420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Milo by Henry Creckleville - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 21:53:33 EST ID:FHPWXqpx No.396846 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504662813720.jpg -(37095B / 36.23KB, 512x512) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37095
Fellow comrades, how do we feel about milo? He's homosexual so hes opressed so hes one of ours but he hates the left and uses that unpleasent and toxic f word constantly. Why cant he just be a dangerous homosexual? I'm finding him really problematic.
64 posts and 18 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
George Brishpirk - Fri, 15 Sep 2017 11:14:12 EST ID:NxR1iOYW No.397120 Ignore Report Quick Reply
he literally said it was a good thing for his sexual development that a catholic priest sexually engaged with him when he was 13.

he just became too edgy for his own good, basically. i mean he literally refers to himself as "edgy", so...
Caroline Wushdere - Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:52:22 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.397123 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Also, Milo ain't the picture of mental health. One has to wonder...
Barnaby Pickworth - Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:29:02 EST ID:kMHRWa3R No.397124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1505503742745.jpg -(14749B / 14.40KB, 250x328) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Well it didn't surprise me. Well what he said did but not that the words came out of his mouth.

The guy is the ultimate troll, ok? A white, gay and goodlooking asshole saying shit that triggers the fuck out of the SJW crowd. No wonder he'd think he could pull it a bridge too far.
Caroline Wushdere - Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:44:56 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.397125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Probably the most accurate analysis of him. The guy was literally shit out of 4Chins collective unconscious. Some sort of Jungian archetype made up of online awfulness. It was only natural he eventually find that "bridge too far." Because, he was looking for it.
Lillian Braddleshaw - Fri, 15 Sep 2017 19:04:40 EST ID:n2QXqOEe No.397126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The gay mafia is real and Milo was being to real about the bacha bazi.

Meme-spewing retards from the future's /k/ and /pol/ shot 5 BLM protesters in Minnesota by Walter Fuckingwater - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:11:59 EST ID:JPD6Q+hn No.391469 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1493561519794.jpg -(75434B / 73.67KB, 841x741) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 75434
>Minnesota man 4 ch /k/ + /pol/ poster gets 15 years for shooting 5 Black Lives Matter protesters

>Video of the shooter on his way to the shooting: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec8_1448421489
>Unironically filming yourself talking about "dindus" and /pol/, and baneposting, and loli, before going to shoot 5 black people and ruining everyone's lives including your own
>your final sentence to the camera is "stay white!"
>All of this is entered into court evidence
>Along with months and months of texts of shitposting to friends about black people
>Went with a jacket with a /k/ patch with Pepe as the emblem
>Went around asking protesters to "culturally enrich" him
>Him at the protest going around antagonising people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj3gc91IpFE

>His lawyer UNIRONICALLY tried to argue his brain was not fully developed at 22 and he had no idea about black people or their lives when he went to the protests that day

>Only got 3 years per person shot, less if he gets out on parole
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
231 posts and 49 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fucking Blytheson - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:09:02 EST ID:dGw4dHyr No.396940 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You are a retard and need to go back to the future
Edward Turveygold - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:23:22 EST ID:7vXpw3uu No.396942 Ignore Report Quick Reply

thats real fuckin neato, lad
Frederick Bezzlewater - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 22:48:36 EST ID:KVQJ8U2S No.397033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1505011716027.jpg -(19932B / 19.46KB, 364x204) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>New England
Caroline Favingstock - Wed, 13 Sep 2017 16:05:53 EST ID:GnpVqSi1 No.397102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Once he and James field get into prison (county jails will have em in PC) they are fucked. Two very high profile cases. Gangs and pissed off inmates will be at their throats. Theyll get a real taste of "the thugs" they hate so much and realize they have no chance of winning a war against them, especially without access to their little firearms. Sure there's white gangs in prison but they work with Mexican and Muslims and more or less just a result of prison race politics. Theyll end up raping these lads in the shower once they find out they're flying blue lives matter flags. Going to prison with a law and order moral set aka a snitch state of mind is no bueno.
Cornelius Pemmlekane - Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:20:06 EST ID:Vwoc9qnJ No.397106 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>European superiority stereotype
>by assuming a bunch of dumb shit about a place you've never been
lol no, pretty sure that's the ignorant, dumb, unwordly american stereotype.

>what yankee means
what yankee means depends on the context. how do you not know this as an american?

just go back, you flaming fucking faggot cripplechan reject.

