Support NeoGAF

[Broseybrose]

I can only make assessments based on your statements in this thread so far. In your original comment, you actually considered physical violence against the other side. It doesn't matter that in this imagined scenario of yours, the other side is the instigator. You're the one imagining violence. It's your thought. You're looking for an excuse to use violence against people with whom you disagree. And it's authoritarian. Own it.

You are so wrong. I use Charlottesville as an example because there was a peaceful rally that turned violent when the SJWs became violent. Historically, SJWs have been the provokers of violence. Its not what I WANT.

You still haven't answered my question if you would defend the pedo defender who got banned for voicing his opinion on here

I dont know anything about this who is the pedo? Or the pedo defender?

Actually dont answer, I dont want to know, it is extremely tiring trying to explain things.

Godspeed you guys. Keep and open mind, Ill try and do the same.

The only reason Im adamant about CVille is because I watched the whole event go down on livestream so I do feel like I was there... and TRUST ME, the picture the media paints is simply deceptive.

 

[Jon Neu]

I'm not the one who watched a video of a marching group of white men yelling "blood and soil" and tried to claim it wasn't a Nazi rally. You're delusional if you think it was anything else.

But we're getting away from the point of things. The point is, by wanting to silence these "SJWs" that you claim to hate, you are also an opponent of free speech. You're a hypocrite.

They are definitely nazis, maybe not all of them were, but a good portion were clearly neonazis. But he is not wrong, it wasn't nazis the ones who brought violence in the first place, it was antifas.

I mean, ironically the vast majority of nazis had their face uncovered, but antifas didn't. When you have people with their face covered so they can't be recognized and with a rudamentary flamethrower made for the ocasion, you know they are not good guys in any shape or form.

 

[Autoignition]

I don't suppose either of you have any video evidence at all of your claims? I would sincerely like to see the moment that the left instigated the violence in Charlottesville.

 

[Broseybrose]

They are definitely nazis, maybe not all of them were, but a good portion were clearly neonazis. But he is not wrong, it wasn't nazis the ones who brought violence in the first place, it was antifas.

I mean, ironically the vast majority of nazis had their face uncovered, but antifas didn't. When you have people with their face covered so they can't be recognized and with a rudamentary flamethrower made for the ocasion, you know they are not good guys in any shape or form.

Thank you very much for your post. A voice of reason is music to my ears right now.

 

[Broseybrose]

I don't suppose either of you have any video evidence at all of your claims? I would sincerely like to see the moment that the left instigated the violence in Charlottesville.

Sadly, no. But read what Jon Neu said. They brought flamethrowes for crissakes. They wore masks.

Also the fact that a signifigant portion of those who were attacked were also armed, and yet not a shot was fired that day, says a LOT to me.

Finally I want to apologize for derailing the thread. This is about a developer who was fired for a tweet, according to the OP.

 

[Autoignition]

Sadly, no. But read what Jon Neu said. They brought flamethrowes for crissakes. They wore masks.

Also the fact that a signifigant portion of those who were attacked were also armed, and yet not a shot was fired that day, says a LOT to me.

Nazis brought automatic rifles. You're being hypocritical again by stating that bringing a weapon to a rally shows an intent of violence while in the same breath defending others who also brought weapons.

Also, Nazis are getting brownie points now for not opening fire at people? Christ Almighty, the bar is officially on the fucking ground.

 

[Broseybrose]

Nazis brought automatic rifles. You're being hypocritical again by stating that bringing a weapon to a rally shows an intent of violence while in the same breath defending others who also brought weapons.

Also, Nazis are getting brownie points now for not opening fire at people? Christ Almighty, the bar is officially on the fucking ground.

Dude, one group showed up to attend a rally.

The other group showed up to FIGHT.

You cannot argue that.

Now I would love it if we could get back on topic here.

 

[Jon Neu]

I don't suppose either of you have any video evidence at all of your claims? I would sincerely like to see the moment that the left instigated the violence in Charlottesville.

Go to youtube and search Charlettosville antifa and you'll have literally dozens and dozens of videos of antifas being violent totally unprovoked. They went there to stop the rally by sheer violence.

But this is nothing new, antifas are really violent and attack people all the time.

 

[Autoignition]

Dude, one group showed up to attend a rally.

The other group showed up to FIGHT.

You cannot argue that.

Now I would love it if we could get back on topic here.

Dude, you're the one who brought up Charlottesville in the first place. I'm just trying to ascertain the depth of your hypocrisy and try to shake some sort of sense of self-awareness into you.

