Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Nofactor97

Real Name Nofactor97   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Mar 17, 2016, 16:44
Total Comments 16 (Suspect)
User ID 58324
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


News Comments > Saturday Metaverse
19. Re: Origin Access Free This Week Nov 5, 2017, 09:20 Nofactor97
 
Many of the "Loud Mouth Americans" are trolls from other countries posting online via Twitter, Facebook, Youtube or any comments section.
It has actually been an extremely effective attack on American Ideals, causing angst among general Americans, and effectively drawing out the "fringe" on both sides of the political spectrum.

And that "Net States" article on wired is just poorly thought out. Facebook may have 2 billion members, but they are segregated into their own cliques and cultures. Not like Facebook is some big "mixed up culture blending success story".

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Safety Dance
5. Re: Sunday Safety Dance Aug 21, 2017, 22:47 Nofactor97
 
I am willing to bet it has been this crazy for decades. The biggest difference is the internet allowed crazies to band together, emboldened because they are not alone, but still a big minority.

You right, there is no perfect answer to this. It is very muddled. My answer is based on my strong belief in freedom of speech, but not free from societal repercussions, which is another difficult subject.

My problem with Google making the decision though is they suddenly become the control for thought. Nazis ideology is bad, but is something similar to Black Panther ok? Do their decisions continue to shape available information by blocking Black Lives matter or Blue Lives Matter content? All made more complex because they are a company and want money, and sell search indexing. So dirty complicated.




MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Aug 21, 2017, 11:36:
Nofactor97 wrote on Aug 21, 2017, 08:37:
Slippery slope when companies are allowed to deny service based on your viewpoint.

Some examples that have happened lately.

1. Not making wedding cakes for homosexual marriages
2. Charging extra service charge to manicure overweight customers, because somehow their toenails are bigger?
3. Club not allowing officers and military in because it would upset it's clientele

Not a lot off the top of my head admittedly, but we are seeing some businesses discriminate again.


I know, that's the inherent danger with this sort of thinking. I don't have a perfect answer, but I feel as though an easy line can be drawn at preventing people from spouting Nazi crap without consequences. Praising genocide might be past what a modern society should allow as free speech? Calling for the (violent, but carefully worded) overthrow of our government and the killing or forcible removal of large segments of the population might be past what a modern society should allow as free speech?

As it is now, they are allowing businesses such as bakeries to discriminate against homosexuals, yet somehow Google has to host Nazis? How the fuck does that make sense?

If society as a whole had no restrictions, maybe I could see your slippery slope argument being more valid. As it is now, the slope is some gravity defying alternate reality where it's okay to deny service to gays, but people cry foul when the Daily Stormer has to find a new hosting service. I'd think I'm going crazy but it's been this bad for like 6 months.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Safety Dance
3. Re: Sunday Safety Dance Aug 21, 2017, 08:37 Nofactor97
 
Slippery slope when companies are allowed to deny service based on your viewpoint.

Some examples that have happened lately.

1. Not making wedding cakes for homosexual marriages
2. Charging extra service charge to manicure overweight customers, because somehow their toenails are bigger?
3. Club not allowing officers and military in because it would upset it's clientele

Not a lot off the top of my head admittedly, but we are seeing some businesses discriminate again.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
40. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 3, 2016, 21:30 Nofactor97
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 3, 2016, 21:07:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 3, 2016, 16:35:
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 23:51:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 22:44:
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:58:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 07:00:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry

I mean, a lot of "conservative values" are racist, bigoted, and misogynist.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a conservative value, and one of the most bigoted values people are open about in the US.

That is religious value and calling it bigoted is simply an effort to attack another persons value's with ad hominem attacks. It is/was a fight over what the word "marriage" means. The debate on equal treatment under government laws (tax, health) was not cared about for the most part. The change needed to be dictated through religious doctrine, instead it was forced through laws, which only widened the divide.

Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal and tax one.

So no, it isn't a religious value, and believing that others don't deserve the same legal and tax rights that you deserve because they were born differently is, by definition, bigotry.

That it "wasn't cared about" doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry.

