The Punisher goes woke?

Mar 6, 2018
1,534
1,914
290
Then wouldn't you say this strategy would destroy the "white" family too? More of them are on welfare than black families.

And this also seems like a terrible strategy. Why would the government want to replace the black male, but the black male only by giving the black families free money? Sounds like a rumor a racist would come up with to make it seem as if only black people received welfare from the State.
It's a bad-faith argument to be sure, but playing devils advocate, it wouldn't matter if you harmed white families on welfare, because you'd still be doing more harm to black families by encouraging a system that sees black fathers removed from the house. And yes, there are poor white people as well, but they don't matter to the people in power either. It's less about race, and more about creating dependency.


Still a bad-faith argument (especially as it relates to a conspiracy to harm black families) and I think it's wrong to assume bad intent, but it's hard to deny that as an end result, dependency benefits those offering the most assistance.
 
Likes: OSC
May 24, 2005
39,013
1,963
1,320
It's a bad-faith argument to be sure, but playing devils advocate, it wouldn't matter if you harmed white families on welfare, because you'd still be doing more harm to black families by encouraging a system that sees black fathers removed from the house. And yes, there are poor white people as well, but they don't matter to the people in power either. It's less about race, and more about creating dependency.


Still a bad-faith argument (especially as it relates to a conspiracy to harm black families) and I think it's wrong to assume bad intent, but it's hard to deny that as an end result, dependency benefits those offering the most assistance.
I love the Wu, but WHOA is that a crazy skit to have on an album lol.

I've always found it funny that people consider welfare "dependency" but never consider Corporate Welfare to be "dependency" to businesses. It's only dependency is the person receiving it doesn't want to use it as a helping hand. People that use the word dependency (when it comes to welfare) tend to have low expectations for those that are on welfare. And that goes for black and white people using that term.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
Then wouldn't you say this strategy would destroy the "white" family too? More of them are on welfare than black families.

And this also seems like a terrible strategy. Why would the government want to replace the black male, but the black male only by giving the black families free money? Sounds like a rumor a racist would come up with to make it seem as if only black people received welfare from the State.
not sure, rumor is the democrats kkk roots kept going into modern times and the welfare strategy of dependent voters, and drug and crap infested cities is part of their strategy. The welfare state, socialism, is part of their strategy, tax the successful regardless of race or gender so they breed less. They want to promote poverty suffering and dependence on government, buy votes with free stuff and dependence.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
not sure, rumor is the democrats kkk roots kept going into modern times and the welfare strategy of dependent voters, and drug and crap infested cities is part of their strategy. The welfare state, socialism, is part of their strategy, tax the successful regardless of race or gender so they breed less. They want to promote poverty suffering and dependence on government, buy votes with free stuff and dependence.
o_O
 
Jan 8, 2019
6
3
60
You're... surprised by this? Did you miss the very first episode where the strong independent woman of color FBI agent stood up to her evil white male boss and called out his racism, sexism, and... a third -ism or -ist that I'm currently forgetting?
 
Nov 21, 2012
429
133
410
DUDE YOU’RE NOT WOKE ARE YOU? You’re too WOKE man! Get Slept, homie! Save yourself!

I AM WOKE!!

What the fuck does that even mean? Because I don’t sympathize with bigots, I guess that means I am woke or whatever. It is funny because I use to be a Neo nazi skinhead in the 90’s as a teenager, so I have an inside perspective as to how these assholes think. Because I was one.

But for the most part I try and stay off the internet most of the time, so I do not have to listen this nonsense. When did white people become such sensitive babies?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
So some members of this forum are defending alt-right Christian fundamentalists now? lol

Fucking hell. Some of you need some god damn perspective.
I don't think the issue is one "alt-right" Christian fundamentalist villain in isolation, rather that people are noticing a pattern of the social justice ideology (i.e. white man bad) being shoehorned into every piece of media possible and are pushing back against it. Is it possible that this one has been misconstrued and the outrage is unjustified? Possibly, yeah, but it seems equally likely to me that it's more woke propaganda from the usual suspects at Netflix.

I'm in the wait and see camp though. The video in the OP wasn't exactly a stellar source.
 
Dec 29, 2008
3,861
25
770
Ahhh yes, Christianity; the only religion it's ok to openly mock and ridicule in our society. Because fuck those conservative people!
It's easy. You don't agree with each other you have how many religions based on one book for centries that proves it?