Here, if it'll make you feel any better, I'll reveal a little something about myself. If you go back into my post history for when Charlottesville happened, you'll see that my rhetoric surrounding it was very incendiary. I was the one saying that physical violence against Nazis is always justified every single time. To me, it's as American as baseball and apple pie. My motto is ABPN: Always Be Punching Nazis.

But at least I'm honest about it.

Go to youtube and search Charlettosville antifa and you'll have literally dozens and dozens of videos of antifas being violent totally unprovoked. They went there to stop the rally by sheer violence.

But this is nothing new, antifas are really violent and attack people all the time.

Finally, someone who delivers when I ask for evidence. That video works and I'll let you have that, but the Cernovich tweet is deceptive. We'll never know what really happened there; all we have to go off of is the man in the photo claiming it was self defense because someone had shot at him.

 

[Jon Neu]

Finally, someone who delivers when I ask for evidence. That video works and I'll let you have that, but the Cernovich tweet is deceptive. We'll never know what really happened there; all we have to go off of is the man in the photo claiming it was self defense because someone had shot at him.

I don't even know who Cernovich is, but he is stating one truth: the media narrative only reports one side as bad.

 

[Autoignition]

I don't even know who Cernovich is, but he is stating one truth: the media narrative only reports one side as bad.

Mike Cernovich helped spearhead the pizzagate conspiracy. Tread lightly with him.

 

[TrainedRage]

I hope I don't get fired for a sarcastic tweet I made 2 years ago. If he got fired for 'being a bad representation of the company' then I would love to hear the specifics. this article seems very skimpy on the details.

 

[finowns]

Dude, you're the one who brought up Charlottesville in the first place. I'm just trying to ascertain the depth of your hypocrisy and try to shake some sort of sense of self-awareness into you.

Here, if it'll make you feel any better, I'll reveal a little something about myself. If you go back into my post history for when Charlottesville happened, you'll see that my rhetoric surrounding it was very incendiary. I was the one saying that physical violence against Nazis is always justified every single time. To me, it's as American as baseball and apple pie. My motto is ABPN: Always Be Punching Nazis.

But at least I'm honest about it.



Finally, someone who delivers when I ask for evidence. That video works and I'll let you have that, but the Cernovich tweet is deceptive. We'll never know what really happened there; all we have to go off of is the man in the photo claiming it was self defense because someone had shot at him.

The problem with that is the word Nazi is meaningless now. Anyone can be labeled a Nazi and by your reasoning can and should be punched.

 

[Broseybrose]

Dude, you're the one who brought up Charlottesville in the first place. I'm just trying to ascertain the depth of your hypocrisy and try to shake some sort of sense of self-awareness into you..

Nevermind.

 

[Vicetrailia]

A nazi was actually charged with opening fire, not sure if he did actually open fire though:

"Police say that Richard Wilson Preston was arrested after firing his gun into a group of counterprotesters at a Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/28/gun-fired-in-charlottesville-crowd-orig-lc.cnn

 

[Ke0]

A nazi was actually charged with opening fire, not sure if he did actually open fire though:

"Police say that Richard Wilson Preston was arrested after firing his gun into a group of counterprotesters at a Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/28/gun-fired-in-charlottesville-crowd-orig-lc.cnn

He did

 

[finowns]

A nazi was actually charged with opening fire, not sure if he did actually open fire though:

"Police say that Richard Wilson Preston was arrested after firing his gun into a group of counterprotesters at a Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally"

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/28/gun-fired-in-charlottesville-crowd-orig-lc.cnn

Holy crap at the video.

 

[Vicetrailia]

He did

Ah dang, yeah that guy did. It was a warning shot, but those are definitely illegal.

 

[mid83]

This is why I rarely post on social media these days and completely avoid controversial topics in the workplace.

To me, it’s scary how crazy the mob is getting, especially since now just holding the “wrong” opinion is akin to threatening violence or hate speech.

I saw a story yesterday about a girl at UCF who posted a negative comment about booth on campus that was set up to allow woman to try on a hijab. The girl posted a comment on twitter regarding her opinion on how Islam treats women. The tweet was pretty benign, but the response made it seem as if she was issuing threats at the group running the booth. The response from a Muslim organization on campus pushed for her expulsion because they felt the girl’s comments were inciting violence and putting Muslims at risk on campus. All for stating an opinion. The ironic thing is, the girl who made the comments received threats herself.

