.

      The wall will have an impact on illegal immigration i know you think all the experts say no it won't but that is because you only listen to one side of the argument, i have consumed a lot of documentation and watched plenty of the footage/arguments and debates used by right wingers when they try and justify the stupid shit they say about how massively effective the wall will be but they are just as full of shit as you are when you say it will have no effect and it's too costly.

      I conceded that the money could be spent better in some ways but i also tried to illuminate the fact that the people of the US are not being given that option and you know this is true, money is wasted all the time on many different things the only reason you care so much about money being wasted on the wall is because your anti wall it's no different than people who argue against funding abortion. I know this won't help you understand where i am coming from because you can't see my point and you might never see it but it isn't because i haven't laid it out. You can't see my point of view because this is a hyper partisan issue for you i really wan't to help you see my point but i can't do anything about it. I could write you 50 comments detailing my point of view trying to show you how i see the issue but it won't do anything you clearly cannot see this issue from any other point of view your a lost cause when it comes to the wall.

      The only wall positive thing i haven't mentioned so far is that if the wall is completed at least the US population has 1 less wedge issue for politicians to use against them in the race for president, the last 30 years this fucking border has been a hot button issue in every election and almost universally the promise has been A PHYSICAL BARRIER TO ENTRY, but when someone actually tries to do it you suddenly lose your shit? who's really go a problem here me or you?

        and i was hoodwinked by rasmussen because i looked for the most recent polling data and they happened to be the most recent saying 52% i was in a hurry and i didn't read the by line
        If you're going to contribute to an in-depth conversation, you can't just skim a headline and go off half-cocked. That's exactly what Trump does. He just makes shit up. That's why people think he's a moron. So if you don't want people to think the same of you, don't act that way. FACTS MATTER. I can't believe that this is even something that has to be said, but in the wake of the Trump cult, it does. It's insanity.

        Trump says i want to negotiate with Polosi, again that is how negotiation is done
        BUT THAT'S ALL HE DOES. He never actually negotiates. He just chucks a tantrum and demands his way or the highway. That's why he declared a national emergency when in his own words "I didn't need to do this." Then he went off and played golf for three days straight. If there's a national emergency, he shouldn't be playing golf for three days in a row after declaring it, he should be DEALING WITH THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY. But he's not because the "emergency" is total BS.

        Your argument for the wall so far has been little more than "He wants to build it so he should get to build it." Or the "WE NEED BORDER SECURITY" catchphrase even though the wall is not actually going to make anywhere near the difference that it does in Trump's fantasy reality where everyone thinks his ideas are great. I want a billion dollars, so that means I should get it. It's the logic of a five year old.

        Seriously mate, you need to take a hard look at reality. Not the bullshit that Trump spews out on a daily basis, the majority of which can be repudiated by an even remote acquaintance with the truth. The man is a pathological liar. I don't know whether your anger management issues are causing problems there, but really, chill out and start examining situations WITHOUT getting emotionally involved for or against a side.

          First things first i see that something Trump related has set you off again and you have decided to come and abuse me for it like i had something to do with it, very mature. So you call me an insane cultist well done, you know if you want i can save you the time in future, i'm capable of imagining a foaming at the mouth anti Trump human male ranting at me while not actually responding to anything i said for the most part.

          Your first paragraph: Well done you managed to somehow not get a word of what i was saying, the rasmussen poll is almost surely wrong but it doesn't matter because the POINT I WAS MAKING IF YOU KNEW HOW TO READ was that in the days after SOTU Trump was experiencing a rise in approval which is one of those FACTS you love so much. Whether the poll is wrong or not is irrelevant to the point and you know it that is why you once again make some tangential argument regarding Trumps behavior and call me an insane cultist because you don't want a debate you just want to abuse someone because Trump makes you angry.

          second paragraph: he never actually negotiates you say, that's funny considering Pelosi was the one saying "i will not negotiate" so what we really have here is it's okay when your side does it but not if Trump does it. The national emergency is bullshit but the only reason he can get away with it now is because of the behavior of Pelosi and others during the shutdown. You want to blame someone for the shutdown blame the people who gave him the ammunition he needed to legally enact the fucking thing.