Whatever the origin of the word Marriage, in America, it has been associated with the union of Man and Woman and strongly correlated to the Bible. The government at some point added the tax benefits and legal protections to this Union. So while the term "Marriage" may be centuries old, it took on a specific meaning in the US, which is the nature of culture.

And you misunderstood my point. The battle was over the word "marriage" and what it meant, it was never against the equal rights under law against same sex unions . . .which are now called marriage also. Religious organizations where battling the definition, they were never battling the rights under law, just the meaning of what marriage is. That is NOT bigotry.

So, the definition of bigotry is to deprive people of rights you may enjoy? Welcome to the world, I enjoy rights because of my position and training. You enjoy rights and privileges because of your training and education that I should NOT be able to enjoy. Want to join the Navy SEALS . . guess what .. . if you are not born with that strength and mentality you should not be able to join. That is not bigotry. Not allowing a women to join the SEALS that can make all the requirement is bigotry. Your definition is WAY too general and is a large part of the problem.

"Strongly correlated to the Bible" is as incorrect as essentially everything in the Bible.

It has significant tax benefits. And legal benefits. Do you know who can be in the hospital room of a dying individual? Family. Who can make decisions on things such as when to pull the plug? Family. In states where gay people can't marry, do you know who this excludes? Lifelong partners.

But fine, let's just make it religious. That'll be great. Because the religions that don't want gays to marry can, y'know, keep not marrying gays, as everyone feels they should. And the religions that are ok with marrying gays can marry gay people. As everyone except for the bigots think they should.

There are, you know, religions out there perfectly alright with gay marriage. And the ones that aren't ok with it in their religion but ok with it outside their religion is fine.

But if you believe you should be able to force your religion on others, well, you're a bigot. Sorry. If you do not think gay people should marry you're a bigot. And buddy, with your whole 10 posts here, I'm already pretty certain you're a bigot. I mean, hell, comparing marriage to joining the SEALS? A bigot, and not a particularly bright one (are there bright ones?)

Ad Hominem much?

Read back closely to my last posts and open your mind a bit. If you are unable to even comprehend what the Religious group had issue with than you are part of the problem.

Point to where I said same sex partners should not have the same tax and legal rights? In fact, I said the debate was NOT about tax and legal rights, but about calling the union between same sex couples a "Marriage." The religious majority wanted same sex relations to be called a Union that provided the same benefits of Marriage, but that wasn't good enough for the LGBT community. The rage and idiocy applied to both sides, surprise surprise.

Also, point to where I quoted what I believe in that debate or what my religion is? You just made the typical liberal mistake of attacking the person, not the subject, because you seem so enraged about the term marriage, not the real issue which was equal treatment under the law. What would it have mattered if the LGBT achieved the goal of fair treatment under the law, but didn't call it "Marriage"? The argument was really moot for both sides though, as you could get "Married" by a Justice of the peace which is not necessarily a priest.

The SEAL example was a response to your inane definition of bigotry and I quote:
"Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry. "

We ALL have limitations because of the way we were born, and NONE of us enjoy the same rights because of it. Your definition sucked was the point. We all deserve the same opportunities and rights under law, but you have no right to succeed at it. That idea seems to be lost on the extreme left.

I love when people like you show up here. You start throwing out complaints like "ad hom" or "triggered!" as you insult people and get angry at what they say.

Sorry, there is no rational argument against gay marriage, and therefore every argument is bigotry. If people were saying the Catholic Church should be forced to perform gay marriages, fine, but no one is. Legalizing it does nothing to them, nor to the marriages they (and similar entities) perform.

Irrational hatred is the only argument against, and irrational hatred is bigotry. If I belong to a Church, and again there are several, that performs gay marriage, why should another Church be able to say my church is wrong?

I also like that you pretend your argument hasn't given away your views. You fight like a typical bigot trying to be "devil's advocate" as he argues to deprive others of rights. You even roll out with "typical liberal mistake," as if that doesn't make clear where you stand.

Bigotry. You're defending bigotry. And, since this is 2016 in America, accusing a straight white male of defending bigotry is somehow more offensive than that same guy defending bigotry.

You are blind and angry, and completely unable to see the other point of view or try and understand it. You throw labels and it is why people are tired of you. I have not defended either view, I have only outlined the problems with both sides. If you don't "get" why the horrible Religious people are angry with you, then don't be surprised when Trump wins again.