This sort of reaction to not having the right opinion is terrifying, and it’s happening more and more from the far left primarily. Anybody with the “wrong” opinion is shouted down, called all the -ist/-phobic terms, and people online attempt to ruin said individual’s life. Scary times.

 

[Ke0]

Ah dang, yeah that guy did. It was a warning shot, but those are definitely illegal.

I don't really know much about the US gun laws, but can a shot aimed at someone even be considered a warning?

 

[Autoignition]

I don't really know much about the US gun laws, but can a shot aimed at someone even be considered a warning?

A firearm is automatically considered lethal force regardless of the context in the US. Actual charges can be highly subjective at times, but if the police wanted to, they could hit this guy with attempted murder.

The problem with that is the word Nazi is meaningless now. Anyone can be labeled a Nazi and by your reasoning can and should be punched.

Not to me. When I say that, I mean actual, legitimate Nazis. White supremacists shouting "Blood and soil" and clamoring for an ethnostate. Those are the guys you should always be punching.

 

[Broseybrose]

This is why I rarely post on social media these days and completely avoid controversial topics in the workplace.

To me, it’s scary how crazy the mob is getting, especially since now just holding the “wrong” opinion is akin to threatening violence or hate speech.

I saw a story yesterday about a girl at UCF who posted a negative comment about booth on campus that was set up to allow woman to try on a hijab. The girl posted a comment on twitter regarding her opinion on how Islam treats women. The tweet was pretty benign, but the response made it seem as if she was issuing threats at the group running the booth. The response from a Muslim organization on campus pushed for her expulsion because they felt the girl’s comments were inciting violence and putting Muslims at risk on campus. All for stating an opinion. The ironic thing is, the girl who made the comments received threats herself.

This sort of reaction to not having the right opinion is terrifying, and it’s happening more and more from the far left primarily. Anybody with the “wrong” opinion is shouted down, called all the -ist/-phobic terms, and people online attempt to ruin said individual’s life. Scary times.

Preach!

That is why everyone was so quick to jump on me. I didnt say anything wrong. But I was deemed offensive and attacked and made fun of by multiple members.

(Except for there actually being a shot fired that day. Which is crazy. I had no idea.)

I just hate to see our once fairly amicable society go down this road. It leads to Hell.

 

[Autoignition]

Preach!

That is why everyone was so quick to jump on me. And I didnt say anything wrong.

(Except for there actually being a shot fired that day. Which is crazy. I had no idea.)

The only reason why I "jumped on you" was because your original comment smacked of an intense hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in its cognitive dissonance. You were fantasizing about violence against people for speaking up about what they believe in while turning around and trying to say you advocate free speech. You can't have it both ways. Either you want these people to shut up and go away or you advocate free speech. They're mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[ilfait]

I don't know if I've ever seen a modern political rally live or on video that wasn't embarrassing.

Preach!

That is why everyone was so quick to jump on me. I didnt say anything wrong. But I was deemed offensive and attacked and made fun of by multiple members.

(Except for there actually being a shot fired that day. Which is crazy. I had no idea.)

I just hate to see our once fairly amicable society go down this road. It leads to Hell.

They made fun of you?

 

[Broseybrose]

The only reason why I "jumped on you" was because your original comment smacked of an intense hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in its cognitive dissonance. You were fantasizing about violence against people for speaking up about what they believe in while turning around and trying to say you advocate free speech. You can't have it both ways. Either you want these people to shut up and go away or you advocate free speech. They're mutually exclusive concepts.

I was not fantasizing about violence. I was hinting at its inevitability if things do not change.

And again you are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. I do not want them to shut up and go away, I want to change their minds, as crazy an endevor that is to take on.

I advocate for free speech fully.

You have already made a fool of yourself. Are you going to continue attacking me because you dont like me?

I don't know if I've ever seen a modern political rally live or on video that wasn't embarrassing.

They made fun of you?

OK I loled but seriously read Hamster Plugin's post last page. That wasnt cool at all.

 

[David___]

Advocates free speech

Also wishes to incites violence against people who don't share his ideals

Gets called out on the hypocrisy

"They're making fun of me"

wut

 

[Autoignition]

I was not fantasizing about violence. I was hinting at its inevitability if things do not change.

And again you are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. I do not want them to shut up and go away, I want to change their minds, as crazy an endevor that is to take on.

I advocate for free speech fully.

You have already made a fool of yourself. Are you going to continue attacking me because you dont like me?

"Hinting at its inevitability" is a very nice way of saying "threatening." So, you weren't fantasizing about violence, you were threatening it. Good to know.

