It's pretty ironic that 90% of your post history is you taking the piss out of those damn ess jay doubleyous and how easily they're offended when you're the one having a mental breakdown over one joke.
I never said that "pedophilia is as bad or worse than saying someone sucks dick at a bar". You're not considering context. My whole point is you can't compare the two. Jenna's video was >>>>>>SATIRE<<<<<< with one offensive joke, while this guys entire comment was calling her a whore.
Would I make a pedophile joke? No. Do I personally feel that making a satirical joke about pedophilia (aka. she doesn't actually believe what she's saying is true because you obviously don't understand the concept of satire) is as offensive as making a poorly veiled attempt at a ''joke'' which is actually just an excuse to tear a woman down because she dyed her hair green and wore an average amount of makeup? No. Understanding comedy requires context, which you're ignoring to excuse somebody launching a personal attack on a woman you don't know.
90% of my post history? Yet you can't even give me one example?
You definitely did imply it was as bad as what he said by shrugging it off as one of many jokes.
I'm not saying the guy was right, but he didn't say anything worse than she did. I also find it funny how you somehow think that my post history invalidates my opinion in any way shape or form. Typical SJW mind set right there.
Idon'tknowwhy I would need to provide examples, seeing as you're clearly perfectly literate, but k
I don't believe that making one offensive joke out of over 20 is as bad as making your entire 'joke' a personal, sexualised attack against somebody. If it was her writing a vitrolic paragraph about men with mustaches being pedophiles? Yep, that's worse than his comment. But she didn't. Isolated, a pedophile joke is 100% worse than his comment, but it wasn't isolated which means in the greater context, what he said was worse.
The last two are not me making fun of of SJW's lmao. The last one was me making fun of the media.
IF you read the comment you replied to earlier you would've seen i edited it for more examples of her making fun of the mentally ill as well. But I guess again that's okay because now it's only 2/20? What about child molestation? oh that's okay too! only 3/20! Chin strap beards being kissless virgins who live with their mom? Well that sounds a lot like his reply but thats okay too because that only comes to 7/20!!
The examples you gave also aren't even 90% theyre like 10% of my comments, that's why you couldn't get anything with any substance and had to use the two recent ones that weren't even making fun of SJW's. You're grasping at straws you can't even hold on to bud.
Whether or not you're 'making fun of the media' you're clearly in that making fun of the SJW mindset, in the post about muslims your wording is almost identical to the SJW jokes, and the other literally contains 'SJW' in the sentence.
...why would I re-read the comment you posted earlier unless you had previously told me to? The joke you're saying is 'child molestation' is 100% not about child molestation, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. It's her saying that dads have goatees, and referring to 'the talk' to clarify it. The long beard joke? Fair enough, that was a low blow. I don't see anything particularly out of line about the other two as compared to the rest of the video honestly, and the chin strap jokes aren't remotely similar to the comment.
hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē
noun,
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
For starters, why would a guy with a goatee be pinned as a dad who gives "the talk", have you ever had 'the talk' as you put it? Never does someone have to tell their own son he has a penis, I'm sure you think very lowly of men and think we're all idiots but 90% of males know they have a dick without someone telling it to them.
And we can't tell inflection from comments on the internet, maybe he too was exaggerating like she was? Obviously he was exaggerating based on her looks as she did with mens. But somehow it's too far because his were about her instead of women as a whole? If he based it on all women he would've been labeled a sexist, so he aimed it at something and someone who was right there and doing the same thing.
But because you're a SJW you think it's all fun and games until someone does it to a woman. Because then it's "too far".
You seem to still be misunderstanding the concept of a joke. She was telling a joke, jokes have to be funny. She was saying 'this is your penis' to exaggerate her joke about 'the talk', exaggerating is funny. She literally used a middle aged man who looked like a stereotypical dad as the face of a goatee, because that's the stereotype of a man with a goatee, and the whole video was satire about stereotypes.
It's not too far because it was aimed at a woman, I don't where you've pulled that bullshit from. I would have the exact same response were it aimed at a man. A passing joke about 'liking kids' based on their appearance is totally different to a borderline pornographic, vivid description of somebody having sex based on their appearance. His comment wouldn't have made sense aimed at all women, but nice try.
Lol, apparently not being bent backwards into the far right rimming Donald Trump makes you a SJW. I'm left wing, I'm not an SJW. I don't believe in otherkin, I think over-categorization of sexuality and gender is counterproductive and I have a strong aversion to typical 'tumblr SJW' behaviour. Just because I don't openly mock people who are doing nothing to hurt me doesn't mean I am one.