I didn't defend bigotry either, in fact I gave examples of where bigotry is wrong. You just want to label everyone as a bigot if they do not think like you.

You have no idea what I stand for, but you are quick to judge, which is the same trait you impose on conservatives?

Once again, enjoy Trump for four years, I didn't want him, but you caused him.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
37. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 3, 2016, 16:35 Nofactor97
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 23:51:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 22:44:
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:58:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 07:00:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry

I mean, a lot of "conservative values" are racist, bigoted, and misogynist.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a conservative value, and one of the most bigoted values people are open about in the US.

That is religious value and calling it bigoted is simply an effort to attack another persons value's with ad hominem attacks. It is/was a fight over what the word "marriage" means. The debate on equal treatment under government laws (tax, health) was not cared about for the most part. The change needed to be dictated through religious doctrine, instead it was forced through laws, which only widened the divide.

Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal and tax one.

So no, it isn't a religious value, and believing that others don't deserve the same legal and tax rights that you deserve because they were born differently is, by definition, bigotry.

That it "wasn't cared about" doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry.

Whatever the origin of the word Marriage, in America, it has been associated with the union of Man and Woman and strongly correlated to the Bible. The government at some point added the tax benefits and legal protections to this Union. So while the term "Marriage" may be centuries old, it took on a specific meaning in the US, which is the nature of culture.

And you misunderstood my point. The battle was over the word "marriage" and what it meant, it was never against the equal rights under law against same sex unions . . .which are now called marriage also. Religious organizations where battling the definition, they were never battling the rights under law, just the meaning of what marriage is. That is NOT bigotry.

So, the definition of bigotry is to deprive people of rights you may enjoy? Welcome to the world, I enjoy rights because of my position and training. You enjoy rights and privileges because of your training and education that I should NOT be able to enjoy. Want to join the Navy SEALS . . guess what .. . if you are not born with that strength and mentality you should not be able to join. That is not bigotry. Not allowing a women to join the SEALS that can make all the requirement is bigotry. Your definition is WAY too general and is a large part of the problem.

"Strongly correlated to the Bible" is as incorrect as essentially everything in the Bible.

It has significant tax benefits. And legal benefits. Do you know who can be in the hospital room of a dying individual? Family. Who can make decisions on things such as when to pull the plug? Family. In states where gay people can't marry, do you know who this excludes? Lifelong partners.

But fine, let's just make it religious. That'll be great. Because the religions that don't want gays to marry can, y'know, keep not marrying gays, as everyone feels they should. And the religions that are ok with marrying gays can marry gay people. As everyone except for the bigots think they should.

There are, you know, religions out there perfectly alright with gay marriage. And the ones that aren't ok with it in their religion but ok with it outside their religion is fine.

But if you believe you should be able to force your religion on others, well, you're a bigot. Sorry. If you do not think gay people should marry you're a bigot. And buddy, with your whole 10 posts here, I'm already pretty certain you're a bigot. I mean, hell, comparing marriage to joining the SEALS? A bigot, and not a particularly bright one (are there bright ones?)

Ad Hominem much?

Read back closely to my last posts and open your mind a bit. If you are unable to even comprehend what the Religious group had issue with than you are part of the problem.

Point to where I said same sex partners should not have the same tax and legal rights? In fact, I said the debate was NOT about tax and legal rights, but about calling the union between same sex couples a "Marriage." The religious majority wanted same sex relations to be called a Union that provided the same benefits of Marriage, but that wasn't good enough for the LGBT community. The rage and idiocy applied to both sides, surprise surprise.

Also, point to where I quoted what I believe in that debate or what my religion is? You just made the typical liberal mistake of attacking the person, not the subject, because you seem so enraged about the term marriage, not the real issue which was equal treatment under the law. What would it have mattered if the LGBT achieved the goal of fair treatment under the law, but didn't call it "Marriage"? The argument was really moot for both sides though, as you could get "Married" by a Justice of the peace which is not necessarily a priest.