Trump: the do nothing president by David Fuckingfoot - Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:21:13 EST ID:8b+KEEa8 No.395801 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1502922073334.jpg -(26535B / 25.91KB, 638x378) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 26535
Because of the things he says because of the lack of seriousness in his approach to lead, it is hard to imagine how he can effectively govern for the next 3 and half years.

What he will not come out and say makes it impossible for him to put any pressure on even his own party to push policies through.
Any poli sci majors have a take on this? He continues to fail in this area and now is unimaginable that he will be able to negotiate even among the GOP.

I feel like I am being ultra realistic on this point. Simply his race relations could perhaps be the worst since reconstruction era.
25 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jack Dumbletot - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 03:53:48 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.397003 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why the blue hell is "Trump Derangement Syndrome" a pro-Trump phrase?

If you ask me, it should be an anti-Trump phrase because its the Trumptards who are the crazy ones.

Worst fudgin' cult of personality of all time.
Basil Donderditch - Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:44:24 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.397042 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I would bet my life savings that he's not going to make it to the end of his term. It's not like he's going to magically start shaping up and become a great president, quite the contrary, soon Obama's leftover proposals will be drying up and he'll have nothing to claim as his own and the shiatgibbons he replaced them with can't do the task because for one, Trump still hasn't hired anyone to work in other important congress confirmed positions. The entire government is just limping along and when people has quit, no one is replacing them. Trump seems wholly uninterested in hiring people to actually run the fucking government. He's going to war with the GOP and it's only a matter of time before they start hitting back and impeach. Mueller is getting closer to giving them the ammo they need every day.
Eliza Croddlenotch - Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:47:28 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.397046 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I will take that bet!
He will last all 4 years and beyond that. The GOP are too ignorant and prideful to see it any other way. Plus, with Trump having a massive base of shitgibbons, he can waltz into office again.
Not like the Dems are gonna stop anyone...ever.
Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:28:11 EST ID:cB61Xg61 No.397070 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Imagine taking Scott Adams seriously, possibly the only American with a more swollen ego than Donald Trump
Albert Hangerbanks - Wed, 13 Sep 2017 05:48:55 EST ID:k6Ipx1Ly No.397097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
will the country survive?

The problem with the Democratic Party by Beatrice Sublingfet - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:10:31 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.396801 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504566631833.png -(57513B / 56.17KB, 590x288) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57513
Where do I fucking begin...

Basically, in the 90s a bunch of Dems decided it would pay to go lite-right and they just fucking said, "We will just follow what the Repubs do, but just be SLIGHTLY to the left of that. Then we will get to enrich ourselves and other rich cunts, while pretending to be for the people."

This started to alienate a lot of people on the Left. Many just became Independents. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk fiddled while the party base burned. Then Tea Party happened...

This bunch of chuklefucks managed to get shit tier far-right extremists into office. Sarah Palin became someone that was seen as a viable candidate for something besides Local Moose Catcher. The GOP lurched so far to the right, there was no way to stay slightly to the left of them. But, HRC and Pelosi did a duet on those fiddles and let shit burn.

Then came Trump and the GOP went alt-right. This started to alienate moderates and stalwarts in the party. A crippling blow! The GOP should be done for! And the Dems fiddled and refused to visit Wisconsin.

Now, they are a non-entity. Not even in competition with the Libertarians. Gary Johnson will be president before any Dem will. They are so far up their own asses the party is unsavable. They even tried to decimate Bernie, who could have brought them in a shit load of Leftists and INDEPENDENTS. But, fuck those guys, we got $5,000 a plate fundraisers to hold!
7 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Alice Honnerstodge - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 19:45:21 EST ID:aeTvB5lZ No.397021 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>VERY neoliberal
how so? they want to do away with all financial regulations? they want nothing to do with obamacare/social healthcare? they want to defund planned parenthood/the educational system/etc?

>all are...
how about actually showing us who these people are? telling us what city/town you're from is not disclosing personal information.

just kidding, that would be unreasonable.

in my town, all democrats are astute, highly educated and pragmatic deepthinkers who just want a better world achieved through democratic means and civil engagement.

meanwhile, all of our republicans are torch wielding klansmen who lynch at least 1,000 black people a week. also they hate jews and eat their babies at every chance.

Is your situation different? It could very well be. But, that just shows again how dysfunctional and all over the map the Rs can be. Because when everyone in the party doesn't have exactly the same thoughts/ideas, it's necessarily a sign of organizational dysfunction.
Eliza Croddlenotch - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 20:38:23 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.397028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>they want to do away with all financial regulations?
Clinton deregulation lead to the massive financial crisis we had a few years back...so yeah. They did and they did.