          Paragraph 3: yes that is exactly my my position.... apart form you know how you phrase it which is wrong. He promised to build the wall i know it's strange to see a politician actually fighting hard to achieve an election promise but just because it's unusual doesn't make it wrong. And countries do nee border security it's one of the things that defines an area of land as a country you fool.
          As for the second half of that paragraph he actually wants more than that, way to pay attention you know that FACTS MATTER right, the only 5 year old here is you. Both sides here a playing to their bases and your being played for a fool along with many many others. Lets look at the facts plus the spin the democrats (spin) we didn't capitulate to the evil orange man and now (this is the fact part) he's declared a bullshit national emergency, the democrats knew he would do it because he already floated the idea before the shutdown, he would have failed before the shutdown but now after all the obstruction he will probably succeed. So the dems who have continually painted the wall as a racist/useless/wasteful idea now get to grandstand about how they opposed the evil Trump and get brownie points for it even though they stopped nothing in the end and even helped him to secure the funding he wanted without getting him to compromise on a single thing. This is a betrayal of their supporters all in an effort to dirty Trump for the 2020 election, your being led around by the nose.

          Trump on the other hand is saying well they wouldn't negotiate with me (fact) then he starts the bullshit emergency... What am i supposed to do if they won't negotiate?? (total spin bullshit) he was happy they wouldn't negotiate knowing it would give him what he needed to declare the emergency and it plays to his supporters they all know the emergency is bullshit too but they don't care because they are stupid enough to believe the democrats didn't know it was coming and believe all the omg shrieking from the dems they see it like some kind of fuck the swamp thing. They don't care if it's bullshit they just want to hear left wingers crying about it especially considering they can't do anything about it.

          As usual your completely distracted by irrelevant surface level shit just like the shutdown you couldn't get over the facts surrounding how it started and look objectively at the situation with regards to negotiation, you completely excuse your sides refusal to negotiate like it's somehow noble because of how Trump started the shutdown, anything less than him accepting whatever bill is handed to him by anyone on your side of politics is a tantrum and it all stems form how he started the shutdown. Now it's going to happen all over again with the emergency and you can leave me out of it.

          Your last paragraph: More abuse and that part about taking a hard look at reality, why don't you try that instead of being led around by the constant distraction bullshit peddled from the left. First you accused me of being some moron repeating right wing talking points from Rush Limbough, Ann Coulter, fox and friends, Alex Jones, Alan Jones and others none of whom i listen too, then you appologise for it now your accusing me of doing the same thing with regards to what Trump says again i notice without providing a single scrap of evidence just like last time.

          On the lying subject you say Trump is a pathological liar after accusing me of being some sort of puppet that at least listens and believes everything Trump says, it's not much a stretch to also think your implying that i also repeat these things, therefore your calling me a liar again without showing a single piece of evidence. facts matter you know

          Firstly i don't think you know what a pathological liar is considering how you use the term secondly there is a difference between lying which he does do and talking in generalities which he also does but is constantly called lies by the left wing media. For example when he said that the US had been at war in the middles east for 19 years and the leftists went nuts because it's only been 18 years. There is also the propaganda angle where you omit things counter to the narrative your pushing something Fox News is regularly caught doing but you see this as lying and it isn't. It's dishonest but both sides do it so i dismiss it like any normal rational human.(Russian collusion anyone)

          If you actually separated his lies form the other stuff and put his lies up against all the fake news shit we have had to put up with like Russia, Pissgate, fish-feeding, a tape of him saying the N word etc. I bet you he wins, what i mean is he has lied less than he has been lied about by the left wing media.

          So now Trump has called a national emergency and that sets you off so you come here to abuse me well i'm not your fucking punching bag pal, you can't just come in here and abuse be every time Trump burns your nuts especially if you going to ignore 90% of what i say and call me a puppet or a liar without any evidence. I think you should take your won advice and chill the fuck out and stop getting emotional every time Trump does something you don't like.

            Fuck man. You accuse me of reading and you don't do it yourself. I said the Trump cult that doesn't care about facts is insanity. I never said you were part of it. YOU placed yourself in that boat. I didn't. I thought you might actually be able to have a reasoned debate again, but you've interpreted generic statements as personal attacks on you. That is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my last paragraph. You literally just proved my fucking point.