The SEAL example was a response to your inane definition of bigotry and I quote:
"Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry. "

We ALL have limitations because of the way we were born, and NONE of us enjoy the same rights because of it. Your definition sucked was the point. We all deserve the same opportunities and rights under law, but you have no right to succeed at it. That idea seems to be lost on the extreme left.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
36. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 3, 2016, 09:29 Nofactor97
 
Quboid wrote on Dec 3, 2016, 00:14:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 22:53:
I didn't say you were triggered . . . .initially. You just jumped to the defense of a poster who fit all the criteria you described above. They were triggered, and unable to see past their rage, because everyone doesn't think like them.

I wasn't defending him. Why do you think I was?

Because internet, and cannot tell intent all the time
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
33. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 2, 2016, 22:53 Nofactor97
 
Quboid wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 19:30:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:48:
Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"

Those words do get thrown around too quickly, by people of all sorts (I've seen conservatives on here call liberals racist while complaining about people calling others racist), and it's bad for debate because the recipient focuses on moral justification or complaining rather than the actual facts (many, it seems, don't even understand that they're being accused of being factually wrong).

However, that doesn't mean these words are never appropriate or deserved and if you want a safe space, tough. The debate is over because you get your feelings hurt. Take responsibility for your actions and your views and if you don't like being called bigoted, don't be bigoted.

But hey, you said I was triggered. Well done on making the same zinger that I had already made.

I agree, they are overused which detracts from their potency when it matters most.

I didn't say you were triggered . . . .initially. You just jumped to the defense of a poster who fit all the criteria you described above. They were triggered, and unable to see past their rage, because everyone doesn't think like them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
32. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 2, 2016, 22:46 Nofactor97
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 19:58:
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:58:
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal and tax one.
Ahh, this is the crux of the issue. It would be interesting to know how many people who are concerned about maintaining "traditional marriage" would change their minds if the government decided it WAS a religious institution and removed all legal and tax benefits of marriage.

Excellent point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
31. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 2, 2016, 22:44 Nofactor97
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:58:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 07:00:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry

I mean, a lot of "conservative values" are racist, bigoted, and misogynist.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a conservative value, and one of the most bigoted values people are open about in the US.

That is religious value and calling it bigoted is simply an effort to attack another persons value's with ad hominem attacks. It is/was a fight over what the word "marriage" means. The debate on equal treatment under government laws (tax, health) was not cared about for the most part. The change needed to be dictated through religious doctrine, instead it was forced through laws, which only widened the divide.

Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's a legal and tax one.

So no, it isn't a religious value, and believing that others don't deserve the same legal and tax rights that you deserve because they were born differently is, by definition, bigotry.

That it "wasn't cared about" doesn't mean it isn't bigotry. Sorry, any attempt to deprive others of rights you enjoy, due solely to the way they were born, is bigotry.

Whatever the origin of the word Marriage, in America, it has been associated with the union of Man and Woman and strongly correlated to the Bible. The government at some point added the tax benefits and legal protections to this Union. So while the term "Marriage" may be centuries old, it took on a specific meaning in the US, which is the nature of culture.

And you misunderstood my point. The battle was over the word "marriage" and what it meant, it was never against the equal rights under law against same sex unions . . .which are now called marriage also. Religious organizations where battling the definition, they were never battling the rights under law, just the meaning of what marriage is. That is NOT bigotry.

So, the definition of bigotry is to deprive people of rights you may enjoy? Welcome to the world, I enjoy rights because of my position and training. You enjoy rights and privileges because of your training and education that I should NOT be able to enjoy. Want to join the Navy SEALS . . guess what .. . if you are not born with that strength and mentality you should not be able to join. That is not bigotry. Not allowing a women to join the SEALS that can make all the requirement is bigotry. Your definition is WAY too general and is a large part of the problem.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
27. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 2, 2016, 09:48 Nofactor97
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 07:00:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry

I mean, a lot of "conservative values" are racist, bigoted, and misogynist.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage is a conservative value, and one of the most bigoted values people are open about in the US.

That is religious value and calling it bigoted is simply an effort to attack another persons value's with ad hominem attacks. It is/was a fight over what the word "marriage" means. The debate on equal treatment under government laws (tax, health) was not cared about for the most part. The change needed to be dictated through religious doctrine, instead it was forced through laws, which only widened the divide.