Also Christianity is openly mocked because Christians have opely mocked others for years. Now you might be saying 'we don't mock we tell people the way, the truth, the light!' But that's something the say in Lord of the Rings or something.

I mean I shouldn't be saying this my dad's a pastor (he's a piece of shit tho).
 
Likes: OSC

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
It's easy. You don't agree with each other you have how many religions based on one book for centries that proves it?

Also Christianity is openly mocked because Christians have opely mocked others for years. Now you might be saying 'we don't mock we tell people the way, the truth, the light!' But that's something the say in Lord of the Rings or something.

I mean I shouldn't be saying this my dad's a pastor (he's a piece of shit tho).
Depends on how they handle it. The guy could be from one of those thousand random minichurches that basically use Jesus as pretext to teach some random pseudochristianity cult.

PS on an unrelated note
Look it is said humans are made in the image of god, yet what makes us human is our general intelligence, could it not be said that the eternal living mathematical truth of the algorithms of general intelligence embodied in the brain are the image of god? The true image of god? That unraveling such and bringing them into the flesh of our machines, is the descent of the divine into the material world? For some the arrival of the first true messiah, for others the second, but in truth the beginning of the end of the human era and the start of the posthuman era?
 
Dec 29, 2008
3,861
25
770
PS on an unrelated note
Look it is said humans are made in the image of god, yet what makes us human is our general intelligence, could it not be said that the eternal living mathematical truth of the algorithms of general intelligence embodied in the brain are the image of god? The true image of god? That unraveling such and bringing them into the flesh of our machines, is the descent of the divine into the material world? For some the arrival of the first true messiah, for others the second, but in truth the beginning of the end of the human era and the start of the posthuman era?
I have never heard this argument ever and now my brain is going wild I'mma sleep on this.
 
Likes: OSC
Mar 6, 2018
1,534
1,914
290
I love the Wu, but WHOA is that a crazy skit to have on an album lol.
If you haven't heard the skit, you probably haven't heard the album. It's actually pretty good, IMO.

I've always found it funny that people consider welfare "dependency" but never consider Corporate Welfare to be "dependency" to businesses.
That's a different issue, but it's no less of an issue, and it's probably an even more important issue. All politicians seem beholden to corporations in some way or another.

It's only dependency is the person receiving it doesn't want to use it as a helping hand. People that use the word dependency (when it comes to welfare) tend to have low expectations for those that are on welfare. And that goes for black and white people using that term.
Let's forget about low expectations, because I don't think there's any way of ever understanding intent, or the ratio of "trying to get off welfare" to "trying to live off welfare," and I'm not going to make any sort of assumptions, except to acknowledge that both situations exist to some degree.

Having done that, regardless of race, let's consider family dynamics.

Two parents are raising children in a household together. One works full time, the other raises children full time. That works. Maybe the one raising the children also works part time in the evenings, after the full time worker gets home. That also works.

Father outside of the home while the mother raises the children alone. He has to feed, clothe, and shelter himself, and his money also needs to support his family. That's less money going to the family, which creates the need for the mother to work. But if she's raising young children, she can't work without some form of support system. So either her mother or a close relative raises the kids while she works, or she has to get government support. Maybe a little of both.

But kids get sick. Schools have snow days. Children have injuries that prevent them from attending class. So even if the mother wants to work while the kids are usually away at school, finding and keeping a job as a single parent without a support system would likely not be very easy.

Now the kids are old enough to stay at home alone, and the mother has to make a choice. Either somehow find a job after being unemployed for years, knowing that for large portions of time her kids will be home alone without supervision, or do whatever she can do to remain on welfare.

It seems like it would be an easy situation for anyone to fall into, given the circumstances. And I don't think dependency is the wrong word to use about a situation like that. And I don't also don't think it's inaccurate to recognize that "as an end result, dependency benefits those offering the most assistance."
 
Likes: OSC
May 24, 2005
39,013
1,963
1,320
I don't think the issue is one "alt-right" Christian fundamentalist villain in isolation, rather that people are noticing a pattern of the social justice ideology (i.e. white man bad) being shoehorned into every piece of media possible and are pushing back against it. Is it possible that this one has been misconstrued and the outrage is unjustified? Possibly, yeah, but it seems equally likely to me that it's more woke propaganda from the usual suspects at Netflix.