            If you don't want to be a "punching bag", as you put it, don't just make shit up. Provide sources. You can't, and then you get mad when you get called on it. That's not my fault. It's yours. The fact that you're still dismissing Russian collusion despite how the Trump and his team changed their story on the Trump Tower meeting multiple times is just baffling. At the very least he was attempting get dirt from a foreign power on his political opponent, and that's a fact AS DEMONSTRATED BY HIS OWN SON'S EMAILS. Seriously, what does this guy have to do in order for you to stop defending him?

            I returned here because I thought the "national emergency" declaration was a salient point that would lead to some interesting debate. But its clear that you simply don't want to hear anything that contradicts with your view of the world. I'm sorry, but that's not healthy. That's the reality Trump lives in. Get out of it. Please. Democracy across the world requires it to function successfully.

              either you think im one of these nutbag cultists or it is irrelevant. Anybody with an IQ north of cabbage can see these people for what they are i don't need your superior intellect to come and let me know that morons exist and some of them back Trump.

              You ask me to provide sources so again there you go not attacking a single point i have made just call me a liar, I don't have to provide sources you idiot if you want to disprove something i have said then you provide a source that contradicts it, assuming you can actually remember a single point i have made. You haven't "called me" on a single thing i have said accept when i ADMITTED that i got it wrong with the rasmussen poll, and since i'm the only one of us that can actually admit when he's wrong that makes me better than you. bet that hurts.

              you say i have to provide sources yet you can barely even remember a single point i have made because it's all tangents and irrelevant arguments with you and fucking strawmanning what i say by dismissing the ENTIRE post i make as some kind of regurgitation of whatever right winger is the flavor of the day for you. first its Alex Jones then you realise you fucked that one up and now it's Trump i'm just a parrot apparently. This is all your fault.

              "Trump Colluded with Russia" you say that is all evidence, you know how i know it is bullshit because the "Russia investigation" found nothing but a couple people who lied about shit that wasn't collusion, even though they had a mandate to investigate anything they wanted the sheer scope of the mandate given to them should alarm anybody who believes in freedom and privacy but you couldn't care less, it's just get Trump for something at any cost because your a complete ideologue. Do i think that Russia hacked the DNC? yeh probably although that was never actually proven and the data that they had regarding the breach was deleted so we will never know for sure. But there is no evidence that Trump or the Trump campaign orchestrated or co-operated with the Russians if there was he wouldn't be in office anymore. Get your head out of your ass.

              the national emergency definitely is relevant i don't know why everyone is surprised i knew this was coming by the 3rd week of the shutdown because i knew he would have a strong enough position given the obstruction during the shutdown to try for the national emergency. He would have failed if he tired before the shutdown but now he might actually get away with it and if you think that snake Pelosi didn't know this would happen then your just a fool. The entire shutdown and also now with the emergency is just leftists trying to dirty Trump up before 2020 and Trump pandering to his base saying look at me ill fight for what i promise. Just wait and see the absolute trash he promises for 2020 and people will believe he will deliver just by the fact of how hard he's "fighting for the wall" and he wont have any intention of doing most of it. Trump will win again and it will be yeh again mostly the democrats fault.

              If you really wanted a productive debate on this issue you wouldn't have come in calling me a liar again, remember how said i was just believing the crap Trump says etc.

              If you really want me to be convinced of this genuine effort for a dialogue you will stop playing the same game far right and far left plays and just saying your a liar unless you show proof, which is meaningless in any case because anything i provide as proof you will just say is some right wing propaganda or right wing lie. im not sure if you realise this but your doing the exact same thing as me and then apparently "calling me on it" i dont see any sources about his sons emails here or any of the other stuff you said about Russian collusion no you expect that i have read this stuff and therefore all you need to do is reference it, and if i haven't seen it then im expected to go find it and fucking read it. Well how about you do the same thing with the stuff i write not my opinions obviously there is no source for that maybe that is your problem..... you don't realise that my opinion doesn't have a source like yours does maybe that is why you keep trying to paint me as some right winger mouth piece are you trying to "find a source" for my opinions.... well goodluck with that i actually make up my own mind after looking at evidence.

              And unlike you i don't subjectively change the definition of evidence when it comes to things like "ma Russia" "this email here it proves collusion doesn't matter if there isn't even close to enough evidence for any kind of legal action if it convinces me then it's evidence enough"

              talking to people like you is actually worse than talking to the far right nutters because you can see all the distraction bullshit and the propaganda they spew out, but your absolutely blind to everything of the exact same nature coming from the left and it is so annoying.