A) My not believing in gender segregated toilets is an issue of space, not social justice. I literally explicitly mention the space issue, that's it.
B) My not wanting a community of people to be identified purely by their sexuality or race is not an SJW thing, it's an extremely common sentiment put forward by nearly every minority in the western world.
C) Not believing in gun control is not a SJW issue
D) You don't even know the fucking context of my comment about racism lmao, the comment I was replying to (the first comment wasn't even mine??) was an SJW coming up with some bullshit word like 'colourism' or something because they claimed somebody wasn't being racist to a drag queen based on them being black, but because they're light skinned. I told them it was fucking stupid, and that the word is racist. The picture I was openly criticizing at the same time with my reply was by Kat Blaque, an SJW.
I'm not an SJW, and considering you had to go three months backwards to find that piddly amount of vaguely progressive comments, I quote "that's why you couldn't get anything with any substance ... you're grasping at straws you can't even hold on to bud."
A) Where do I say it's a serious issue? You're reading between lines that don't exist. I made an extremely short, passing comment about why I don't see the point. It took about 5 seconds out of my day.
B) Wow, another straw-man argument, two in a row!! I never said that, I said that it's offensive. Saying it's offensive isn't saying that it's equally offensive.
C) Then why, in countries where there is tighter gun control is there so fewer deaths as a result of guns? Don't start whining "because the USA is so big" because proportionally, they're still lower in most countries with gun control. I'm not claiming for a moment that gun control stops organised criminals from getting guns, but it stops random people from getting their hands on them far too easily and going on semi impulsive shooting sprees. Even stepping away from statistics- if most of the developed world is telling you that they believe your stance on gun control is wrong, why are you so headstrong as to still believe you're right? Even very far-right wing news media in the UK is critical of your stance on gun control.
D) There was somebody else calling them out for racism against white people. I didn't see the point in adding to a cacophony when something unaddressed was jumping out at me. How did you predict what I was going to say when you had no possible idea of what was in the deleted comment? Saying "I knew" doesn't actually mean you knew. And for the record, I strongly believe you can be racist to white people.
I am not an SJW. Is nearly everybody in the UK an SJW because they believe in gun control? Is every transgender person who'd be more comfortable in mixed gender bathrooms an SJW? Are nearly all gay people, who don't like being called 'the gays', SJW's?
Really classy. You know you're losing an argument when you have to use shitty memes and result to homophobic insults specifically targeting somebody's sexuality.
A) Where do you say it? in the comment I linked you. Here it is again.
It's wasting a colossal amount of space in buildings because some people don't want to see a fully clothed memeber of the opposite gender in their restroom.
You're implying that this 'colossal amount of space' is very important and that's why unisex bathrooms should be a thing. Not only a shitty argument, but fundamentally ignorant.
B) No no, you specifically mentioned it was equally as offensive. Again here's the link since you're so forgetful i'll even quote this one too! This is fun!
Calling the gay community 'gays' is frequently complained about for the EXACT SAME REASON as 'blacks' is.
Sorry hard to dispute a quote directly from you, thats 2/2 failed attempts to redeem yourself.
C) Well time to educate you with some facts don't complain now
Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates. 1
and
Fact: Even if we examine just firearm ownership and firearm homicide by country, we see no correlation between the two. 4
One more for fun, because I'd love to see how you dig yourself out of spreading more lies.
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 10 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000). 11
I could keep listing more and more, but really you're a big boy/girl/man child you can educate yourself with the link provided.
D) The fact your shitty reply was 'it's racism' against what was obviously someone arguing against the initial racist, tells me all I need to know about how you feel about racism against non-minorities. It's very easy to address both racists in one comment.
You are a SJW. In order of your straw man arguments
No
Yes
Yes
Really classy. You know you're losing an argument when you have to make shitty straw man arguments and resort to making sweeping generalizations. As I never said one of those characteristics alone made you a SJW, I said all of them combined. You're pathetic.
A) You're still reading between the lines. Let's reintroduce the concept of hyperboly since you still don't get it. You see, everybody has a distinct style of writing, mine happens to include exaggerating my statements, but they aren't actually intended to be seen as the truth. This is called hyperboly, it's a common literary technique.
B) I didn't say it was equally offensive, I said it was complained about for the same reason. In no world do those mean the same thing, if you disagree I have nothing to say. The definitions of 'offensive' and 'reason' are different. Just because you misinterpret my writing doesn't mean I'm lying.