Also google Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and "payday lending."
Henry Seffingspear - Sun, 10 Sep 2017 00:35:45 EST ID:GmdgEHro No.397034 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1505018145051.png -(2796188B / 2.67MB, 2880x4800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
If you look at the history of the Democrats and Republicans, their ideological makeup is constantly shifting. The infographic doesn't define the belief, using the left-right paradigm instead. I think the Democratic Party is neoliberal and center-right, not all of the individuals in it mind you, but I think that's because the graphic and I have different concepts of the spectrum.

Center-left would be people who support the current system, but want to reform it in certain ways to make it better for the general populace; or focus on social issues, but not so far as to blame the government or economic system at large as the root problem.

Mid-left would be people who oppose the system, but don't advocate revolution, and see reform as the only means. For example Social Democrats or the Green Party. Well, at least until those parties are corrupted and coopted, drifting to the right.

Far-left then, advocates revolution and alternative systems that promote equality and freedom, with plenty of disagreement about how and what.

Neoliberalism has been the modus operandi of just about every government these decades, be it coerced or pursued. Meaning deregulation, privatization (of schools and prisons for example), austerity (cutting social programs), and free trade deals (NAFTA and TPP). Through institutions like the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, G8 & G20, and shit like the American Legislative Exchange Council, these policies are pushed within the halls of power.
Eliza Clashville - Sun, 10 Sep 2017 16:47:15 EST ID:/xEbt2bm No.397053 Ignore Report Quick Reply
trump is trying to do away with various financial regulations as well. this makes him a neoliberal, right?
William Fimbledure - Tue, 12 Sep 2017 23:27:34 EST ID:nppI2w1T No.397095 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1505273254114.jpg -(99559B / 97.23KB, 638x479) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The root of the word refers to the actual, academic definition of liberal that's been used for centuries and is still used everywhere except conservative America that has twisted it to mean almost the opposite of its actual definition.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THIS KNEE WAS ALWAYS BENT by Jack Bollystock - Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:33:34 EST ID:XqOr0TAj No.396625 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504233214269.jpg -(128711B / 125.69KB, 857x1202) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 128711
Kamala Harris accepts single payer.
28 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Jenny Lightstock - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:39:08 EST ID:LRcBRT+U No.396836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>It isn't about the money, it's about the platform
The money informs the platform, goofus.

That's the whole point of giving money.
Lillian Honeyson - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 16:30:04 EST ID:Z0rhel/1 No.396839 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>My point is that it's disingenuous for the author of this piece to insinuate a politician taking money from lobbyists somehow affects their electability.
Bringing up Hillary Clinton of all people is not the best way to get that point across.

>Also that it was dishonest for you to misrepresent the author's point
Directly quoting a sentence is not misrepresentation. The sentence, the paragraph in which it was contained, and the overall article as a whole are predicated on the idea that money informs policy. Hillary was visibly awash in corporate money and so had a corporate platform, and lost. Harris is visibly taking her first steps along that same path. The rest of that concluding paragraph was to reinforce that point, not to refute it. The intended message is the same whether I edit for space or not.

You didn't really think the point of the concluding paragraph was to refute the premise of the rest of the article, did you?
Ernest Bomblehere - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:08:15 EST ID:qM9Zeovx No.396841 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>You didn't really think the point of the concluding paragraph was to refute the premise of the rest of the article, did you?
You're also bad when it comes to jumping to conclusions. I don't see how the last paragraph refutes the rest of the article. I mean, it's just an opinion piece, so the author is entitled to have poorly formed opinions anyway, just as you are.

All senators have accepted money from lobbyists. That's "the path" Harris is walking down, and it's a path every senator and president in our lifetime has walked down. I'd even go so far as to say all D's and R's who have run for senate have accepted money from lobbyists, but that's me going out on a limb & might be a recent thing. I do know that Loretta Sanchez has though.

So while every senator accepts lobbyist money, they don't all have the same platform. This is how a candidate can distinguish herself and defeat those running against her.
Albert Turveyspear - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 21:19:25 EST ID:XqOr0TAj No.396951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Harris' office argued against cutting minimum sentencing and early release of CA prisoners citing it would reduce the amount of firefighters they have. Because CA uses prison labor to fight its many forest fires. Being a public figure responsible for enslaving citizens via forced prison labor, Harris could've either denounced it or better yet taken direct action. But she did neither and instead helped maintain it which is most more than a tacit endorsement.
Fuck Fanlock - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 22:02:16 EST ID:j17YTU6S No.396953 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yes all politicians accept money to from lobbyists of various sorts and they still have different platforms. But the point we are trying to make is that the policies those lobbyists want are far more indicative what policies their politicians will enact than those politicians declared platforms.

