It makes a better counterpoint than silly, misrepresented, just plain wrong 'bullet points'....and was followed with more.
The argument is not worth linking the dozen recent angry man hating feminist videos...you wouldn't see the ridiculousness anyway.

No, you're wrong about what you said (or didn't say)....here's the proof you require.
In that same post where you wrote '"We can take it...we don't need a safe space", you said "Also, please don't say that men suffer from most or all of the opression that women suffer, as much or to a greater degree, without sources. I'll give you some examples of what you could have done:
•Women suffer from sexual violence at much greater rates than men (Example source: some man-hating bull dyke known as the CDC, "Sexual violence facts at a glance, 2012")"

Which, as you KNOW, just plain ignores MOST sexual assaults perpetrated on men and pretends they aren't victims in order to make a mistaken point....that men aren't victims, only women are, when the reality is that men are the victim of sexual abuse MORE often than women.

The two certainly seemed related when you wrote them together.

EDIT: How about this guy (the teacher, not the douche narrator)? Doesn't HE need a safe space? Note: 16 men and 9 women in the group attacking the teacher...it's not just women putting this crap out.
http://videosift.com/video/secondclancy-the-new-face-of-social-justice-warriors#comments

Now go back, admit your mistake. I can take on insult AND disgusting lies, but not at the same time.

Proper format does not a correct argument make.

There are BLM activists who make inflammatory comments about white people (oh no whatever shall we do) and there are feminists who make inflammatory comments about men (oh no whatever shall we do). I posit, for your reasoned consideration:

Why is it that this guy gets hung by his toes. But when Alec Baldwin calls someone a "fucking cocksucking faggot" and a long list of other unrelated homophobic slurs, no one bats an eye.

All reality TV shows have been doctored to make for more interesting TV since its inception with The Real World, the so-called point of this whole video is mute. Anyone with half a brain cell knows this video isn't about Duck Dynasty being fake, or about the discrimination of opressed people.

Alec Baldwin is making millions doing far worse on a monthly basis. Remember when he called his 12 year old daughter and verbal and mentally abused her? Or when he called a reporter a fat queen. Or another incident where he threathens to shove his foot up someone's faggot ass. No one tries to ruin his career over any of the horrible disgusting things Alec has said or done, but this bearded redneck happens to quote bible scriptures. That's what all this fabricated hate is really all about.

Most of the 'outraged' people don't give a shit about gay people, they just want to see the religious wingnuts get taken down a peg so they can wave their fedora emblazoned atheism flag. They won't come right out and say it because it would make them selfish assholes riding the coat-tails of people who are actually being abused and discriminated against. No I'm not religious, but I can smell bullshit a mile away, and this whole thing reeks. Were's this assholes outrage when it comes to Alec? Ohh He dosen't really give a shit about gay rights, not a peep when he can't pin a christian to the wall; he just cares about religious people doing stupid things.

Don't subjegate the real issue with your atheism agenda, it makes you look disgusting and reprehensible. That attitude is exactly why no one takes our ideology seriously; You think your doing some greater good, but your means are selfish to the very core.

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".


I'd argue that you're being immature, rather than adult.

Adults question bullshit. Kids swallow whatever they're told and indeed adopt it for themselves. Your government has managed to get you to help opress your fellow citizen.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' to 'George Orwell, 1984, oppression' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell' to 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' - edited by messenger

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


This is in my opinion the biggest victory of those who ruin the country. This opinion is pretty standard, I've heard it all my life on college campuses and even believed it at one point.

I wonder, if you posed the question to Martin Luther King Jr. what his opinion of that would be. I think he'd say that the only reason he could do his job, that he could speak and go to towns and rally people for his cause was because there were hundreds of thousands of people working to make it happen behind the scenes. The tribute we pay is not to those people though, it's to Martin Luther King Jr.