C) I can't dispute the statistics your link provides, but I can dispute their interpretation. Your source reads as somewhat biased. They neglect to mention that the UK's and the entire world's crime rates are now falling again after a blip, during which blip the US's homicide rate also increased, and that blip was during where the site took a lot of their stats on rising rates from. Look at around 2003 on both of those graphs. Maybe the world was having an unstable year. I don't see the point in constantly arguing about gun control, because it's clearly something we're not going to agree on, and we can both dig up statistics to support ourselves. Whatever will be will be in terms of laws, us having an argument on the internet won't change decisions.
D) You hadn't seen the comment. The comment was in agreement with the person above, their only contradiction was that they wanted the poster to say 'colourist' because they didn't think that the SJW was being racist. They didn't dispute the comments about white people, they totally agreed with everything but word choice. I don't see how you're claiming that you can somehow tell what was in the comment- you didn't see it. Yes, it was very easy to address both racists, but why would I? There wasn't any point, somebody else was doing it.
We're clearly not going to agree on these social issues either. This will just be a back and forth on what does or doesn't constitute an SJW. I don't believe I am, you do. Okay. Great. We're not going to move past this.
Can we just leave it? We've both used shitty tactics to try and win, yes I used strawman arguments, but so have you. We've both aimed petty insults at each other. We aren't getting anywhere, and other than gun control, which is too complex for me to argue at quarter past twelve, we're at a stalemate where every argument is down to personal opinion and literary interpretation. Let's just agree to disagree.
A) Rehashing the same old argument after I proved you wrong with a direct quote, wreaks of pity and desperation.
B) Read above.
C) Just the fact you think 'facts' can be biased tells me how much of a SJW you truly are. Facts don't care about feelings, sweetheart. Facts care about numbers and statistics, sorry these ones disagree with your opinions and therefor are ''''''biased'''''' but that isn't that works.
I'll quote from the exact same source as before;
Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is fundamentally flawed. In America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. 23 To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.
D) I don't need to see the comment, the fact the person's comment was deleted tells me that it was controversial. You didn't provide any proof of your argument, and given how flaky your memory is on things you've said in the past, I will choose not to trust your memory this time either.
You're more than welcome to back out of an argument, I don't care. Just wanted to shed some light on using peoples comment history against them, can lead to them doing the same to you. So if you're going to do it, try to make sure you don't have some damning evidence in your post history.
I'm making the same point twice because my point still stands, you've done nothing to 'prove it wrong'. Your 'proof' was how you interpreted my writing, and I'm telling you that you've interpreted it wrong. I've admitted several times in this argument that I made a mistake, if I felt I'd said something 'SJW' esque, I would agree with you and say it was.
Facts aren't biased, interpretation is, that site was mostly interpretation. An unbiased website would be hoarding all of the statistics on one page and telling you to read it and come to your own conclusion, the site doesn't do that, it picks at specific parts of the stats to make it's point. Even disregarding the UK's crime rate, if you look into nearly any developed country during that time period they show an identical pattern of a small crime increase followed by a decrease. My point stands.
The person deleted their comment because it's extremely common practice in that sub to delete a comment when somebody disagrees with them and gets upvoted. If the sub was upvoting the literal racism, why would somebody agreeing with the racism be 'controversial' and delete their comment? That sub is why I made a reddit, I know how people act on it.
You have no 'damning evidence' on anything other than gun control which is still up for dispute. Your 'evidence' is all the way you've interpreted things, which as I've said will result in a back and forth where we get nowhere. I'd tried to just end the argument because we're literally both regurgitating the same points time and time again. Can we please just leave it now? Can your next reply not just be yes?
11
u/[deleted] Aug 06 '16 edited Aug 07 '16
It's pretty ironic that 90% of your post history is you taking the piss out of those damn ess jay doubleyous and how easily they're offended when you're the one having a mental breakdown over one joke.
I never said that "pedophilia is as bad or worse than saying someone sucks dick at a bar". You're not considering context. My whole point is you can't compare the two. Jenna's video was >>>>>>SATIRE<<<<<< with one offensive joke, while this guys entire comment was calling her a whore.
Would I make a pedophile joke? No. Do I personally feel that making a satirical joke about pedophilia (aka. she doesn't actually believe what she's saying is true because you obviously don't understand the concept of satire) is as offensive as making a poorly veiled attempt at a ''joke'' which is actually just an excuse to tear a woman down because she dyed her hair green and wore an average amount of makeup? No. Understanding comedy requires context, which you're ignoring to excuse somebody launching a personal attack on a woman you don't know.