Example is Barack Obama who endorsed and campaigned on a public option as a part of health care reform but actively organized against it once in office because health insurance companies where a major donors to his campaign.

Like I've said before, its far more important who these politicians owe their power to than what they actually say is their platform. Who they owe their power to is who they represent and who's will they will enact. If a politician owes their success to massive corporate donations they will represent and enact the will of those corporations.

“What a crowd, what a turnout” by David Crindlehadging - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:05:08 EST ID:XvL0kkZF No.396428 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504051508996.jpg -(74701B / 72.95KB, 950x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74701
42 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
George Horringhadge - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:34:21 EST ID:BviTmPmk No.396915 Ignore Report Quick Reply
this. the only democrat still talking about hillary now is hillary. and the rest want her to shut the fuck up already to boot. no one, not even hardcore leftist outlets like salon, considers her a viable candidate.

that said, the right still talks about her plenty because holy shit, she was and is the only thing that ever made trump look even moderately decent. lol at trump supporters still shouting
Fanny Tillingfuck - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:39:05 EST ID:LRcBRT+U No.396916 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1504816745611.jpg -(6500B / 6.35KB, 221x160) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Hillary will always inevitably be brought up in these conversations. This Russia media narrative started out in the wake of the leaked DNC emails that severely damaged Hillary's campaign. Hillary's campaign and media outlets friendly to her sustained the narrative and expanded it to include accusations of collusion on the part of Hillary's general election opponent. After Hillary's loss, the Russia narrative was used by her and media outlets friendly to her as an explanation for why she lost. Whatever else we may disagree on, it is inarguable that this issue is intrinsically, unavoidably tied to Hillary Clinton - specifically her loss in the 2016 election, with all of the feelings and unresolved grievances that come with that topic. For most outside the Beltway bubble, it smells like a cynical excuse for why Hillary lost, since at its core that's what it is.

This is just one more reason for why you guys should seriously reconsider this dedication to flogging the Russia horse. Every time the media hypes this up, voters are unconsciously reminded of Hillary's disastrous campaign. The topic is unavoidably mentally associated with the Democratic Party's worst moments, it reopens the rift between the party wings just a little bit more, and it reinforces widespread intensifying distrust in the largely anti-Trump media. And it inevitably, unavoidably reminds us of how much a loser Hillary is.
Fanny Tillingfuck - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:40:20 EST ID:LRcBRT+U No.396917 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>hardcore leftist outlets like salon
lmao you goddamn moron
William Chubblefot - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 16:55:48 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.396919 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>trying to tie the Trump campaign/Russia collusion into Hillary losing.

Oh come the hell on. It was never about making Hillary lose (her losing over being a lousy candidate and crappy campaign tactics has absolutely nothing to do with Russia), it was always about getting Trump in the White House.

I bet even if Bernie was the DNC candidate (who would've put up a much harder fight than Hillary and might've had a fighting chance to win unlike Hillary), things still could've been manipulated into Trump's favor, as the media gave Trump TOO MUCH airtime and TOO MUCH of a presence, thus granting him an easy win.
Fanny Tillingfuck - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 17:20:19 EST ID:LRcBRT+U No.396922 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It doesn't matter what you think about it. The topic makes people think of the election, which makes people think of Hillary, which means she and her loss will inevitably be brought up the longer the issue is discussed. If you want to talk about this topic, then you must be prepared for people to bring up one of the key players. To expect otherwise is grossly unrealistic.

Anarchist / Juggalo solidarity by Lydia Chonkinchetch - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:13:20 EST ID:FvS7gpUy No.396832 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504638800028.png -(211528B / 206.57KB, 341x426) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 211528
IWW releases a statement defending Juggalo comrades from political repression:


Phyllis Tillingwater - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 15:42:43 EST ID:kZUMXybj No.396837 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pretty sure it's just one part of the overall organization, but that's what happens when you have no central disciplinary body to keep the local orgs in line. Not surprised the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee is behind it, given the proximity of juggalos to criminal activity, but I don't know if the IWOC actually represents any incarcerated workers.

Opportunists gonna opportune
Alice Worthingdale - Wed, 06 Sep 2017 08:17:24 EST ID:Oj7rfanj No.396864 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hip-hop clowns will be the vanguard in the fight against fascism.