              Edit: im the only person as far as i can remember on this forum that has ever admitted to being wrong and i have done it several times, nobody else here does it they just yell liar or troll or something else so they can run away form the debate.

              Last edited 23/02/19 8:23 pm

            I don't have to provide sources you idiot if you want to disprove something i have said then you provide a source that contradicts it
            Wrong. If you make a claim, you need to back it up.
            For example, your ongoing claims about the SOTU "success" - which to be fair to you, yes, pylgrim called you on that, not me, but in our previous discourse I asked you to back up your claims with sources repeatedly, which you were never able to do. If you cannot back up a claim with a factual source, it is reasonable to assume that claim is bullshit.
            So again, let's go to your SOTU claims:

            the SOTU approval numbers across all the lefty media had him at between 72 and 76% well that is the SOTU approval numbers not Trump approval
            Miraculously it's the latter and as of the day after SOTU Trumps approval rating was at 52% which is a majority so can he now build the wall?
            i cannot find the 52% again but i think i got bait n switched by rasmussen my point was only that his approval has risen

            In other words, you made a claim, it was refuted, but you still try to claim it's true even though (to your credit) you also admitted your failure when you said:
            i was hoodwinked by rasmussen because i looked for the most recent polling data and they happened to be the most recent saying 52% i was in a hurry and i didn't read the by line
            pylgrim did correctly note that there was a MILD spike in approval after the SOTU, but that was quickly eroded, and at no point was the SOTU anywhere near the success you claimed. You made an uninformed and poorly researched comment, but when called on it, you still attempted to stick to your guns and say it was an absolute truth.

            Again, this has been the problem with the majority of your arguments in the entire comment chain. You complain about being called a liar, but have consistently just made things up without any evidence. If you don't want to be called a liar, the simple solution is just to stop lying in this fashion.

            All this said, I should admit some fault in this discourse, because I have approached it from a fact based angle, which as has been proven a number of times (https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/a-behavioral-scientist-explains-how-to-deal-with-people-who-believe-things-that-are-just-not-true.html and https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds) is actually counterproductive for trying to communicate or convince an intransigent individual with an emotional investment in their position. You're clearly in that boat, and I'm sorry that I simply don't possess the skills to deal with you appropriately. For that, you have my apology. For everything else, I simply no longer care about anything you have to say.

              sorry i read like 5 lines of your bullshit and i'm done, no thanks

              I'm sick of being called a liar by a total ideologue.

              As usual you cannot refute anything i have said so you just call me a liar don't ever talk to me again i have had enough of your crap.

              the fact that you assume lies is rather telling, your a hyper partisan the only right wing opinion your even aware of is the farthest right that exists you don't look at the opposing opinions, the fact is that the SOTU stuff your whinging about is 100% true, approval rates from 72-76% your just too stupid to understand that these numbers have nothing to do with his actual approval rate, i admit to a mistake and now that is all you can talk about you just keep going on about it like its somehow proof i'm a liar.... really?

              the fact that i admitted i was wrong doesn't make any dent to your thick smug little brain

              i never lie about anything, you can have a big cry about me not providing evidence whilst doing the exact same thing but from now on you can do it alone with yourself.


              Last edited 24/02/19 6:03 pm


    I was planning to address this one point at a time but i'm not going to anymore, you are selectively quoting very small portions of an enormous post to make your case i find that to be quite petty. I wish actually i could get you on discord i think it would be much better to have these talks where we can hear tone and also have a lot more conversation in a much shorter time these post are huge but we are not getting much in the way of understanding out of them.

