Eternal Sunshine of Guy222's and Rao's Minds (v2.0)

Originally posted by cdtm
People like Smurph and ODG only see the world in neo-nazi's and their victims, and any restriction on speech is seen through that prism. Politicians and activists are in the business of knowing how to manipulate such people.

Instead, I am treating you as what you are, stupid people who think that the assault of bigotry = freedom of thought.

You and Astner can both continue acting like you're marginalized. But if you were in an African, Asian, Arabic or Muslim dominated country where you'd be less than 15% of the dominant population, you'd be weeping for people to defend your right to be free from being terrorized by the majority.

Refusing to recognize your own privilege is probably the most b1tchmade sentiment there could be in the world morally, religiously, ethically, pragmatically, etc. It's not that hard:

someone make sense to me why would men still marry women in modern age

just remember before you there are 40 dicks already entered her, you are the sloppy 42nd and you are willing to find her for keep?

what possibly can you gain from this

Originally posted by ODG
If I were as intolerant as you think I am, then I would go crying to federal authorities about your posts and Astner's.[/img]

Originally posted by ODG
Astner can both continue acting like you're marginalized. But if you were in an African, Asian, Arabic or Muslim dominated country where you'd be less than 15% of the dominant population, you'd be weeping for people to defend your right to be free from being terrorized by the majority.

Originally posted by MrMind
someone make sense to me why would men still marry women in modern age

just remember before you there are 40 dicks already entered her, you are the sloppy 42nd and you are willing to find her for keep?

what possibly can you gain from this

just remember before you there were 40 dicks already entered their a$$es, you are the sloppy 42nd and you are willing to find him for keep?

what possibly can you gain from this

Originally posted by Astner
Now I'm curious. What, specifically, have I said that could've been considered improper? Arguing for free speech, in itself, can hardly be considered an issue unless you're from a dictatorship.

Originally posted by ODG
Quite possibly the most limp-d1cked begging-the-question post I've ever confronted.

^ Never go quanlite, yo.

Continue pretending that you refused to address the last half-dozen or more replies I posted towards you.

No, now I have to repeat myself to entertain your impotent attempt to pretend you haven't been consistently dressed down for pages upon pages.

I stopped reading your replies shortly after your temper tantrum when I realized you needed a break.

But the fact that you managed to convinced yourself that I'm the bad guy despite the fact that you're unable to cite anything I've said that can be construed as offensive while you've spewed vitriol throughout our debate (which I can readily reference) speaks volumes of your character. You might want to work on that.

Originally posted by Astner
I stopped reading your replies

Oh, right but when you demand revisiting the history of the thread, that's alright.

When I point out how you conveniently exited the conversation every time things got uncomfortable for you, you get to rest on your laurels.

This the internet, son. And you ain't fooling nobody.

Ahh, fresh word salad.

Originally posted by Astner
To address Smurph's concerns.

The idea of excluding threats and incitement as contractual isn't necessary. If you want to be pragmatic you may certainly refer to these as restrictions on free speech. But to argue that this is a free card for imposing further restrictions on free speech is disingenuous.

So why restrict those forms of speech? If I truly disagree with what you say but defend til death your right to say it, then surely you should be able to express yourself however you choose, threats included?

Originally posted by Astner
I explained this before, but I have no issue with being exposed to hate speech. Smurph retorted by pointing out that I was a white man, implying that we can't put the same expectations on women and people of color, which has far more discriminatory undertones than anything I've ever said.

If you took this opportunity to just finally admit that you're gay, we could at least find some ground where your feelings about hate speech are relevant.

Originally posted by ODG
If I were as intolerant as you think I am, then I would go crying to federal authorities about your posts and Astner's.

Instead, I am treating you as what you are, stupid people who think that the assault of bigotry = freedom of thought.

You and Astner can both continue acting like you're marginalized. But if you were in an African, Asian, Arabic or Muslim dominated country where you'd be less than 15% of the dominant population, you'd be weeping for people to defend your right to be free from being terrorized by the majority.

Refusing to recognize your own privilege is probably the most b1tchmade sentiment there could be in the world morally, religiously, ethically, pragmatically, etc. It's not that hard:

It is good to know some people will still be on Earth when the rest of us leave it due to all the cray cray;

YouTube video

"LGBT safe zones" isn't fighting bigots, it's proof some LGBT are neutotic fools.

And I happen to have great respect for asians and Muslims.

Because they keep their women in their place.

"I am woman, hear me roar!"

"You wear burka NOW!"

"Y-yes Mr. Chad Muslim sir."

Originally posted by ODG
Are you canvassing the forum for gay guys in the modern age

just remember before you there were 40 dicks already entered their a$$es, you are the sloppy 42nd and you are willing to find him for keep?

what possibly can you gain from this

uhhhh what？

Originally posted by Smurph
ok, cool. Threats and incitement are a form of speech. We agree about that basic truth.

So why restrict those forms of speech? If I truly disagree with what you say but defend til death your right to say it, then surely you should be able to express yourself however you choose, threats included?

Yeah, you keep explaining that hate speech does not affect you. I just can't imagine why you would think that matters. Why would anybody care how Astner feels about hate speech? Nobody's directing hate speech at white Swedish dudes.

If you took this opportunity to just finally admit that you're gay, we could at least find some ground where your feelings about hate speech are relevant.

at some point im going to have to listen to my body about it being lactose intolerant

Originally posted by Gecko4lif
at some point im going to have to listen to my body about it being lactose intolerant

Have you tried the pills?

Aloha,
I returned to read some "The Flash" spoilers, as I do not watch most Comic Book movies and do not go to the Cinema anymore. And what do I see? A downgrade of the original thread. First we should ban Impediment, then you should stop ganging up on Astner, he is as correct as you are, in our subjective and your personal, irrelevant perception of this so called reality. So, instead of misreading and misinterpreting the written thoughts of someone you don't like, and to whom you try to prove that you are right and more importantly, that he is wrong, how about some Spoilers for The Flash, especially the cameos?

The Flash was never good! 😆

Originally posted by cdtm
The Flash was never good! 😆

As this might be or might not be true, for I can't judge or write my personal opinion on something I did not see, at least not In regard to the quality of a story, pictures, music etc., I can tell you that I also don't care if others think it good or bad, which is nothing objective in the first place. There are some few people I would ask such a thing, as I value their taste, their opinion, however, in this case I asked simply for Spoilers, cameos and never stated that it's good. So no offense, my friend, but you input, thought appreciated, is not relevant to my question.