What a time to be alive.

/rwg/ - Right-Wing General by Albert Nickleway - Fri, 07 Jul 2017 12:55:53 EST ID:EuF9q028 No.394415 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1499446553021.jpg -(27199B / 26.56KB, 283x409) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 27199
General thread for right-wingers

Current events
>Commies throwing a destructive riot outside G20 and getting BTFO by police
>Trump's 30 minute meeting with Putin going well past 2 hours
>Dems/Libs continue to demand WAR with Russia, citing their "election hacking" as an act of war
>John Podesta (Hillary's campaign manager and employee at WaPo) had a breakdown on Twitter due to a recent Trump tweet
>North Korea moving closer to starting a war with the US
>Another ceasefire in Syria infuriating all NeoCons and Liberals
>Liberals upset that a white man is not going to jail for killing a black man who was attempting to drown two children
>CNN still in damage control mode over their blackmailing of a circlejerk user; according to various tweets, pointing out that the majority of CNN employees are Jewish was the real catalyst for doxxing him, not the wrestling meme
>MSM suddenly pushing the Russian narrative again, now that Trump met with Putin. Most have yet to apologize for lying about the "17 intel agencies" that turned out to be 3.
>Comrade Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner for 2020 according to some news outlets, which would more than confirm a second term for Trump
174 posts and 26 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Basil Duckdale - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:51:12 EST ID:zHPsd0dN No.396792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Shit, instead of a "send Africans back to Africa" campaign, maybe all these so called white nationalists should move THEMSELVES back to some particular country in their fatherland in Europe. I hear Moldova is nice this time of year.
Betsy Clummertock - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:56:52 EST ID:9hrURYkb No.396793 Ignore Report Quick Reply
im gonna white genocide you so hard baby
Beatrice Sublingfet - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 12:38:11 EST ID:IIsxRMZh No.396794 Ignore Report Quick Reply
America for the Native Americans! RED POWER!
Caroline Greencocke - Mon, 04 Sep 2017 17:07:43 EST ID:PIa6yiXY No.396800 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Europe for Europeans" hasn't be a fucking thing since the Roman Empire. There are Moorish communities in Britain older then your definition of "white" Chuckle fuck.
Eliza Bubberwill - Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:18:50 EST ID:9vCwpOq2 No.396809 Ignore Report Quick Reply
All humans come from some small ethiopean valley, we should all go back there and fight to the death for it until there is but a small number of humans and the earth can recover from the aberation that is our species

Ruminations of toppling statues by Augustus Sossledale - Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:24:44 EST ID:JS2STE3y No.395747 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1502810684207.jpg -(169137B / 165.17KB, 733x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 169137
So the anti-protestors at Charlottesville, NC tore down a statue that depicts a confederate soldier, with the engraving "In memory of the boys who wore gray" and it got me thinking about the meaning of statues and what they represent. As well as the tendency of people to assign the motive of a movement to all of the people who are involved in it.

To the anti-protestors the statue obviously represents oppression, slavery and all of that. Or maybe the statue was just a casualty of passions running high during the day, and they didn't really care about what the statue represents beyond that fact that it was associated with the confederacy.

I digress, the statue to me, does not really seem to be representing any kind of political ideas. It seems more like a memorial for all of the soldiers who were killed on the confederate side. The engraving also makes reference to "boys" there were many many young boys who died in the civil, young people who did not have a real understanding of why the war was being fought, people who still had potential to go on and do any amount of good with their lives. I have to wonder about how "boys in grey" died who thought slavery was wrong, or didn't really care about.

Being included in that army was more a function of where you were born than any kind of political ideology, but such is the case with most conflicts.

I've always held a reverance for the people who die in war that are conscripted. It makes me thankful that I live in a time where the local authority isn't coming to my house telling me I have to go fight and die for whatever reason. I don't think many of the soldiers in the civil war gave a shit about high-minded political ideology, most people just had a gun put in their hand and got told the otherside is evil. Just like in WWII, just like in Vietnam, just like in so many conflicts.

Maybe I'm off base, maybe I'm missing the point. IDK, seeing that just didn't sit well with me. I doubt that any of the protestors on either side we're really thinking about what that statue is supposed to represent.
301 posts and 78 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Nathaniel Blythestock - Sat, 02 Sep 2017 16:19:52 EST ID:kZUMXybj No.396730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Eh, you're not entirely wrong, you're just an asshole. Incidentally, the person whose philosophy most closely mirrors what you're preaching here would be Ernst Junger, who was a captain in the Wehrmacht during WW2 despite his hatred of the Nazi party and leadership. He wrote a book called Eumeswil which was basically a mea culpa for his time in WW2. One of the things he said that really resonated with me was "Life is too short and too beautiful to sacrifice it for ideas, although contamination is not always avoidable. But hats off to the martyrs."