Applying heated words like "bigoted, misogynist, racist" on anything that does not fit a liberal's agenda is always an attempt to deflect the topic. When it is done, the debate is over because they cannot see anything else beyond that. Similar to trying to convince a Born Again Christian the earth is not 4000 years old. The end answer is always "because god says so"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
26. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 2, 2016, 09:15 Nofactor97
 
Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 08:56:
Nofactor97 wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 02:50:
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry

So you're saying you're about as good at making a point as Cutter?

I know how to trigger you apparently, which makes me sad and happy at the same time
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
23. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Dec 1, 2016, 02:50 Nofactor97
 
So is the inane rambling of someone who would be quick to call anyone a racist, bigot or misogynist just because they have conservative values. Throw around phrases like"cognitive dissonance" , but never realising they have ad hominem rants . . . Making their points look like a joke

Hopefully that spelled out for you better

Quboid wrote on Dec 1, 2016, 00:46:
Nofactor97 wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 22:40:

Triggered Much?

That's got to be the most inane word around these days. Way to make your point look like a joke.

Dammit now I'm triggered Cry
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
21. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Nov 30, 2016, 22:40 Nofactor97
 

Triggered Much?

How is your rant any different than a conservative (by your narrow definition) laughing at a liberal "safe space" or "safety pin" joke?

Cutter wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 11:22:
Timmeh wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 10:28:
Conservative Views are not stupid. Neo Liberal views on the other hand are bat shit insane.

About the only classically conservative view that modern culture should have an issue with is same sex marriage but even that has changed a lot.

Lower taxes, Fewer regulations, Free and Open Economy, Freedom of speech and individuality, Free Market solutions to problems, strong defense. Are the basics of Conservatism.

Neo Liberalism on the other hand is a weird mixture of cultural chaos and a bizarre mix of communism and Marxism. The end result is people are property of the sate and no one has anything except the ruling class.

Anyone who disagrees with this has never read a lick of real history.

Just look at what the modern Neo Liberal controlled education system has produced. a bunch of mamby pamby brain dead emotional wrecks of wanting daddy government to provide for their every need and to live in mommys basement until they are 30.

That is NOT America!

You've got that entirely backwards. That's the major problem with conservatives. It's called cognitive dissonance. You live in some fantasy world that's some sort of idealized Leave it to Beaver'ized America where it's a fair world with nice corperations that provide everyone good jobs and don't exploit anyone. It's all upper-middle class white people living in nice neighborhoods and mom is still in the kitchen where she belongs and the kids are all clean and respectful little drones who are incapable of rebellion, much less free thought. Conservatism by its very definition is the antithesis of freedom and progress.

The reason no one leaves home anymore is because no one can fucking afford to thanks to conservatism and it's laissez-faire/crony style of capitalism thanks to the "free" trade they've implemented. Foreigners are buying up property on a massive scale driving housing prices through the roof and the only work available are dead-end wage-slave jobs. The conservative doesn't care about that. The conservative doesn't care about the environment and the planet they're destroying with their unmitigated greed and selfishness. The conservative doesn't care about what's best for society or the world or family or friends because he's a self-serving psychopath that only ever serves himself.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Metaverse
20. Re: Reddit Is Tearing Itself Apart. Nov 30, 2016, 22:39 Nofactor97
 
.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
24. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 18, 2016, 23:44 Nofactor97
 
Then they should forever expect the battle with ad blockers, script removers and whatever new blocker is required for the next intrusive targeting method they develop. Advertisers used to target adds based on the content of the medium a user was visiting. Once you step into the realm of stalking you lose people. This is obviously happening on a greater scale as users become more savvy. Perhaps it's time for advertisers to improve their image.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
5. Re: Morning Metaverse Mar 17, 2016, 12:46 Nofactor97
 
I laughed when the ad popped up and blocked the whole page. Too funny.

I do not mind advertising in general. What I have a problem with is targeted (i.e. creepy stalker) advertising.

The only people who can change that are the same websites complaining about "gamers" ad blocking their stalker advertising.

Perhaps they need to fail, that will clear room for companies that will have hopefully learned a valuable lesson from others failures.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >




Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.



footer

Blue's News logo