I'm in the wait and see camp though. The video in the OP wasn't exactly a stellar source.
It's funny how a white man being the bad guy is now supposed to be a bad thing, when us black people ONLY use to be the bad "thugs" in movies and TV shows lol. It was either that or the one black person that is good dies in the first 10 minutes. We were told to shut up and stop our bitching. We were told that we are crying racism too much.

And now here we are with the shoe on the other foot and nobody seems to see the irony in it all.

Let's forget about low expectations, because I don't think there's any way of ever understanding intent, or the ratio of "trying to get off welfare" to "trying to live off welfare," and I'm not going to make any sort of assumptions, except to acknowledge that both situations exist to some degree.

Having done that, regardless of race, let's consider family dynamics.

Two parents are raising children in a household together. One works full time, the other raises children full time. That works. Maybe the one raising the children also works part time in the evenings, after the full time worker gets home. That also works.

Father outside of the home while the mother raises the children alone. He has to feed, clothe, and shelter himself, and his money also needs to support his family. That's less money going to the family, which creates the need for the mother to work. But if she's raising young children, she can't work without some form of support system. So either her mother or a close relative raises the kids while she works, or she has to get government support. Maybe a little of both.

But kids get sick. Schools have snow days. Children have injuries that prevent them from attending class. So even if the mother wants to work while the kids are usually away at school, finding and keeping a job as a single parent without a support system would likely not be very easy.

Now the kids are old enough to stay at home alone, and the mother has to make a choice. Either somehow find a job after being unemployed for years, knowing that for large portions of time her kids will be home alone without supervision, or do whatever she can do to remain on welfare.

It seems like it would be an easy situation for anyone to fall into, given the circumstances. And I don't think dependency is the wrong word to use about a situation like that. And I don't also don't think it's inaccurate to recognize that "as an end result, dependency benefits those offering the most assistance."
This is a great post. So my response to your made up situation would be this question. "Is dependency is this case even bad?" Alot of humans (especially Americans, boy are we terrible at this), believe that we accomplish things all on our own. WE got a college degree on our own, WE got to be partner of the law firm on our own, WE created a million business on our own. When that's not the truth. NOBODY does anything on their own. We all "depend" on some person or people to get where we want to be.

A. When we were kids we "depended" on our parents/guardians to raise us and provide for us.
B. When we were in school we "depended" on the teachers and administration to give us an education.
C. Once we got a job we "depended" on the government to provide roads and other basic infrastructure to get from home to work.
D. Once we got our first apartment we "depended" on the local police to protect the neighborhood.
E. When some country wants to fight with us we "depend" on our troops to protect the nation.


At all levels and at all times we "depend" on somebody or some set of people to survive. So with so much dependency on all these things from birth, we would a person view welfare, unemployment checks, food stamps, etc as a net negative thing?

If you truly understand all of that, you'd realize that people offering different levels of dependency don't actually have power over you and your situation. They are just one small cog in the wheel. And in America if those in power are taking advantage of the dependency that they are offering, then the people are supposed to vote them out and get some different people in there that wouldn't take advantage of it.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
It's funny how a white man being the bad guy is now supposed to be a bad thing, when us black people ONLY use to be the bad "thugs" in movies and TV shows lol. It was either that or the one black person that is good dies in the first 10 minutes. We were told to shut up and stop our bitching. We were told that we are crying racism too much.

And now here we are with the shoe on the other foot and nobody seems to see the irony in it all.
You're right, white villains? Never seen before. It's not like most villains ever are white or anything.
 
May 24, 2005
39,013
1,963
1,320
Remember when Malcolm X, the black supremacist pimp who became a muslim extremist, got a bullet like he deserved? Good times.
I love me some good glass of racism first thing in the morning.

You're right, white villains? Never seen before. It's not like most villains ever are white or anything.
So why are some here so up in arms then?
 
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
I love me some good glass of racism first thing in the morning.
So why are some here so up in arms then?
Calling malcom x an extremist is hardly racist dude.

Idk, I think it's about the use of the term alt right, since people like to call alt right everyone these days. Don't really care about the show so idk.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,013
1,963
1,320
Calling malcom x an extremist is hardly racist dude.

Idk, I think it's about the use of the term alt right, since people like to call alt right everyone these days. Don't really care about the show so idk.
Saying Malcolm X deserved to be murdered is on the board of things racist love to say.