Still, the Anarch figure that Junger uses in that work has ideas, they're just his own ideas. He also just recognizes when to stay quiet about them and how to survive within a system in which one wrong move could mean your death, e.g., when you're a captain in the Wehrmact and an overzealous private could report you to the Gestapo, or some asshole in the SS could order your execution because he doesn't like your prose.
Nathaniel Blythestock - Sat, 02 Sep 2017 16:22:33 EST ID:kZUMXybj No.396731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not an argument.
Lillian Borrynark - Sat, 02 Sep 2017 16:35:38 EST ID:3x0KCde2 No.396732 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Dude, whatever, there is no doubt whatsoever they the stars and bars is coddled by racist and racism. There are civil war reenactment folks who have no on hateful bone in their body though. If you see that pickup with two American flags or two confederate flags and you are not white or gay, on a hee haw redneck-type Budweiser slamming saturday night. Never know what is in their minds and what could happen in an moments.
Edwin Barrylock - Sun, 03 Sep 2017 05:32:53 EST ID:7vXpw3uu No.396756 Ignore Report Quick Reply

you really think that? look at OP's pic again. they are young. they are proud. i dont think their intention is to start a war. i think their intention is to destroy a symbol of the racist institutions that have attacked their sense of identity their whole lives. whether it is right or wrong, or wise or not, or has other domino effects, is not a consideration i think they had.
Fanny Fuddleforth - Sun, 03 Sep 2017 06:57:24 EST ID:xQbV1JEs No.396758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Civil war reenactment folks typically know that the "Southern" flag is a fucking meme, and it's not the real Southern flag.

for fellow comrades by Nicholas Fushbanks - Sun, 20 Aug 2017 10:49:40 EST ID:OMfzYUQp No.396045 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503240580562.jpg -(43830B / 42.80KB, 720x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 43830
I recently picked up a copy of Naomi Klein's new book "No is not enough", I leafed through it to get the main points but didnt buy it.
>If you spend your days glued to your phone and have 30 political tabs open on your browser, much of the material in No Is Not Enough will be familiar. The book’s chief value lies in synthesis.
Its about Trump. Here's an article about it: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/22/no-is-not-enough-naomi-klein-donald-trump

For those not familiar she wrote 'No Logo' in the nineties which is about the power of branding and "The shock doctrine" later:
>This centers on the exploitation of national crises to push through controversial policies while citizens are too emotionally and physically distracted by disasters or upheavals to mount an effective resistance
Her new book is a kind of blend of those two topics. She writes about how Trump won the election by effective branding, basically making his name synonymous with wealth and success. Although many of us know that Trump is nowhere near very successful with money, the power of branding is creating a fact-free or even counter-factual reality. She also goes on to say that his election is basically a corporate take over of government. Later on she warns of the shock 'therapy' - using crisis like war or economic crash to push through new legislation pushing the US further towards authoritarianism.

Although I found her now and have found her in the past to be a bit alarmist, she does have a point, considering Trump's recent remarks on Korea, tension in the country and basically everything Trump does. At the end she discusses tactics ordinary people can use to prepare for the shock therapy, however her message basically can be summarised as unite all the different voices on the left - she falls in Bernie Sanders camp rather than Clinton's.

So... Are you prepared for the shock? what are you doing?
Or if you've read the book or are familiar with Klein what do you think?
Jack Fallyhood - Fri, 01 Sep 2017 09:24:19 EST ID:urmXhtQc No.396637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
so no one gives a fuck huh?
Betsy Cezzletuck - Fri, 01 Sep 2017 09:54:14 EST ID:7vXpw3uu No.396638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i dont need to read this book or know about this woman. all the points you mentioned are clearly obvious to anyone paying attention to current events. not trying to just reflexively be a dick, but the cover, title, and central points of the book make it seem like something written for adolescents just entering the political realm
Reuben Pottingkadge - Fri, 01 Sep 2017 14:18:30 EST ID:Ukd4r9pM No.396651 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hi fellow comrade, you should read the Gulag Archipelago instead.
William Drudgeham - Sat, 02 Sep 2017 21:59:35 EST ID:GmdgEHro No.396743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I haven't read the book, but I saw the Democracy Now segment covering it. She makes some good points about the need for people to defy something like martial law by taking to the streets en masse in defiance.

