Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 465: If you post here, you're gay lmao

(+) Yeah! (+)

skulltrumpets posted...

Oh god damn it of course they're the assholes who commandeered and misused pepe the frog

I am so thankful someone else asked because I've been wondering this myself in my days of lurking this thread lol

Honestly I've been waiting for someone else but I felt like that window closed.

But overall horrible person, got it

God dammit he can't be stopped.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/2036f5d1.jpg

kevwaffles posted...

I'll jump back in to say that apparently Fuentes is on the record as saying something like "Sleeping with a [trans woman] doesn't have the same context as it does 20 years because women are not fulfilling their obligations." So yeah, if you think a Fuentes fan wouldn't date a trans woman you don't know how deep the misogyny goes.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/6b7fb1c0.jpg

uwu and owo are not Gen Z creations at all.

CharmedDrake posted...

Im pretty sure it means I like men but Im very out of touch with the rest of gen z so idk

The quote is effectively a meme representation of how furries talk. As a political statement it's on the same level as the quote the topic title is based on.

v-charon posted...

uwu and owo are not Gen Z creations at all.

yeah i recognize them as coming from anime/vn talk but i didn't know if that was the real origin

I feel guilty about being so out of touch at such a young age now (is almost a quarter of a century old?)

On a side note, whats that thing, green looking thing that moves back and forth outside my window on the ground? /jk

CharmedDrake posted...

I feel guilty about being so out of touch at such a young age now (is almost a quarter of a century old?)

You are like little baby

No such things as dumb questions, it's how we learn.

CharmedDrake posted...

I feel guilty about being so out of touch at such a young age now (is almost a quarter of a century old?)

On a side note, whats that thing, green looking thing that moves back and forth outside my window on the ground? /jk

your glibly said point has been made but when were talking about things an assassin engraved on a bullet, you should probably just google what the thing means instead of answering someones question based off of what you admit you dont know

Daily Mail is citing the reddit now lmao

they're calling the roommate a Biden fan because a post I had already seen that says "We are ridin with Biden on this glorious subreddit"

The sub? LoveForLandlords. Yeah, I read that already, along with many many many of their posts on that sub (it was definitely their main thing for a while). It's a place where people sarcastically larp as evil landlords complaining about "rentoids". Everything in there blatantly obvious bullshit satire, unless they wanna argue this *roommate* was actually a *landlord* as they have also claimed in that sub, as well as posting how one day Jeb will be president.

Grimlyn posted...

Daily Mail is citing the reddit now lmao

they're calling the roommate a Biden fan because a post I had already seen that says "We are ridin with Biden on this glorious subreddit"

The sub? LoveForLandlords. Yeah, I read that already, along with many many many of their posts on that sub (it was definitely their main thing for a while). It's a place where people sarcastically larp as evil landlords complaining about "rentoids". Everything in there blatantly obvious bullshit satire, unless they wanna argue this *roommate* was actually a *landlord* as they have also claimed in that sub, as well as posting how one day Jeb will be president.

Only semi-serious hot take: every news network should have at least one terminally online basement dweller on staff to fact check any stories about niche online subcultures. Its clear that traditional journalists arent ready to deal with them, and unfortunately we have reached a point where they are going to continue to come up in major events like this.

To be fair, Gen Z is far more into anime and anime culture than previous generations. Which is a wild thing to be relevant to the politics thread but here we are!

Grimlyn posted...

yes, they're fucking nonsensical wierdos who live in satirical contradictions and nonsense, yes this includes bella ciao

this isn't me saying the shooter aligns with mainstream conservativism. but his upbringing, how much he relies on memes even so far as all the casing writings, he's a hodgepodge chronically online nutter and the roommate being a 4tranner doesn't take away from the Fuentes connections one bit

You have really hit on an excellent point here. The right of the traditional right (which in many places including the US is now becoming the mainstream right) across the world often have a wide variety of random views that are completely out of step with the conservative mainstream of that time and location. Trump himself is a perfect example, I mean the guy clearly does not have any problem with abortions personally and is straight up just doing nationalisations of industry. Needless to say that is not Republican orthodoxy! There is actually a great example here in Ireland, where one of the guys who wants to be the token right wing grifter slot in the (meaningless and symbolic) presidential election is a guy known for taking anti-immigrant and tough on crime stances and voted to legalise both same sex marriage and abortion. You could even extend this to brexit in the UK which became the raison detre of the hard right, but it was the Conservatives who led the charge on EU membership for decade. And of course the predecessor to all of this was when Mussolini embraced some left wing economic policy in the 1930s, it is a longstanding phenomenon.