Nothing I've said to you was an attack; deconstructing your argument is not an attack. This is not personal against you, and I only have your own words to work with.

 

[Broseybrose]

Advocates free speech

Also wishes to incites violence against people who don't share his ideals

Gets called out on the hypocrisy

"They're making fun of me"

wut

You apparently missed what happened here.

I was proven right.

 

[Broseybrose]

"Hinting at its inevitability" is a very nice way of saying "threatening." So, you weren't fantasizing about violence, you were threatening it. Good to know.

Nothing I've said to you was an attack; deconstructing your argument is not an attack. This is not personal against you, and I only have your own words to work with.

And so far all you have deconstructed is yourself.

 

[Autoignition]

And so far all you have deconstructed is yourself.

Explain how and show your work.

 

[Broseybrose]

You both insist that I am threatening or wishing violence by pointing out it;s inevitablility if we continue down your murderous SJW socialist utopian road.

And youre both wrong.

I win.

And Id still be your friend. Or at least try to be.

 

[Autoignition]

You both insist that I am threatening or wishing violence by pointing out it;s inevitablility if we continue down your murderous SJW socialist utopian road.

 

[Broseybrose]

You really think you got me with that? LOL

Why do you keep fighting?

Ill just drop it here this has gone on long enough.

Id say hopefully youve learned your lesson but you havent, so...

Peace.

 

[ilfait]

Did he actually threaten violence, though? I haven't read every post on the last two pages, but I thought that he just warned of the eventuality of violence if things continue in a certain direction. That's not the same thing.

 

[ilfait]

OK I loled but seriously read Hamster Plugin's post last page. That wasnt cool at all.

He may have misrepresented your argument, but I didn't see him making fun of you in that post. You can't just expect everyone to agree with you without at least providing evidence, even if you believe the truth of your views to be self-evident.

You're arguing against at least a few people at once, and you've probably got some PTSD from the recent state of gaf and/or the current state of other forums. But I don't think that this forum is as hostile as you think it is.

 

[Broseybrose]

Did he actually threaten violence, though? I haven't read every post on the last two pages, but I thought that he just warned of the eventuality of violence if things continue in a certain direction. That's not the same thing.

No of course not.

I never said I would do anything. I was pointing out the possible inevitability.

 

[Autoignition]

You really think you got me with that? LOL

Why do you keep fighting?

Because I used to be an English teacher and it bothers me when people don't understand the meaning of the words they use.

Did he actually threaten violence, though? I haven't read every post on the last two pages, but I thought that he just warned of the eventuality of violence if things continue in a certain direction. That's not the same thing.

Literally no one was talking about violence before he brought it up, and out of nowhere he brought up how the SJWs are going to "lose" if it comes to physical violence, while also using the terminology "kill."

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just said he was fantasizing about violence against people whom he disagreed with (since he clearly was), but then he gave me the actual literal dictionary definition of the word "threaten" so here we are.

 

[ilfait]

No of course not.

You didn't threaten him with the old Brosey bodyslam, then? That's good.

 

[ilfait]

Because I used to be an English teacher and it bothers me when people don't understand the meaning of the words they use.



Literally no one was talking about violence before he brought it up, and out of nowhere he brought up how the SJWs are going to "lose" if it comes to physical violence, while also using the terminology "kill."

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just said he was fantasizing about violence against people whom he disagreed with (since he clearly was), but then he gave me the actual literal dictionary definition of the word "threaten" so here we are.

I think he said kill the ideology initially; not the people. And bringing up violence isn't the same as threatening violence either. Besides, even if he did threaten violence, which doesn't seem to be the case, he's told you now that he isn't threatening violence. So what's the problem?

 

[Broseybrose]

Because I used to be an English teacher and it bothers me when people don't understand the meaning of the words they use.



Literally no one was talking about violence before he brought it up, and out of nowhere he brought up how the SJWs are going to "lose" if it comes to physical violence, while also using the terminology "kill."

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just said he was fantasizing about violence against people whom he disagreed with (since he clearly was), but then he gave me the actual literal dictionary definition of the word "threaten" so here we are.

Do you seriously not see how misguided you are?

Youre offended cause Im a Nazi and I threatened you with the Brosey bodyslam! lol

(Not an actual Nazi this is satire - just in case)

 

[Autoignition]

I think he said kill the ideology initially; not the people. And bringing up violence isn't the same as threatening violence either. Besides, even if he did threaten violence, which doesn't seem to be the case, he's told you now that he isn't threatening violence. So what's the problem?