RADICAL CENTRISM NOW by Isabella Podgefock - Sun, 13 Aug 2017 18:23:56 EST ID:9QtGH0F5 No.395594 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1502663036334.jpg -(92687B / 90.51KB, 960x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 92687
Both sides came looking for a fight, but as far as I can tell Antifa actually initiated the violence AS PER USUAL.

Reactionaries don't exist in a vacuum. Look at the damn word.

I've been trying to tell you all for years. The left has grown increasingly authoritarian and turned on legitimate liberal values, and now in response we have actual bonafide continental collectivist neo-nazis marching in large numbers.

If you failed to call out the black supremacists inside BLM but are now shocked about what is happening in Virginia, YOU are part of the problem. If you failed to call out people like Linda Sarsour for using feminism as a cover to call for Sharia law, YOU are part of the problem. You guys were way too hyper-focused on a boogieman that did not exist until NOW, because you would not acknowledge the cancer in our own ranks. You could have prevented the next civil war by keeping tyranny of all stripes in check instead of perfering left or right. They are both dangerous and both will turn on you once you are no longer useful. I am so sick of this. The problem is collectivism. The problem is authoritarianism.

We are now in a situation that resembles something like Europe before both worlds wars. The radical authoritarian left starts pushing so hard that the radical authoritarian right starts over-reacting to it.

Fuck authoritarians. Fuck racial supremacists. Fuck white and black nationalists. Fuck intersectionalists and internationalists. You either stand by individual liberty or you don't.

Trump and his ilk are not to blame for this. He came out an condemned violence on ALL sides. At the very most his election should have been seen as a symptom or a warning shot.

It is time for a new radical center. Libertarians and Classical Liberals who are willing to fight and die for individualism and dignity for all men and women. Authoritarians are the problem. Not the left, not the right. The totalitarians. They are the children who are preventing the adults on both sides from having a civil discussion. Now both kids are slinging shit and the ceiling fans and the only thing we can do to keep this from getting so far out of hand that we ALL regret it is to spank both of them and put them in the corner.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
146 posts and 33 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Caroline Badgegold - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:07:23 EST ID:6BOjI4HW No.396180 Ignore Report Quick Reply
No it is to bait and switch what is being criticized, which is not something that can not be expected to fess up.
Phineas Druffinghot - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:22:31 EST ID:mmMUOgmW No.396182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1503588151542.jpg -(100442B / 98.09KB, 768x496) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>values and tradition that has worked for thousands of years
they've constantly changed/shited/evolved/adapted over those years, the same way people are trying to change them now.

>ending up with a USSR
slipper slope fallacy. the idea that if we pursue social progress then we will inevitably end up another USSR is ridiculous.

conversely, had we NOT pursued social progress, we'd still have slavery, minorities still wouldn't be able to vote, only landowners would be able to vote, kings would still reign supreme, etc etc.

>thousands of years of beautiful culture/history/tradition/values
lol are you really this stupid?

>Its called loyalty above treason
reminded me of pic related.
Molly Breddlebanks - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 14:20:54 EST ID:EiF/mHBu No.396183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It's time to remind these ALT-LEFT loosers that communism is illegal!
Polly Pobblemock - Fri, 25 Aug 2017 04:09:11 EST ID:E0iKQ/s8 No.396205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1503648551320.jpg -(15808B / 15.44KB, 158x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Haha oh man that dog...this is 100% unrelated but when I was in elementary school, this one fat kid who barely ever spoke would ALWAYS wear shorts and t-shirts, and almost ALWAYS the t-shirt would be a Big Dogs® shirt. Literally no matter what. Whether it was 100 degrees out, or 30 degrees out. Even if it was pouring rain, hailing, even if we had some of that light snow California can get every once in a while, his fat ginger ass would be out there in shorts and Big Dogs® t-shirt, standing around not saying much unless someone wanted a look at his latest Big Dogs® shirt. No jackets or sweaters either.

I just remember that shit so clearly because they were always distinct as fuck. They'd usually have some big cartoon with that fucking dog on it. Typically it'd be a movie poster parody like "Dogs in Black" starring Tommy Lee Bones and Will Sniff or some kind of Larry the Cable Guy-tier joke that incorporated dog puns or some fuckin trailer park-tier display of patriotism; Big Dog pissing on Osama bin Laden or humping Saddam, that kinda shit. Pic related.