The short version is, we cant expect ideological consistency with conservatism the current wave of hard right and far right, they simply arent normal conservative movements at all. It is no longer about protecting capital and conserving, of course Trump has been terrible for that. It is now for them about smashing some imagined enemy, which is of course going to draw in a lot of very online people who do not have normal conservative views.

FFDragon posted...

Honestly I've been waiting for someone else but I felt like that window closed.

But overall horrible person, got it

Us quietly waiting in peace for the other to ask first

Ditto, good to know I found a new word for asshole ig

slykirby posted...

Only semi-serious hot take: every news network should have at least one terminally online basement dweller on staff to fact check any stories about niche online subcultures. Its clear that traditional journalists arent ready to deal with them, and unfortunately we have reached a point where they are going to continue to come up in major events like this.

Sometimes I think they know the truth and just report the way they do because it's more sensationalist and by the time they correct (if they ever do), they already achieved the desired effect with their target audience

Good lord you guys. uwu and owo in this context are 100% a furry thing. It's absolutely painful to watch you guys stumble around this lol

Very few furries actually use uwu and owo unironically these days, but the "notices your bulge" meme is one that originates in that context

my meme game is, as i'm sure the kids put it, "mid"

Same, and I am technically one of the kids these days

Thorn posted...

my meme game is, as i'm sure the kids put it, "mid"

no cap

Hey guys, whatd I miss?

Just realized that Trump has used the shooting to distract the fact that he completely wussed out of going into Chicago. Sound like they've almost completely withdrawn all the stationed troops and because of the timing he was able to do so without looking like he backed off like a bitch.

Hochul endorses Mamdani.

Schummer and Jeffries looking dumber by the minute. You know they both want it to be Cuomo.

Chris Van Hollen has called them out for it.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Just realized that Trump has used the shooting to distract the fact that he completely wussed out of going into Chicago. Sound like they've almost completely withdrawn all the stationed troops and because of the timing he was able to do so without looking like he backed off like a bitch.

They're going to Memphis now instead.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/617342c6.jpg

The deadline was days ago he'd still be on the ballot even if he dropped out lmfao.

https://youtu.be/8OFXnvKWYKc?si=KKLnvlQPMvtrFTVv

Paratroopa1 posted...

Good lord you guys. uwu and owo in this context are 100% a furry thing. It's absolutely painful to watch you guys stumble around this lol

Very few furries actually use uwu and owo unironically these days, but the "notices your bulge" meme is one that originates in that context

I'm kinda shocked that B8 doesn't know this, big "your experiences are not universal" moment for me. I didn't slave away the early 2000s in the rawr mines for a single glomp a day to hear OwO get attributed to Gen Z.

I'm also surprised that this was something I was in the loop for that others here were not.

I thought they were being sarcastic about not knowing what it meant!

I didn't know people here didn't know it

Be more degenerate

I didn't know them until Homestuck. Which might actually be worse?

Seanchan posted...

Given who controls the investigation, we'll only find out about the real motive if it meets the needs of their agenda. Otherwise, this will be swept under the rug like the other recent political killings (successful or otherwise).

I don't necessarily disagree with the skepticism, but keep in mind that same logic also applies to the Minnesota assassin.

PeaceFrog posted...

If your politics don't follow your morals then you must have none

Yeah, that's the opposite of what I said. My point is that your morals are derived from your politics/your politics and morals have become indistinguishable from one another (whichever you call it is a matter of perspective). It's one thing to advocate for policy X over policy Y because you think it's better for society. It's a whole different story when you're saying that anyone who advocates for policy Y is not just incorrect, but they are evil for advocating for it or any other policy other than the one you've prescribed for them.

Now that you've turned every one of your political opponents into evil monsters for believing differently, you've now signed the permission slip for others to enact political violence against them even if you yourself are unwilling to go that far.

foolm0r0n posted...

What is your obvious theory? Post it clearly so we can @ you when you're wrong because right now you're just being vague and yelling at everyone else

Also it's cute that you think trans white supremacists don't exist

I'm not sure if you're playing games here or not, but "Hey Fascist! Catch!" along with the other writings on the bullets found would obviously suggest a left-wing ideology. What % of it was due to the shooter's views on trans issues vs. "anti-fascism" is irrelevant.

