Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,551 Awesome


About twylyght

  • Rank
    The picture of how I care
  • Birthday 08/25/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Location
    The upstairs bedroom

Recent Profile Visitors

8,217 profile views
  1. A really good video about how to debate Nazis

    If we're entertaining that people that support freedom of speech are de facto nazi sympathizers: we'll just go ahead and assume that all people that are pro-choice are de facto pro-abortion Ergo, pro-choice people support the murder of 51 million innocents and counting in the United States alone... scoreboard. amidoingitright?
  2. A really good video about how to debate Nazis

    Are you Pro-Choice?
  3. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    Doesn't matter to me. I know Arpaio is a sacred cow for a lot of people. As far as I am concerned, he should be in prison for how he bastardized how the law was executed in his jurisdiction. Like most pardons before him, his served a purely political purpose from what I can tell.
  4. SCARY MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Lots of great suggestions, but a precious few that are missing: Judging from the OP @Jeremy Igo I'm thinking you'd enjoy some stylized schlock and mayhem features: Feast, Slither, Ginger Snaps, Shaun of the Dead If you are looking for something in the vein of straight creepy as hell and stick with you: Audition (nothing else out there like it), Inside For gore-fests: High Tension, Re-Animator, Hellraiser, The Fly (remake), Hostel Standard fare (NONE OF THE SEQUELS): Candyman, Silent Hill, Dawn of the Dead (Remake), The Mist, 30 Days of Night Double-Mentions (mentioned in the thread previously but deserving of another shout): Event Horizon, Cabin in the Woods, Trick'r'Treat (2007), Get Out, Evil Dead, Return of the Living Dead, The Thing, Wolf Creek
  5. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    And I responded in kind with more facts to give this the context for which it was written. You don't believe me? Fine. As far as I'm concerned, you bowing out is nothing more than conceding that you've run out of excuses.
  6. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    I don't believe citizenship status should be determined along racial lines. If you're not here legally, let's fix INS and the root issue. If you want to peruse my views on the building of the wall, have at it. You won't find what you're expecting. Rather than asking what my personal views on Arpaio's pardon, you just assumed I thought it was okay because it was to persecute brown people. Once again, you are flatly wrong with some back-handed remark to create this straw man for me harboring racist intent. A lot of what is happening on the border is having citizenship and race conflated for political purposes. I get that there's a reason to associate the two in many cases, but to project that motivation onto anyone trying to have the discussion lends a lot of light as to why these conversations ultimately fail. Arpaio has been a lightning rod for a number of things. In addition to racial profiling and pursuit of illegal immigrants, he also has faced scrutiny regarding his jail conditions, work programs, all manner of investigative methods, etc. The presumption that you put forward was that Arpaio's pardon was strictly due to his persecution of brown people and nothing more. Given Trump's campaign rhetoric regarding illegal immigration continuing into his presidency, I had assumed this was some token gesture to that aim rather than some strictly racial bias. For me, this pardon was one of many pardons throughout history that was some political ploy or back-scratching rather than the original purpose for why the presidential pardon was instituted. Like so many other institutions that had noble intent at the beginning, it now almost exclusively defeats the purpose for which it was originally designed. If you want to continue on this derail for this discourse, then fine. If you want to circle back to why AntiFa as it exists in the US is a misnomer, we can do that as well. Your call.
  7. Who else would you be addressing in this thread? Are you addressing someone that isn't reading this?
  8. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    If you want to divert the talk about the historical misapplication of the presidential pardon, then we can certainly do that while also speaking to what qualifies as constitutional when it comes to legal citizen status with said protections. If you're suggesting that this single pardon is indicative of an inherently fascist government with this singular modis operandi, you'll have to do better than that.
  9. What exactly do you think I stand for that is hateful?
  10. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    Actually, those white nationalist movements that have been squashed without violence simply aren't getting publicity in this thread. There is no shortage of non-violent counter-measures and proponents in the 20th century alone that have proven successful. Now, it is absolutely fair to say that these movements often had the threat of force from backing governance to aid their causes and complete their respective missions. Contrary to what a lot of TB posters here would assert, DC is not running under the guise of the Nazis nor the KKK. What AntiFa is fighting is not institutional fascism, but bigotry as expressed by individuals. But, they need a cause to justify their violence... so....
  11. The confound is simply this: the ACLU will never defend violent action used to suppress free speech. It shouldn't either. I expect it is why you continually leave out the qualifier that they put into their statement about armed White Nationalist protesters. The ACLU is a founded body to protect free speech regardless of content. Like it or not, that is also liberty at work. The measure of how free a society is, is not how people can live their lives in times of zero conflict, but rather in the face of the intolerable. Like all manner of other issues, I don't believe in White Supremacy in the least. However, I will not condone their right to peacefully assemble. If they've infringed no liberties, then one would have to invoke a notion of thought crime to justify violence. Legally, there is zero case to be made for this precedent. At this time, I've yet to see any evidence of the ACLU defending this mindset: Looking outside the scope of legality, these justifications are almost always rationalizations. Were the police to leverage the same "logic" as AntiFa in the face of BLM protesters chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon", they'd be justifiably defending themselves against imminent violence. As it stands, this is also free speech to be protected. So, liberty maintains that police officers do not get to invoke a "right to defend themselves" in such situations.
  12. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    No. I believe that there are all kinds of violence that are justified and even nuanced to degrees of good and bad. The basis of morality stems directly from motivation and consequence.
  13. If all you care about is a memo and pretty words, then you are correct. There is nothing official from the ACLU to condemn AntiFa to my knowledge. If you believe that actions speak louder than words, then the two are not in congruence and their actions speak to their actual stance.
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States) Have at it with correcting the source then
  15. Antifa is the moral equivalent of nazis

    While the underlying tenet of AntiFa is to snuff out bigotry with direct violence, a number of people that it attracts wind up using this as an excuse to justify violence for the purpose of establishing dominance. Hence, the moral equivalency being drawn. Would you let a White Nationalist skate if they stated that they are just like Black Lives Matter, but just for white people? Of course not. Because the reality is that whatever the purported mission statement is for a number of these organizations, enough of the people that identify with them are seeking to establish dominance rather than equal footing. When either of these groups run out of objectionable people for which to justify their vitriol, they then widen their definition of what is objectionable into their existing moral model, or they simply shift their model. What remains the same is the motivation to establish dominance over people veiled in the guise of a righteous cause. At its core, it is emotional pablum where "I am angry and I need to take it out on someone". The rest of it is rationalization