And yes I do agree with you that the term "alt-right" is used extremely too much. The same way "SJW" is used extremely too much. Sadly some people feel like in order to get heard they have to use those terms, otherwise their post and tweets get lost in the Matrix.
 
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
Saying Malcolm X deserved to be murdered is on the board of things racist love to say.

And yes I do agree with you that the term "alt-right" is used extremely too much. The same way "SJW" is used extremely too much. Sadly some people feel like in order to get heard they have to use those terms, otherwise their post and tweets get lost in the Matrix.
Malcom x said Jonh F.Kenedy derved to be murdered aswell, was he a racist by your definition?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
Saying Malcolm X deserved to be murdered is on the board of things racist love to say.

And yes I do agree with you that the term "alt-right" is used extremely too much. The same way "SJW" is used extremely too much. Sadly some people feel like in order to get heard they have to use those terms, otherwise their post and tweets get lost in the Matrix.
It’s a troll account with 6 posts that will likely get permed when the mods wake up and see the reports. Nothing to be concerned about.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
It's funny how a white man being the bad guy is now supposed to be a bad thing, when us black people ONLY use to be the bad "thugs" in movies and TV shows lol. It was either that or the one black person that is good dies in the first 10 minutes. We were told to shut up and stop our bitching. We were told that we are crying racism too much.

And now here we are with the shoe on the other foot and nobody seems to see the irony in it all.



This is a great post. So my response to your made up situation would be this question. "Is dependency is this case even bad?" Alot of humans (especially Americans, boy are we terrible at this), believe that we accomplish things all on our own. WE got a college degree on our own, WE got to be partner of the law firm on our own, WE created a million business on our own. When that's not the truth. NOBODY does anything on their own. We all "depend" on some person or people to get where we want to be.

A. When we were kids we "depended" on our parents/guardians to raise us and provide for us.
B. When we were in school we "depended" on the teachers and administration to give us an education.
C. Once we got a job we "depended" on the government to provide roads and other basic infrastructure to get from home to work.
D. Once we got our first apartment we "depended" on the local police to protect the neighborhood.
E. When some country wants to fight with us we "depend" on our troops to protect the nation.


At all levels and at all times we "depend" on somebody or some set of people to survive. So with so much dependency on all these things from birth, we would a person view welfare, unemployment checks, food stamps, etc as a net negative thing?

If you truly understand all of that, you'd realize that people offering different levels of dependency don't actually have power over you and your situation. They are just one small cog in the wheel. And in America if those in power are taking advantage of the dependency that they are offering, then the people are supposed to vote them out and get some different people in there that wouldn't take advantage of it.
Yes, black people were treated poorly in the past. We get it. Eye for an eye, etc.

The issue as far as I can tell isn’t that the villain is white, it’s that he’s (allegedly) a charicature of this alt right stereotype that the social justice ideology has concocted and the media has promulgated. I don’t believe that alt right even exists outside of a few fringe lunatics LARPing as Nazis, so this current_year proliferation of them as the root of all evil feels like I’m being lied to in a sense. It’s a moral panic that reminds me of the evangelical Christians of the 90s, only now it’s evangelical social justice warriors who don’t even realise they’re religious.

You care about proportional representation don’t you? 😉
 
May 24, 2005
39,013
1,963
1,320
Yes, black people were treated poorly in the past. We get it. Eye for an eye, etc.

The issue as far as I can tell isn’t that the villain is white, it’s that he’s (allegedly) a charicature of this alt right stereotype that the social justice ideology has concocted and the media has promulgated. I don’t believe that alt right even exists outside of a few fringe lunatics LARPing as Nazis, so this current_year proliferation of them as the root of all evil feels like I’m being lied to in a sense. It’s a moral panic that reminds me of the evangelical Christians of the 90s, only now it’s evangelical social justice warriors who don’t even realise they’re religious.

You care about proportional representation don’t you? 😉
I guess we'll just all have to see how this character actually is. Funny enough it's actually got me more hyped for this next season than anything else. When will Netflix be releasing it?
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
It's funny how a white man being the bad guy is now supposed to be a bad thing, when us black people ONLY use to be the bad "thugs" in movies and TV shows lol. It was either that or the one black person that is good dies in the first 10 minutes. We were told to shut up and stop our bitching. We were told that we are crying racism too much.

And now here we are with the shoe on the other foot and nobody seems to see the irony in it all.