This is had nothing to do with the topic at hand, I know, but seeing that dog again for the first time in like 13 years triggered a shit load of memories and I was compelled to say something lol. That kid always seemed off. He and his mom and sister live a few blocks away from me too, one of my friends says he sees his sister (who seriously looks EXACTLY like him, but female) riding her bike in circles on their street for HOURS. Like 9am to 6pm. Creepy folks.

ANYWAY yes, Centrism. Centrism. Trying not to be an extremist or absolutist is great and all, but being overly neutral can be dangerous for society. And people who always play the fucking "both sides (hate that kind of binary thinking btw) are awful/stupid/evil" card because they're too chickenshit to take an actual stance on an issue that they will need to actually defend at some point, or because they're simply too stupid to understand the debate taking place reeeeally piss me off. Fucking middle of the road fallacy.
Simon Weckleville - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 18:43:55 EST ID:oZXfwj5p No.396509 Ignore Report Quick Reply

This. When there's actual shit at stake in conflict, refusing to pick a side not only makes you a coward but it means you by default are choosing a side. These are the types of people that will cheer for whatever sports team wins. Apply that to more serious shit and you = coward.

why poor people are drawn to racism, and why tribalism is the solution by Augustus Pickforth - Mon, 28 Aug 2017 23:43:48 EST ID:dLSgzthc No.396353 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503978228257.png -(14168B / 13.84KB, 312x327) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 14168
yes, we are slaves to nature

who are you? there is no right answer. in this universe, matter moves solely by the laws of physics, and nobody exists at all separate from the universal lagrangian. but there is a right answer, in the sense that, if you choose the wrong answer, you will suffer for it.

how you answer this question will determine whether you evaluate your life as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and if you evaluate your life as unsatisfactory you will probably try to change it. the thing is that some kinds of self-concept can give you more satisfaction than other kinds, see graph. you can choose variously distributed levels of "you" which will pay you back in regards to how successful they are and how crucial you are as a part of them. so for example a resident of santa cruz has an easier time drawing on the "city" identity than someone in tucson, but there's no city you can live in that's quite as validating as the surname "washington".

the ultimate source of satisfaction is, of course, individual satisfaction. people who have access to individual satisfaction have markedly less need to draw from the other sources of personal identity. this often leads to such people opposing "tribalism", while purporting to advocate the opposite end of the graph, the "universal" identity. this is the social structure of the left: privileged little snotty brats on college campuses prattle on about class consciousness while propping up their own psyches on their individual achievements.

of course, it's all a lie. nobody actually cares about the universe because nobody is responsible for the universe. people who talk about the universe are really just after the individual rewards they know they'll get for pretending to take up a perspective nobody actually has. this is why "class consciousness" can never work: it's too diluted, so nobody has any reason to care about the success of the class. the strongest unions in the country are the ones that offer a clear sense of identity to their members: teacher's unions, police unions, airline pilots, and of course, the American Medical Association.

the reason that people have …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
9 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ernest Wennerhood - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:31:28 EST ID:tJsVDsjQ No.396453 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1504067488714.png -(74973B / 73.22KB, 525x655) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
That's too broad of a religous belief. I don't know the term, but more aptly muslims who demonize and advocate killing others, even other muslims, for not aligning with their beliefs. Cause there's mosques in Texas that have opened their doors to refugees from the hurricane, regardless of who they are.
Jarvis Gezzlebone - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 01:22:09 EST ID:UDZLE+P/ No.396454 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Too broad of a religious belief
There are two denomination in Islam, there are countless denominations of Christianity. The American phenomenon of the splintering protestant church where nobody discusses doctrine to the point where everyone "has their own personal church of belief within them" can no be applied to just any faith since not every faith has loose levels of interpretation like Christianity.

>I don't know the term
You're thinking of Wahhabism, which isn't a religious denomination and more of a political stance. The difference is akin to a Christian who follows and takes biblical law very seriously.
Doris Clayville - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:08:54 EST ID:UASK+rzd No.396466 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>There are two denominations in Islam

Just gonna nitpick here and say that that's wrong.

Clara Sumblestone - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:20:48 EST ID:VqGtqGtM No.396468 Ignore Report Quick Reply
it's not a nitpick when the guy's whole argument relies on that false assumption.
Jarvis Wamblefuck - Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:19:13 EST ID:Vwoc9qnJ No.396472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>there are countless denominations of Christianity
there's basically protestantism, catholicism, and orthodoxy, and that's it.

>buh buh buh but sub-denominations!!
islam has that too.

i'm sure that mistake wasn't based on any sort of prejudice or bias though...

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.