I just said what the problem was in the post you quoted. I don't like it when people misuse words.

That's really it, at this point.

Do you seriously not see how misguided you are?

Youre offended cause Im a Nazi and I threatened you with the Brosey bodyslam! lol

(Not an actual Nazi this is satire - just in case)

The Brosey Bodyslam sounds like a weird sex thing, for the record.

 

[David___]

Did he actually threaten violence, though? I haven't read every post on the last two pages, but I thought that he just warned of the eventuality of violence if things continue in a certain direction. That's not the same thing.

My lord. Just reading that OP makes my head want to explode.

So to start off he expresses how angry he feels about this situation. Understandable.

It really drives me crazy that the entire western world, founded on free speech, is being (has been) taken over by social justice WARRIORS. Im probably as mad about it as the dev who got fired for tweeting a joke.

Now he identifies who is to blame for what happened. Okay.

If it ever comes down to actual conflict, they will lose. I hope there is some other way to KILL their nonsense socialist utopian ideology before it comes to violence... but I dont see it happening.

Now brings up conflict out of nowhere and says that they would lose if it comes down to it. Also decided to emphasize KILL of all the words in his post . Also says that actual violence will break out.

Even if he isn't rooting for violence to occur, he's still a hypocrite on the bases that he claims to advocate "free speech" yet wants a whole ideology killed off one way or another

 

[Valdega]

If you mean the attack helicopter joke, it was making fun of transgender people and implying that they don't exist. It's implying that if you can have your brain identify you as the other sex, it's just as logical to identify as an inanimate object. An attack helicopter has become the inanimate object of choice among asshole memers.

I don't think it's specific to inanimate objects. Rather, it's mocking the the idea that personal belief can be treated as fact even when it directly conflicts with established science. It's the same reason why people criticize religion, only on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

 

[ilfait]

So to start off he expresses how angry he feels about this situation. Understandable.

Now he identifies who is to blame for what happened. Okay.

Now brings up conflict out of nowhere and says that they would lose if it comes down to it. Also decided to emphasize KILL of all the words in his post . Also says that actual violence will break out.

Even if he isn't rooting for violence to occur, he's still a hypocrite on the bases that he claims to advocate "free speech" yet wants a whole ideology killed off one way or another

"... I was not fantasizing about violence. I was hinting at its inevitability if things do not change.

And again you are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. I do not want them to shut up and go away, I want to change their minds..."

Somewhat abruptly and brashly, but not entirely out of no where. He's obviously relating the Subnautica firing to the SJW issue in general.

It seems "one way or another" is just one way, unless you're implying that he wants to change their minds at gunpoint, or by trying to get people fired. I guess it's possible, but I don't get that impression at all.

 

[Broseybrose]

I just said what the problem was in the post you quoted. I don't like it when people misuse words.

That's really it, at this point.
.

Cmon, go back and decide whether I misused a word or you misinterpreted a word...

"... I was not fantasizing about violence. I was hinting at its inevitability if things do not change.

And again you are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive. I do not want them to shut up and go away, I want to change their minds..."

Somewhat abruptly and brashly, but not entirely out of no where. He's obviously relating the Subnautica firing to the SJW issue in general.

It seems "one way or another" is just one way, unless you're implying that he wants to change their minds at gunpoint. I guess it's possible, but I don't get that impression at all.

Honestly, thank you.

And I do have PTSD... from this 'conversation'.

 

[Autoignition]

Cmon, go back and decide whether I misused a word or you misinterpreted a word...

Are you getting off on this or what?

 

[Broseybrose]

Are you getting off on this or what?

And now youre just projecting. You just cant admit you were wrong can you? That's cool, but dont keep on posting acting like you werent just made a fool of.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Auto, you can't argue with crazy man.

 

[Autoignition]

Auto, you can't argue with crazy man.

You'd think I'd have learned by now. I continue to hold onto this irrational belief that if I keep asking questions and making people explain themselves, they'll see how incongruous their belief structure is.

And every single time, I'm proven wrong.

Brosey seems like the type who has to have the final word, regardless of how ridiculous the conversation becomes, so I'll just let him have it, I guess.

 

[ilfait]

You'd think I'd have learned by now. I continue to hold onto this irrational belief that if I keep asking questions and making people explain themselves, they'll see how incongruous their belief structure is..

Sometimes it does work though. And when it does work it isn't usually immediately. Even when someone disagrees with you in the moment, when it's something that has a ring of truth to it, the idea tends to stick with people, and may eventually change minds.