This is a great post. So my response to your made up situation would be this question. "Is dependency is this case even bad?" Alot of humans (especially Americans, boy are we terrible at this), believe that we accomplish things all on our own. WE got a college degree on our own, WE got to be partner of the law firm on our own, WE created a million business on our own. When that's not the truth. NOBODY does anything on their own. We all "depend" on some person or people to get where we want to be.

A. When we were kids we "depended" on our parents/guardians to raise us and provide for us.
B. When we were in school we "depended" on the teachers and administration to give us an education.
C. Once we got a job we "depended" on the government to provide roads and other basic infrastructure to get from home to work.
D. Once we got our first apartment we "depended" on the local police to protect the neighborhood.
E. When some country wants to fight with us we "depend" on our troops to protect the nation.


At all levels and at all times we "depend" on somebody or some set of people to survive. So with so much dependency on all these things from birth, we would a person view welfare, unemployment checks, food stamps, etc as a net negative thing?

If you truly understand all of that, you'd realize that people offering different levels of dependency don't actually have power over you and your situation. They are just one small cog in the wheel. And in America if those in power are taking advantage of the dependency that they are offering, then the people are supposed to vote them out and get some different people in there that wouldn't take advantage of it.
I think we must also be honest of the social game, when we have enough in savings and investments that work is optional. The world can only sustain so many free birds, so many people flying around in private jets and enjoying caviar. The rest must obligatorily work to make the system work. In a sense acquiring wealth makes you dependent on the rest of society for the use of your wealth and freedom, you may say you're independent but you're highly dependent on the rest of the system which rewards you with your investments growing fast enough to allow work to be optional and a life of leisure to be easily within reach should you desire.
So why are some here so up in arms then?
Not so much being white as in being fundamentalist christian and alt right. Given this is discriminating based on ideology. The guy could be black, native american, etc, but the hunting of the ideology is the main issue. There's also a recent wave of antiwhite racism that somehow is being tolerated and embraced by the radical left, and this could or could not be another case of that depending on how it's portrayed.

They've even invented the idea that those with privilege cannot be subject to racism, so racism against whites is not actually racism, which is bs broken npc logic.
 
Last edited:

Tin Man

Neo Member
Jan 9, 2019
1
0
60
It boggles my mind just how subversive and blind the leftists are to Muslim atrocities in general. Its do obvious that if they are causing troubles wherever they are in a substantial population, be it Europe, US, India, Russia, Philippines, then there must br something wrong with the religion itself! But no. Leftists will blame it on poverty, war, disillusionment, feeling alone and what not. Anything but religion. I dont see minority Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc going on rampage anywhere.
Kinda digressed from the point but it disgusts me that not only the world turns a blind eye towards atrocities by Muslims, it also punishes anyone who dares speak about it. And i am not even a Christian to whom this Punisher thing should matter. But the hypocrisy of liberals is obvious.
It's not that they're Muslim, it's that they're fundamentalists. "Seek those that seek the Truth; avoid ye like the plague those that have found it."
 
Apr 23, 2018
499
253
200
deaftourette.com
Remember when Malcolm X, the black supremacist pimp who became a muslim extremist, got a bullet like he deserved? Good times.
Malcolm X never advocated against white or other POC... Never committed violence against against any white person or other POC ... At least after his conversion to Islam (nation of Islam is different in its core principles from other Islamic sects).

You just exposed yourself for both your racism and ignorance.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,038
466
430
Reading, Berkshire
I don't get the anger, Brown terrorist is has been the most used villain since 9/11 in TV and film. I doubt you had an issue with it either. So they made a fundamentalist alt right nut job and you're offended and whining about it like a snowflake? You do see the irony in this right? And why are you even offended unless you identify as done alt right nut job, if you do then lol loser is the only response.

It's also clear you don't read Punisher or know anything about it's creator if ppl are shocked and upset he's fighting fundamentalist alt right types
 
Last edited:
Apr 23, 2018
499
253
200
deaftourette.com
I don't get the anger, Brown terrorist is has been the most used villain since 9/11 in TV and film. I doubt you had an issue with it either. So they made a fundamentalist alt right nut job and you're offended and whining about it like a snowflake? You do see the irony in this right? And why are you even offended unless you identify as done alt right nut job, if you do then lol loser is the only response.

It's also clear you don't read Punisher or know anything about it's creator if ppl are shocked and upset he's fighting fundamentalist alt right types

They think he only goes after the mob. LOL
 
Apr 23, 2018
499
253
200
deaftourette.com
Malcom x said Jonh F.Kenedy derved to be murdered aswell, was he a racist by your definition?
False.

