#debate (Discord ID: 463068752725016579) in Subverse, page 50
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
And some of that extends to us, some of it doesn't
On the bright side of things: we're running out of people to bomb.
There aren't really any plausible targets for foreign adventures anymore.
If we can keep America from killing itself for the next ~50 years we should be able to establish a decent foothold in space and not have to worry so much.
We arent running out of people to bomb lol, look around u, the entire us is turning in on itself
Theres barely anymore nuclear families
That just promotes radicalness
Extended families > nuclear families
I have an excellent extended family, my aunts and uncles keep in touch and that means so many nice dinners
And all the red packets from CNY
Hookers and video games > Extended family
Hope u all enjoy being slaves and left when the going gets tough for ur loyal wives
Hah jokes on you, I am a widower
No its on u lol
Usually cause the extended family for some reason keeps introducing nice people to one another
When the stakes is the entire family as a whole, you get people who are alot nicer to one another. The inverse is also sometimes true, they dont hang out outside the group
Not with my experience though, then again, all of my aunts run buisnesses.
Outline is a free service that makes websites more readable. We remove the clutter, like ads, related links, and comments—so you can read comfortably.
HOME · TERMS · PRIVACY · DMCA · CONTACT
this is the only thing that shows?
dont think so
works fine here
i read it :)
i dont buy it
I think molyneux has gotten out of his ancap phase a while ago
Hi! Where could I ask for sources for a statement in one of Timcast's videos?
Just watched "Social Justice Warrior's Life Gets Ruined by Other SJWs". At about 4:25 an attack at the G20 is mentioned. The name mentioned there soudns to me like Luke Witkowski but I cannot find anything about that.
Luke Witkowsk is from We Are Change.
There you go.
according to bitchute staff, we are change is fake news
i havent watch them since i found this out
Independent of their respective political goals people shouldn't instigate basically a hunt on others and bring to or accept serious harm on them.
Looks like the instigator lost his job but doesn't feel like he did wrong.
.. which appears to be mostly grounded in how close the journalists appear to far-right personnel. Still no reason to get violent.
Is the video of Richard Carrier vs Sargon of Akkad @ Mythcon anywhere?
it would be dispicable anw
sargon is low hanging fruitster
he can do more as he did but its too much effort
I doubt that Sargon is able to go higher than that.
I have no doubt that Styx is high IQ and very well versed and midly mannered...
But Richard Spencer mobed the Floor with Sargon. That's why he said that the Alt-Right is Irrelevant.
because they are mostly higher hanging fruit.
You might also look at the debate with the White Japanese....
Another WOrking Class English Man is "Tommy Robinson", and he did his homework really well, Sargon tries really hard but it does look like he reached his peak or almost did it.
i dont get why people like styx.
he only talks most basic shit and his political view is bit lacking.
like i dont think he sees big picture at all.
Because he usually has a bit different view of things than others....
like for me he seems one of those guys who read alot but just repeats what he reads. and cant formulate his own view.
and he doesn't give a fuck about left and right, he sees himself as a radical centrist
Sargon, yes, Styx no
styx has a talent for extemporaneous bullshitting. makes him seem like he knows more than he does when he's able to ramble continuously without stopping to think or correct himself.
Sargon's a liberal and for the most part liberals seem to be under the mistaken understanding that the left are seeking out some kind of compromise with Sargon's ilk
styx might seem smart to someone who doesnt know about topic he is talking about, because he repeats some info you havent heard before.
but he cant really think him self.
like yeah he might have some "new views" because he always thinks "truth" must always be in middle. but thats logical fallacy.
I like Styx the same way I like ReviewBrah, he has an unusual persona he's not afraid to present to the interwebs
Sort of how I like Tim's skateboarder persona as well, though his experience with investigative reporting is even more important.
@Stefan Payne well idk styx but spencer lost debate to sargon, it was obvious, too obvious
although sargon is an easy bait
and easy food
sadly i dont have a base so i cant debate sargon
Sargon was so bad, he can't won it, because he was a big asshole and constantly talked over Richard, laughed creepy and lost his calm a couple of times. So no, he lost the debate because of that.
investigative reporting is more blood warming than news critics, which sargon does well but he is a man of common folk and hopefully he is humble enough to know that
but there is difference betwen news reporting and political commentary.
and i dont really care about peoples personality. i care about truth.
wait is this about that old "what is white" debate.