    So i will try and give you an overview again of what i believe while addressing some of the things you said in your reply, but first i need to define a few terms and also an exemption jokes are the exemption and the terms are harassment which is both illegal and a breach of TOS and is the actual thing you have an issue with but you don't know it, the other term would be offensive/offending/offended any of these, your problem and one you share with the rabid SJW's is you cannot see the difference between harassment and something offensive. For offensive behavior to reach the level of harassment it must at a bare minimum be ongoing and you must also have asked the person to stop doing it.(this is important because on the internet where most of this shit takes place, you don't have tone or body language so you must explicitly tell the person to stop or you know just block them) now the other thing i haven't done is tell you when i support going after someone for harassment leading you to your absurd conclusions that i think everything is fine and dandy just some snowflakes bitching over nothing. If your going at someone and they ask you to stop several times then its harassment, if you block them and they make new accounts to continue to speak with you or direct others to speak to you on their behalf (depending on what it is they might try to appologise for example) this is also harassment, this should result in immediate action you start with 3day ban the 7 then 2weeks then one month and you stay at one month, finding someone who would engage in this kind of thing is step 1 step 2 is fixing them and you won't get that by getting them sacked or getting the account terminated, you train them like a dog using the suspensions trust me it works.

    Now this whole hurt feelings tirade you went on comparing SJW's to some kind of kindly saints and the people making jokes or straight up trying to insult someone as filthy trolls with the actual fragile feelings well i think your being a complete asshole because there is a world of difference between hurting someones feelings and wearing the retorts, to a bunch of SJW's trying to get you censored off the the platform or maybe trying to take away your job, losing your fucking job or even you social media accounts is not equivalent to hurting someones feelings, firstly you don't have the right not to be offended even on social media it is not part of the TOS that you will not be offended. Sometimes people are deliberately trying to offend someone in response to things they have said or done, that is a totally legitimate form of speech and it cuts both ways i support the SJW's right to abuse someone if they are deliberately trying to offend someone, but you keep your overly moralistic hands of jokes and you stop going after peoples jobs and accounts then we can have a fair playing field.

    With regard to the blackface thing and the statistical breakdown of people saying he must resign vs those that didn't care, you completely missed my point because you come at the information assuming i'm some kind of bigot, the point i was making was firstly that the majority of black people who are the only demographic whose opinion is relevant because they are the only demographic who might "justifiably" take offence, in this case the majority of blacks didn't care about it, yet white people did which shows the truth of this issue. White upper middle class guilt, the reason most minorities don't care about this shit is because they have other more important shit to worry about on the whole being less wealthy than whites. SJW activism is the realm of well off white liberal guilt for the most part also with youtube and other social media you have the element of vested interests, people who make a living off perpetuating the narrative that racism and discrimination is on the rise and something needs to be done about it. Perpetuating this narrative by hounding the government and legislative branches of the respective governments to enact policies that find hate crime where there is none, take for example the UK like i mentioned before thousands of "hate crimes" almost entirely made up of "mean shit on twitter" reported by either thin skinned pussies or assholes with the malicious intent of harming someone else.

    You talk a big game about representing minorities but your just assuming that SJW's actually represent the voices of the minority, just like they called for the blackface dude to resign which was completely counter to the wishes of minorities, SJW's continually and arrogantly presume they speak for minorities as you just did they have no idea what minorities want and never bother to ask, because it's actually just about making yourself feel better. SJW's reel from signal boosting bullshit statistics and provably false hate crimes to victimising people on twitter for either offending someone making an edgy joke or my favorite calling black people who disagree coons.

    You talk a good game about the conservative side controlling the narrative and assuming bullshit at every turn but it is not an assumption if your proven right all the time its common sense. You also mentioned not bothering to show me this mythical beast known as an "actual hate crime" and i read your crude evasive reasoning, but luckily i was doing some searching over the last week, i gave up after i investigated 33 "incidents" ranging from high profile and low profile "hate crimes" i used left leaning sources and imagine my surprise 33/33 total bullshit which was actually surprising i was thinking i might mange around 90% but i think this proves my point. Not all hate crimes are bullshit just nearly all of them i'm sure that real hate crimes have happened i just can't fucking find any, so i think the idea that society needs some kind of social movement to fight back is complete nonsense which is why most of the SJW actions are nonsense. SJW's are mostly concerned with self aggrandisement and virtue signalling and they "exploit" the minorities they apparently advocate for to do it, I don't consider all SJW's the same i don't lump you into this category but in my personal experience it is almost guaranteed if someone calls themselves an SJW they fall into the above mentioned category.

    So yes, if we are going to achieve a more just society, minorities need allies within the majority group and finally, in this generation, it is starting to happen in mass, you like it or not.