"Chickens coming home to roost" was a dig at America because at the time that happened, many black leaders were being assassinated, physically and character-wise. The statement was meant to say "This is just a taste of what our people are going through. It doesn't feel good, does it?"
 
Likes: ssolitare
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
False.

"Chickens coming home to roost" was a dig at America because at the time that happened, many black leaders were being assassinated, physically and character-wise. The statement was meant to say "This is just a taste of what our people are going through. It doesn't feel good, does it?"
The full quote is:

"chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.". Yes black people suffered from racism that doesn't excuse him from racism either, you can appreciate the good he did and still criticize his mistakes. He was in favor of segregation. Not to mention his earlier days.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
The full quote is:

"chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.". Yes black people suffered from racism that doesn't excuse him from racism either, you can appreciate the good he did and still criticize his mistakes. He was in favor of segregation. Not to mention his earlier days.
He himself wasn't racist, but was influenced by the NOI on his views, so it's easy to percieve that.

In reality he didn't deride the white race, or encouraged violence against them. His basic reason was that the two races couldn't respect living next to each other side by side, and thus should split. Like he actually meant that (while under their influence).

He had all of the reason in the world to be racist though, considering the times.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
He himself wasn't racist, but was influenced by the NOI on his views, so it's easy to percieve that.

In reality he didn't deride the white race, or encouraged violence against them. His basic reason that the two races couldn't respect living next to each other side by side, and thus should split.

He had all of the reason in the world to be racist though, considering the times.
Where the line draws between whats his views and whats NOI is debatable. He continued to support segregation and black nationalism, and said black people should defend themselves "by any means necessary", so he wasn't exactly against violence.

Also saying he had "reasons to be racist", sure, he did, but that can be said to defend almost anyone who is racist.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,800
1,353
835
Where the line draws between whats his views and whats NOI is debatable. He continued to support segregation and black nationalism, and said black people should defend themselves "by any means necessary", so he wasn't exactly against violence.

Also saying he had "reasons to be racist", sure, he did, but that can be said to defend almost anyone who is racist.
I suppose it doesn't matter if he gets the racist tag during the NOI years. He said some stuff that could be considered so. As long that people know what his main beef was.

He spoke about armed self-defense in context to the KKK, and once vigilante justice against the KKK for Birmingham. He didn't encourage indescriminate acts of violence against white people, or for black people to be the aggressors, but NOI did.

The last comment though is just not a good one to make because the two world's are different.
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Nov 11, 2018
120
42
150
It boggles my mind just how subversive and blind the leftists are to Muslim atrocities in general. Its do obvious that if they are causing troubles wherever they are in a substantial population, be it Europe, US, India, Russia, Philippines, then there must br something wrong with the religion itself! But no. Leftists will blame it on poverty, war, disillusionment, feeling alone and what not. Anything but religion. I dont see minority Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc going on rampage anywhere.
Kinda digressed from the point but it disgusts me that not only the world turns a blind eye towards atrocities by Muslims, it also punishes anyone who dares speak about it. And i am not even a Christian to whom this Punisher thing should matter. But the hypocrisy of liberals is obvious.
I think you're confused. In the 20th and 21st century (I'm being generous by limiting it to these two epochs), it hasn't been Muslims who've committed the most atrocities against mankind - western, white anglo-saxons are the greatest perpetrators in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Mar 6, 2018
1,534
1,914
290
This is a great post.
Hey, thanks.

So my response to your made up situation would be this question. "Is dependency is this case even bad?"
I would say yes. It is bad, but it's also understandable.

A. When we were kids we "depended" on our parents/guardians to raise us and provide for us.
B. When we were in school we "depended" on the teachers and administration to give us an education.
C. Once we got a job we "depended" on the government to provide roads and other basic infrastructure to get from home to work.
D. Once we got our first apartment we "depended" on the local police to protect the neighborhood.
E. When some country wants to fight with us we "depend" on our troops to protect the nation.
Most of these relationships are mutually beneficial, though. Parents get better kids. Teachers get paid. Tax dollars go to roads, which allow us travel, and more work opportunities. Police and military are also paid for with tax dollars, and as you said provide us protection.