Also, I already said, at best, there's a 5% chance it's someone on the right with even more extreme views. I didn't outright dismiss it.

And I don't think any of this is cute, but it's... something else that you think there's anything approaching a good chance that the shooter was both a white supremacist and trans. Or maybe you're aiming for a weird technicality where the shooter may have been motivated by trans issues, but they said something racist on social media once, so now you can pretend they were really right-wing after all.

I'll try to work my way through the other responses in a little bit.

theawesomestevr posted...

Now that you've turned every one of your political opponents into evil monsters for believing differently,

Human rights should not be political. Homophobia, transphobia and racism aren't "different ideas"; they're just evil.

Sorozone posted...

Well he think our escalating left wing rhetoric is the problem so I dont see any reason to take this guy seriously.

No. I think the rhetoric is a symptom of an overarching problem in our society, but it's also completely plausible that a kid who spent way too much time surrounding himself with the same rhetoric in online spaces could be radicalized into doing something like this. It doesn't have to be the sole cause, but it could easily be a contributing factor, and even if not in this specific case, in future political violence going forward.

I'm certainly hopeful no one on board 8 would be willing to do something like this, but there are the Prestons of the world out there who are clearly not mentally well. I don't mean he specifically would do this, but it should be obvious that you shouldn't be using language that gives permission to unwell people in online spaces to commit violence.

That and we're on a board where most of us spend too much time online stewing in this stuff to begin with; telling each other what a bad person the victim was in the aftermath of a very public and gruesome murder and amping up the rhetoric is not a good idea.

Unless the point is social destabilization and an endless cycle of retribution which is incredibly foolish. You live in a country with 100+ million people who disagree with your politics. What is the endgame here? If many of you truly believe the things you're saying, what are the options? Hopefully, peaceful secession? The only other alternative I see from your own worldview necessitates even more violence to be inflicted on your opposition.

paperwarior posted...

Looking at all the tangential things invoked to shame people and cast aspersions here, I can understand theawesomestevr's affinity for the rhetoric of Charlie Kirk and Ezra Klein.

Your worldview requires you to label people as evil to shame them for politically disagreeing with you. What are you even talking about?

Dark_Young_Link posted...

Until these questions are answered, nothing the cold storage alt has to say will ever hold any relevance.

This is a good example of how far gone some of you are. "He's not agreeing! Must lie and call him someone's alt even though it's easily provably false!"

And I wasn't planning to answer those absurd "questions," but here's the short and simple version: none of you were posting in the immediate aftermath of the Minnesota lawmakers' assassinations about how they were really bad people and you really need everyone to know that.

theawesomestevr posted...

but here's the short and simple version: none of you were posting in the immediate aftermath of the Minnesota lawmakers' assassinations about how they were really bad people and you really need everyone to know that.

Are we talking about the Lawmakers? Or the killer here?

theawesomestevr posted...

No. I think the rhetoric is a symptom of an overarching problem in our society, but it's also completely plausible that a kid who spent way too much time surrounding himself with the same rhetoric in online spaces could be radicalized into doing something like this. It doesn't have to be the sole cause, but it could easily be a contributing factor, and even if not in this specific case, in future political violence going forward.

And which political side is saying and amplifying this rhetoric exactly? Including the current sitting President and the majority party? Including the guy who just died???

I don't get how you can write, read and then post what you are saying and not label this a right wing problem. It's actually insane.

We aren't labeling these people evil because of their political views. We are labeling them evil because they are evil. Left wing rhetoric hasn't now, nor historically lead to assassination's or domestic terrorist attacks. Political violence is overwhelmingly a right wing thing.

theawesomestevr posted...

Also, I already said, at best, there's a 5% chance it's someone on the right with even more extreme views. I didn't outright dismiss it.

You'd better get used to that 5% chance then

stevr independent of anything involving robinson im wondering if you could comment on laura loomers tweets about the death of sheila jackson lee

Even if it turns out that Robinson became left wing after his conservative upbringing, that would still make him the exception and not the rule.

Already nobody here is saying that it's a good thing that Charlie was killed. Nobody here is trying to defend Robinson's actions. We do not support murder in general and political violence specifically.