    I don't accept this as a true statement of fact, it's not accurate that minorities need allies especially not the SJW movement. Minorities do not need help take for example gay marriage which has gone from a fairly heavy opposition to universal acceptance in the west, paving the way for similar issues to do the same, and before that it was a woman's right to vote now glossing over the murders bombings and other criminal acts associated with the more extremists involved they won, and in doing so they paved the way for gay marriage in some sense.

    To the topic of offensive language and the ability or i guess right of someone to offend somebody else, you say wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where nobody gets "randomly offended" at a whim. sure it would also be nice to live next to river made of chocolate both are equally likely, putting aside my pithy analysis you did specifically mention random offence. The only times i can think of that random offence might be given was maybe count dankula's nazi pug video when the POLICE took the video and showed it to the Jewish council of someshit i don't remember exactly and asked them if they were offended by something they didn't even know existed previously. The idea of randomly being offending is odd mostly if your getting some shit online or in real life you did something to set that person off to begin with, now i'm not saying that excuses the other guy sometimes you say something completely innocuous but someone will take it the wrong way, but most of the time it's someone like Anita Sarkessian being an asshole making blanket statements about an entire gender of gamers that are false or completely ignoring context and reality to argue the case of why a beloved game is actually a misogynist garbage fire that oppresses whamen, you may argue she doesn't deserve the abuse but i think she had it coming and while she has never provided a shred of evidence for it she apparently received rape threats well that is a threat therefore illegal and you call the police, she was also allegedly harassed and i have made myself clear about harassment at the start and what should be done about it. Using dear Anita as an example because i familiar with it and what i was able to piece together from other sources since she won't fucking show her logs is an enormous amount of lets call it colourful critique a smattering of rape threats (call the police) and 1 lone harasser making new accounts all the time to continue the harassment, yet when Anita talks about this herself all that legitimate critique with colourful language is described as harassment and the same applies to nearly every case of so called online harassment i have ever seen its not harassment, your getting yelled/sworn at because of something you did that offended somebody else. Tit for tat is how is see it people need to be free to offend others because it is actually a useful tool of human communication and the facts are plain for all to see, while you may believe what you said the majority of this movement are only interested in silencing others and all too often engage in the exact behavior they are meant to fight against, they don't want to get rid of "offence on the net" they just want to be the only ones allowed to do it. The vast majority of this is a two way street, SJW's crying about about some offensive tweet aimed at someone who was being just as offensive 2 minutes ago. You give em the example of "all jews are blank" and i say yeh that is some offensive shit but so is the fkn SJW banging on about "men should be taught not to rape" "men should be kept in cages and only allowed out under female supervision" your advocating for a utopia that will never exist and aligning yourself with unintentionally with racists and bigots. I see a lot of anti white racism and slurs like coon and uncle tom coming from the SJW community and you can try to redefine racism as prejudice + power but they aint fooling anyone accept you it seems. The SJW crusade is only interested in silencing opposition it's an authoritarian movement with racist undertones and you would do well to distance yourself from it and stand alone with your principals and wait for like minded individuals to find you pylgrim, while i might give you shit for your Utopian ideals you don't belong with these people and they will drown out your message.

    Your take on the SJW's going after peoples jobs is astoundingly perverse, your trying to argue that it is employers fault for caving in which has some truth to it they should not buckle they should tell the SJW's to fuck off, but back here in reality pylgrim is a precedent set that appeasing these fucking morons gets them to leave you alone in a few minutes, the same precedent set the groundwork for these assholes to go after employment in the first place because it worked once so now it's the go to strategy, and every time it works it makes it easier and easier.

    In your response you sound just like the smug little shitheads that do this exact thing and before you cry at me about being offensive go back and read it, this is about people literally destroying lives in some cases you know many of these people cannot get another employer to hire them because they are afraid of being attacked for it. The people who do this absolutely disgust me and so does anybody defending their actions, your being completely disingenuous with your shitty little dig at me about majorities your not stupid enough to think the SJW's represent a majority, they don't even represent a majority on the left side of politics and i would be very surprised if you didn't know that so don't come at me with your bullshit drivel about the majority opinion winning out, it is not even remotely true concede this point or don't even bother responding because your living in some alternate reality and i can't debate someone who apparently lives in a parallel reality.