At all levels and at all times we "depend" on somebody or some set of people to survive. So with so much dependency on all these things from birth, we would a person view welfare, unemployment checks, food stamps, etc as a net negative thing?
The difference is welfare is a one-way street. It's not mutually beneficial. While a certain percentage of people will always need some form of assistance, the government has money and resources due to taxes. When someone is taking and not paying, then yes, that's a net negative thing, and I feel it can be viewed as such. That's the difference.

At that point, I would say only those running social programs and those promising social programs could be argued to benefit from them, outside of those who are being given welfare in the first place. On one hand, the need for assistance is completely understandable, as I suggested in my earlier post. On the other hand, it's essentially socialism in small doses, which is why so many conservatives have knee-jerk reactions to people who depend on the government. And unfortunately, those reactions can often come with judgement, and that just makes everything worse.

If you truly understand all of that, you'd realize that people offering different levels of dependency don't actually have power over you and your situation. They are just one small cog in the wheel. And in America if those in power are taking advantage of the dependency that they are offering, then the people are supposed to vote them out and get some different people in there that wouldn't take advantage of it.
I think that's what conservatives are trying to do, but of course it's arguable to what extent people in power are taking advantage of keeping voters reliant on the government, and it's even more arguable how to best help reduce the number of people who require welfare. I think stressing the importance of an intact family could help a lot, but it's hard to influence social standards like that, and it's even harder when a very loud group of the media, politicians, and educators would consider you to be attacking single mothers at the mere suggestion.

Black or white, having both parents in the house is statistically proven to be very important for ensuring kids grow up to be stable responsible and productive members of society. That doesn't mean you have to have both parents in the picture, but doing so helps children a lot. Beyond that, I don't have stats to quote, and I'm certainly no expert.

If you're looking to learn more about opposing opinions on the subject, maybe try Thomas Sowell.




And wow, did we ever get off onto a different topic. Anyhow, this is looking pretty good. Hopefully, it will just feel like the church scene from Kingsmen, but stretched over a season of The Punisher. I could dig that.

 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
790
329
205
And wow, did we ever get off onto a different topic. Anyhow, this is looking pretty good. Hopefully, it will just feel like the church scene from Kingsmen, but stretched over a season of The Punisher. I could dig that.
That scene was quite trollish, but like the deadpool religious poster mockery, people need to learn to take mockery of religion in a light heart. I mean should what you consider sacred truly be immune from criticism or mockery, should there be blasphemy laws or censorship? Of course not, the free exchange of ideas allows the evolution of society into its final ideal state. We must not allow roadblocks on the path towards the ideal state.

There are those that want regression, but evolution despite being quite aimless and being open to regression, its most promising path towards survival, towards the true solution of a perfect survival organism, it is the path of progress.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
I think you're confused. In the 20th and 21st century (I'm being generous by limiting it to these two epochs), it hasn't been Muslims who've committed the most atrocities against mankind - western, white anglo-saxons are the greatest perpetrators in that regard.
Why are you directly comparing religion and race?

Islam: religion.

White Anglo-Saxons: race.

These are not comparable characteristics.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Dec 3, 2013
16,567
9,147
555
I think you're confused. In the 20th and 21st century (I'm being generous by limiting it to these two epochs), it hasn't been Muslims who've committed the most atrocities against mankind - western, white anglo-saxons are the greatest perpetrators in that regard.
One is a religion the other is race. Stop being a bigot.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
Sep 17, 2012
8,505
444
520
I think you're confused. In the 20th and 21st century (I'm being generous by limiting it to these two epochs), it hasn't been Muslims who've committed the most atrocities against mankind - western, white anglo-saxons are the greatest perpetrators in that regard.
Why do you discriminate against the Jutes and Frisians? They settled in Britain with the Angles and Saxons too
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,843
561
345
I see the brainwashing of the public school system that calls Islam a race is still in full swing. It's causing a lot of headaches in law enforcement, were cops are reportedly called racist, some of these papers on my desk are nuts.
 
Apr 27, 2018
327
176
190
I don’t see an issue.

Haven’t KKK, Nazis, and other white supremacy types been bad guys in these films, books, shows before?

I hate that everything has to be part of a movement now no matter what.

Oh they cast a PoC? SJW TRASH! Oh the main character is gay??? STOP SHOVING YOUR POLITICS DOWN MY THROAT! Oh there’s only white people in this historically accurate European game (Kingdom Come)? NAZI BIGOTS!!’