The reason is because they want to make sure and convince you that you cannot do this on your own. That you need a "Special Person" to come forth and fight your battles for you, and lead you to promised land. This is the idea that Obama satisfied with his "Army" of people that weren't to do anything but work to get Obama elected and listen to him, and then that's it. Their job was done, when in a real democracy they'd be working still, putting pressure on Obama to do what he promised and what they put him in for.

This is a great propaganda tool to control people, it works. Until it doesn't, and you have occupy protests everywhere.

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


What about the woman's movement of the 1910s or the civil rights movement of the 1960s?

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.

hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.


If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.

who are you and what have you done with spell check? Dear god, man.
>> ^westy:

well its obvouse if your a muslim then u goina have find the cards like that funny , fucking hell , jokes are going to use imagary of a culture.
allso there is not annything inherlty bad about there been a load of mosks in NY city as much as Chirches , the issue is if the Mosks play by the rules or not or are going to be opressive.
My thing is let people build religouse shit if they want to but dont let them abuse women . dont let them indoctranate children with obvouse bullshit.
I think there is an argument for noise polustoin with mosks that would be a big concern of mine , i dont apreceat them bing so fucking noisy calling to prayre , same with chirch bells. Unless its a 1 off occasoin maby 15 x a year max.

The main thing about this thats amausing is how insacure amaercans are ,

As dumb as the little law is, that's all this video is about. Some people breaking a dumb little law and being arrested for it.

Now if one of the cops had said, "Hey, you know what? This is AMERICA.. F the court's decission.. dance all you want!" that would have been awesome.. but in the end, this is not indicative of massive opression or anything. There is some dumb logic to this law (the keep it a place of tranquility.. as it reads in the court order), and the cops in this video didn't go around tazing everyone or being overtly rude or belligerent.

Infact the guy who pretended like he didn't know he was breaking any law annoys me. If you're going to break the law to make a statement, don't play ignorant when it's obvious you're perfectly aware of what you're doing. Weakens your stance, imo.

It's good to keep one's eyes open for stuff like this on a more broad scale, but as it stands this is a skirmish over one idea of what should be allowed in a specific public area vs another's.. and I can see both sides. I totally side with the dance freedom though myself.

Also this is a city-state, so I would bet federal judges like to flex their muscle here and there amongst DC.

well its obvouse if your a muslim then u goina have find the cards like that funny , fucking hell , jokes are going to use imagary of a culture.

allso there is not annything inherlty bad about there been a load of mosks in NY city as much as Chirches , the issue is if the Mosks play by the rules or not or are going to be opressive.

My thing is let people build religouse shit if they want to but dont let them abuse women . dont let them indoctranate children with obvouse bullshit.

I think there is an argument for noise polustoin with mosks that would be a big concern of mine , i dont apreceat them bing so fucking noisy calling to prayre , same with chirch bells. Unless its a 1 off occasoin maby 15 x a year max.


The main thing about this thats amausing is how insacure amaercans are ,

When people talk about free will as an absolute or black and white concept it confuses me. Our free will is constrained in an infinitesimal number of ways because of the nature of our existence. We cannot move in the 4th dimension for example. Given then that our free will is not in fact unlimited but constrained, there is nothing to stop a supreme being who is infinitely powerful from designing us with the inability to do evil, or the inability to do injustice upon others.

The standard argument to that is that if there is no evil there can be no good. In relative terms and from the perspective of such an existance, perhaps not, but an observer looking in from a world with good and evil would be able to identify this constrained behaviour as good. Should that not be enough? To add to that, given such an existance without the capacity to do evil, it is plausible we could certainly conceptualize evil, just as how we can conceptualise the 4th dimension right now, but it would not be considered an opression of our free expression because of our limited ability to imagine it, and the lack of any such experiences to draw upon. In such an existance, we would spend as much time worrying about the inability to do evil as we do worrying about the inability to move in the 4th dimension in this world.

When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.

"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."

So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

>> ^gwiz665:
So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.
Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.
You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!
If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.
Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.
You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.
>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.

Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.

You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!

If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.

Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.

You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.

>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.