    Sorry, but I am not even going to try. You have already established yourself to be in an pre-set antagonistic position where even if I presented evidence that target harassment has driven people to suicide, you are going to shrug and call it "bullshit" because it is on the person committing suicide for not being "strong" or whatever.

    Complete drivel as expected; harassment which in this case your thinking off ended in suicide and you present it as evidence that "targeted jokes" cause harm, well fuck me i concede your totally right harassment is whatever you want it to be it doesn't have a legal definition or anything, i know lets use this example as the rule and treat anyone who makes an edgy joke online like they are "trying to make someone top themselves" why stop with just going after their job lets try and charge them with murder and if the courts won't do it why don't we kidnap them and lock them up in a basement somewhere, after all we are the arbiters of truth and justice why don't we just take care of it.

    You see how i made up some ridiculous notion that you would kidnap someone and imprison them for making an edgy joke, well it's closer to reality than conflating harassment so bad it led to suicide with me defending peoples right to make edgy jokes and tell Clementine Ford shes a slut without being fired, i love that you think making disparaging and bullshit claims about how i will treat this hypothetical real life sample will somehow silence me, i thought being called some kind of puppet mouthpiece for the right wing was offensive but you managed to top that by insinuating i would not only be unsympathetic to a suicide victim but blame them for their own suicide just to defend some actual harassment.

    You know it really is my own fault for thinking that i could do what nobody else has managed in the last 5 years, and that is explain to an SJW that harassment or threats is not the same as a joke or political opinion you don't like, being able to use offensive language is important to convey to people how much you dislike what they said, and no matter what you say or try to do "i disagree with what you said" will never have the same resonating impact as "you have the IQ of a wet fart".

    I have noticed that the SJW crusade you claim to be a part of has this glaring hypocrisy you are also guilty of they don't abide by their own standards, you tell me wouldn't it be great if we could live in a world were nobody was randomly offended then compare me to some kind of sociopath that would deride and ridicule a suicide victim, just because you don't swear or use any of the slurs or words from the list banned by SJW's doesn't mean your not being offensive you hypocrite, in the case of SJW's more broadly they constantly call people Nazi or racist like this is not offensive, and holy shit when they find an actual nazi or at least someone claiming to be a nazi the things they say to that person should get them thrown in a gulag of their own making, but no it's okay when we do it right pylgrim. I would consider the words nazi and racist when used against innocent people to be just about the most offensive thing imaginable and SJW's do it on a daily basis to hundreds of people that are not nazi's or racists.

    I realise you might think that last section somehow defending nazi's from abuse by SJW's and i'm not, go for it if someone says i'm a nazi or a racist then fucking go to town my dude racists and nazi's deserve ridicule just like crazy feminists and SJW's.

    Now because i no longer trust you at all i feel the need to say yes i am aware the the alt right has done the same shit going after peoples jobs with false claims and i have the same conversation with people in that sphere.(the actual alt right btw go look up the definition i guarantee you have no idea what it actually means)

    SJW's and you it seems want this ideal world with no racists that sounds great but how do you expect to get there if your constantly manufacturing racists every time i turn around someone else is a racist for no good reason. Your lot have stretched and bastardized the meaning of racist and other terms to fit more and more people into these boxes, please tell me how not fighting racism but instead artificially creating more racists by watering down the meaning helps.

    I forgot to address something earlier you said about "who am i to decide the impact on a victim" something along those lines, the answer is simple i don't think that, the problem is you don't consider most factors in these situations you don't care about context or intent, and you only seem to think people are being offensive when they are swearing or breaking one of your personal taboo's. If all you care about is the victim's narrative your automatically ignoring context and the intent of the perpetrator whether you like it or not your doing it.

    I on the other hand consider the victims experience to be just as relevant as the context of the altercation and the intent of the perpetrator, if you tweet "we should kill all white men" from a slut walk in Sydney you don't get to pitch a fit and claim victim hood when someone calls you a slut, all the SJW can see is poor whamen being called a slut. This is why i tell you it's almost all bullshit and overblown, if you separate harassment and threats from everything else like you should because everything else is fine, then you find it is almost always someone being an offensive ass and getting blowback for it.

      In sorry, but did you just insinuate that the suffragette movement (or the more "radical" elements of it) planted bombs and murdered people? Can you provide a source for that because i have never heard of this.

      P.s. sorry for replying to a comment made roughly 7 months ago

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now