However, before we even had so much as an image of the (alleged) perpetrator this was being portrayed as left wing extremism waging war. Even IF that is true how can anyone possibly defend making such an assumption and broadcasting it as the truth before we knew literally anything at all? Or Trump saying "right wing radicals are just hate crime so much, but it's the left wing radicals who are the real problem"?

Now at this point I can admit that the Trump Halloween costume and the Groyper Halloween costume were from longer ago than I initially realized. Groyper meme as a costume is still such a specific thing that he was certainly very right wing at that point, so for his motive to be entirely left wing now would require him to have made a fairly substantial shift. Not impossible, but also not guaranteed to be the car.

The bottom line is that we need to know more before we can definitively ascribe a motive, but I don't think anyone would disagree with that. All we can do is discuss the most recent available information until then.

And the bottom bottom line is that the notice, once ultimately determined doesn't change anything about who Charlie was or the effects of his words and actions. He went from being anti trump to pro Trump after Trump won the primary. He went from being in favor of the separation between church and state to saying that no such separation exists. He went from saying MLK Jr was a great man to saying he was a terrible one. I see him as someone who co-opted Christianity because it was a politically expedient things to do. Trump did the exact same thing, and everyone knows that Trump isn't really a Christian, but as long as he claims to be one many people will look past literally any other flaw. In fairness to Charlie he seemed like he knew significantly more about Christianity and The Bible than Donald Trump. There a very good chance he actually was a Christian, but regardless of that, his pivot to incorporating Christian Nationalism into his political messaging felt incredibly calculated like it was coming from a place of advancing his platform/fan base rather than from a place of true ideological imperative.

Thorn posted...

Well, if the collective "we" are being accused of lying about Kirk I guess "we" might as well bring out the receipts

I went out my way to say "many of you" and you're still really going to complain and put "we" in quotation marks? I am literally the only person pushing back on any of this, and given every subsequent post in response to mine, are you really trying to suggest that my attribution was inaccurate? It's not really a big deal, but it is annoying.

Thorn posted...

Tried to diversify the sourcing as much as I could so it's not all just one or two places. Ranges from Media Matters all the way to Newsweek and the ADL to show that across the entire spectrum this was being reported on for years.

On the one hand I appreciate that you at least made some amount of effort to defend your position, but on the other...

Like, the New York Post article gets dismissed immediately as being biased, and now it looks like everything they reported about the shooter being in a relationship with a trans person is accurate btw.

Now, you're presenting well-known left-wing propaganda outlets like Media Matters and the ADL as being "across the spectrum." Maybe it's more accurate to say that the ADL is mostly left-wing with a heaping helping of also calling anyone critical of Israel an antisemite or a white supremacist, but the point remains. I think the only less credible propaganda center you could site would be the SPLC.
Edit: Nvm, I just skimmed past the other links and noticed you cited them too. lol.

It's just like... dude. I think you're generally well-meaning, xp, but you need to vet the material regardless of their biases. You can't just accept everything any outlet says as true because it generally agrees with your worldview (or as false for that matter if it doesn't generally agree). I'm not going to go through every article featuring highly selective use of quotation marks, editing, and massive amounts of political spin, but I did get through like 3-4 links that I'll respond to.

If there's something actually substantive with full context that you want to present for me to respond to, I will gladly when I have time.

Thorn posted...

Advocated for televised public executions and suggested that children should be forced to watch them as "an initiation."
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-death-penalty-public-executions-1873073

Headline: Trump Ally Charlie Kirk Suggests Children Should Watch Public Executions
Article: ""I think maybe age 12, sixth grade or so when you are old enough... " Neff said."
Good stuff. His position on the death penalty may be stupid but still waiting for the evil villain I was promised.

Thorn posted...

Called for "Nuremberg-style trials for every gender-affirming clinic doctor."
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-we-need-have-nuremberg-style-trial-every-gender-affirming-clinic-doctor

If he genuinely believes this is happening, his response is reasonable. Your position would be presumably that it's not happening, so that makes him evil?

Thorn posted...

In addition to lethal force, said we should use whips against them and saying, "Why is that controversial?"
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-calls-shooting-and-whipping-migrants-southern-border-if-you-enter-we-have

I'll admit it's late, and I'm getting tired so maybe I missed something in the video and there was something worse said that I missed, but lol at that being your characterization of his comments devoid of any context.

I get the distinct impression that you aren't actually watching these videos or reading these articles.