Both sides need to chill the fuck out. Like seriously. Every creative decision doesn’t have to be drenched in hidden agenda. We make mountains out of molehills.

I’m sick of it.

Ironically it’s very often that the people calling out “outrage culture” are the ones outraged themselves.
This "alt-right" I keep hearing about are white supremacists now? I despise far-right ideologies as much as the next guy but I want the facts on them. White nationalists? White supremacists? Some aren't even racist. Either way, you are at least consistent and I commend you for that.

For everyone else celebrating this, I'd like to see your perspective if a conservative made a movie where a communist was the villain. Forced political-based antagonists just aren't very good characters IMO. But, to be fair, who else should be the bad guy? I'm enlightened to see where this is going because the wording may sound far worse than the actual execution of this awesome show, or vice versa.
 
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
I think you're confused. In the 20th and 21st century (I'm being generous by limiting it to these two epochs), it hasn't been Muslims who've committed the most atrocities against mankind - western, white anglo-saxons are the greatest perpetrators in that regard.
Yes let's condemm people for shit they had nothing to do with, you do know that every race, religion, or other group of people have committed atrocities at a point or another in history I don't think it's fair for me to judge people from Africa because of crimes committed by African Warlords anymore than I should condemn Russian because of Stalin, or Austria because of Hitler.

Also anglo-saxons != white, most white people are not anglo-saxon and not all anglo-saxons are white.
 
Last edited:

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,038
466
430
Reading, Berkshire
This "alt-right" I keep hearing about are white supremacists now? I despise far-right ideologies as much as the next guy but I want the facts on them. White nationalists? White supremacists? Some aren't even racist. Either way, you are at least consistent and I commend you for that.

For everyone else celebrating this, I'd like to see your perspective if a conservative made a movie where a communist was the villain. Forced political-based antagonists just aren't very good characters IMO. But, to be fair, who else should be the bad guy? I'm enlightened to see where this is going because the wording may sound far worse than the actual execution of this awesome show, or vice versa.
Uh Richard Spencer and his lackeys coined the phrase "alt right" to make white nationalism mainstream and hip. He admits he's a white supremacist and proud of it

Not really a hill to die on
 
Likes: mckmas8808

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
Uh Richard Spencer and his lackeys coined the phrase "alt right" to make white nationalism mainstream and hip. He admits he's a white supremacist and proud of it

Not really a hill to die on
Let’s not pretend that the media hasn’t extended that term to mean anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. Actually, at this point, I’m sure that even he has been called alt-right. What the word originally meant and what it means now aren’t necessarily the same.
 
Nov 11, 2018
120
42
150
Yes let's condemm people for shit they had nothing to do with, you do know that every race, religion, or other group of people have committed atrocities at a point or another in history I don't think it's fair for me to judge people from Africa because of crimes committed by African Warlords anymore than I should condemn Russian because of Stalin, or Austria because of Hitler.

Also anglo-saxons != white, most white people are not anglo-saxon and not all anglo-saxons are white.
Nowhere in my comment did I excuse atrocities committed by others - African warlords, Muslim terrorists, et. al. I said the greatest atrocities in recent history (again, for the sake of discussion, this is being very generous) have been committed by white anglo-saxons. Historical record bears that out.
 
Apr 25, 2009
6,338
6,258
805
Australia
Nowhere in my comment did I excuse atrocities committed by others - African warlords, Muslim terrorists, et. al. I said the greatest atrocities in recent history (again, for the sake of discussion, this is being very generous) have been committed by white anglo-saxons. Historical record bears that out.
Still haven’t explained why you’re comparing religion, a mutable characteristic, with race, an immutable characteristic.
 
Jun 13, 2017
505
498
205
Nowhere in my comment did I excuse atrocities committed by others - African warlords, Muslim terrorists, et. al. I said the greatest atrocities in recent history (again, for the sake of discussion, this is being very generous) have been committed by white anglo-saxons. Historical record bears that out.
And I explained to you that most white people aren't anglo saxons so, with that in mind, your statement is wrong.
And I'm not sure how you're generous, asians have committed as many atrocities.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
120
42
150
And I explained to you that most white people aren't anglo saxons so, with that in mind, your statement is wrong.
And I'm not sure how you're generous, asians have committed as many atrocities.
Do you want me to just say white people? That might be considered racist. And as far as Asians committing just as many atrocities? Where are those receipts? Let me guess, you're going to repeat the lie that Mao killed millions, right?