You probably don't remember this, but I posted here maybe a few years back when a lot of left-wing online spaces were calling Matt Taibbi a sex pest. I naively thought that there had to be something to this with so many people repeating it, and someone referenced it in the thread so I asked here for context. To your credit, you were the only one to respond and you linked a Washington Post article about him. I don't think you really knew either, but you probably just accepted the narrative and provided whatever you searched for if I had to guess.

The issue was that you clearly hadn't read the article and just took the headline at face value. I don't blame you for not having read it because in the end it was just a longwinded list of personal grievances against the publication he worked at in Russia in the '90s. The end of this woman's article concluded that we need to expand the definition of #MeToo to include people like Matt Taibbi because he may or may not have been involved in publishing mean things about her multiple decades prior.

People on the left had no qualms about assassinating his character presumably for his reporting on RussiaGate. Him coming from the left and reporting things his side of the aisle didn't want to hear was presumably viewed as a betrayal and they immediately turned on him.

That totally opened my eyes to how easily people in today's day and age will lie and smear people's character they don't know the first thing about without a second thought or care in the world for purely political reasons. I didn't realize that society at the time was so quickly devolving into being so insanely vindictive and petty. I do sincerely thank you for the education.

theawesomestevr posted...

If he genuinely believes this is happening, his response is reasonable.

please explain why this response would be reasonable

theawesomestevr posted...

That totally opened my eyes to how easily people in today's day and age will lie and smear people's character they don't know the first thing about without a second thought or care in the world for purely political reasons. I didn't realize that society at the time was so quickly devolving into being so insanely vindictive and petty. I do sincerely thank you for the education.

lol I love when people post like this to pretend to be arguing in good faith.

The dude you are fighting for was evil.

We don't pretend evil people were cute innocent teddy bears.

Hell your argument here is at multiple times coming down to him being either evil or ignorant to the point he had to have been a fucking moron.

So he was evil or a moron leading people to evil inadvertently.

Move along.

theawesomestevr posted...

Now that you've turned every one of your political opponents into evil monsters for believing differently,

As a recommendation, if they don't want to be called evil monsters, they should try not acting and behaving like evil monsters.

theawesomestevr posted...

Your worldview requires you to label people as evil to shame them for politically disagreeing with you.

Uh yeah, isn't that... the normal worldview? If you're saying disgusting, vile stuff when you're politically disagreeing with me - and I've certainly seen Charlie Kirk say shit I would describe as such - I have no problem with calling you evil. Are you really typing up all these long responses to disagree with the Sesame Street level observation of "person A calls person B evil when person B says things that person A thinks are evil"?

Mr_Lasastryke posted...

Uh yeah, isn't that... the normal worldview?

The normal worldview is to label people as evil for things they can't control, like their sexuality, gender, race, and ethnicity. You know, like Charlie Kirk did. Hope this helps! :)

I just want to say I love this topic (except for the current concern trolling) for bring able to recognise both that political violence is bad and at the same time Charlie Kirk was a very evil and bigoted man. Too many people seem to think its one or the other when you can in fact hold both ideas!

Nothing wrong with calling someone evil for having very bigoted feelings about groups of people. The news host who said all homeless people should be involuntarily lethally injected is evil too, but didnt lose his job because he didnt say bad things about a bigot that upset his billionaire racist show owners

Dude spent an entire day trying to figure out how to defend the actually lines and stances from Kirk without looking like an idiot and fell on his fucking face.

Just goes to show there's a reason none of the news networks can actually air anything Kirk said without fucking up their narrative.

The guy was a bigotted piece of shit who spent his time argue with children to feel like a big man.

I'd rather you just call me a slur than continue with this lame concern trolling, tbh. If you're truly worried about the escalation of online rhetoric, then i suggest you check inside your own house first. Leave us out of it. Go find yourself or whatever.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Already nobody here is saying that it's a good thing that Charlie was killed.

Well, that's because if someone DID say it, their post would get modded and taken down.

I feel like on smaller subreddits you can get a sense of the "pulse" of public sentiment based on what's getting upvoted, because bigger subs are heavily moderated.

Big_Bob posted...

I feel like on smaller subreddits you can get a sense of the "pulse" of public sentiment based on what's getting upvoted, because bigger subs are heavily moderated.

Every mainstream reddit post I've seen about Charlie Kirk has multiple comments with thousands of upvotes that have been deleted. Gee I wonder what people are saying.