When you ask why people like something you have ot prepared for the answer to be shallow
>sargon: what is white.
see i won that debate. kek.
whit is in group preference biological reality
``` he is humble enough to know that```
LOOOOOOL, no. See the Allsup video (though I've not seen it), but the existance of that video proves this claim wrong
does sargon think he is that good?
You can test in-group preference iwth monkeys or chimps or crows
i saw him being humble in front of peterson and few times in his videos
so yeah i assumed he was
like, james allsup?
that cunt that's reprimanding us brits for not getting a hard brexit, even though we can't cause May won't allow it?
Yes, because Allsup called Sargon out for some shit he does (like Insult Metakur with a UKIP Account), but basically he calls for Farrage to lead UKIP
like farrage can now
i understand trying to criticise the politics and policies, but get research done before hand
He pulled out the dumb fake news pedo line. Also I had heard someone else was running the UKIP account but I can't confirm that
Sargon doesn't control @warplanpurple
Which makes Allsup's whole video fakenews
Kavanaugh is an alcoholic molester, change my mind
Impossible. Burden of Proof is on you.
If you'd like to discuss the merits of your argument, I'm game, but since this is an accusation, I'll need your argument first.
I'm memeing tbh
So, a friend sent me a video, it's in Portuguese however there is an interesting part talking about the language used for Obamacare and how the left or as it is in the video title the ideas of Saul Alinksy talk about the change of language https://youtu.be/i11taVO1hIY?t=2646
I for one never had heard about this guy. Although he died in the 70's his ideas are very much what the left is today. I would encourage you guys to look into Saul Alinksy's life to learn about today's left.
You never heard of Saul Alinksy? His book Rules for Radicals is the playbook of the left.
aren't there thousands of versions?
Yeah I never heard of him before. In the beginning of the video he mentions that kind of proves his ideas right
Not many people know about him
I'm really confused by Tim's stance on Ford.
There's nobody coming forward to confirm the allegations and everyone has denied it ever took place. But I still believe Ford because her story isn't especially lurid. Her story seems coached and she's lied on the issue of flying. But she's probably telling the truth. She's being coached, but they wouldn't have told her to avoid stating things that might cause red flags nor would they have rehearsed these talks to insure she seemed genuine. All the evidence points one way (her claims are false at worst, un-provable and contradicted at best)
Yet, she's still being truthful.
About the only way he could resolve the whole thing is if he thinks these new guys claiming to be the actual assailants are telling the truth. But those are anonymous persons and the whole thing is so weird it's going to take some rather crazy evidence to prove. I *think* Tim is alleging that the Democrats put her up to this (which is actually far worse on the Democrats part than her lying) and she's just horribly mistaken.
But frankly, I find it all kind of meandering. Is the assertion that her story is true? It would seem to contradict all evidence Tim is laying out.
Will agree the whole thing is pretty disgusting and things are getting way too intense.
She isn't being Truthfull.
@pratel I agree. Even accepting Tim's explanation she's letting herself be used for political reasons, which still points to her being dishonest. I stated this in general chat, but unfortunately this means I know I can't trust Tim in the future on any sexual assault cases.
Tim doesn't understand if he defends every accuser (he says everyone is shit who attacks survivors) he loses credibility every time they're shown to be liar.
At best Ford is knowingly letting herself be used as a weapon against a man she isn't sure about. At worst she is a slandering political hack.
Well, knowing he has a blind spot doesn't mean he doesn't have credibility. He has proven to be accurate and truthful in most other areas so I still trust him.
I think he just doesn't want to accuse people willy nilly
Oh, I do mean in this particualr area
Man I didn't get to watch all of it live. but just saw a clip of the polygraph part. She admits crying through the polygraph test. Doesn't being over emotional through a polygraph test invalidate it?
I don't know enough about Polygraphs..but aren't they inadmissible in court because they just aren't really all that accurate?
I was just pointing out that it almost definitely gave even worse results if she was crying while giving the test
Polygraphs prove nothing except for heart rate
By the way, Tim saying I know because her behavior. She's a psychology professor she might be capable of faking the behavior. And that was Tim's only "evidence". I don't have twitter or post on social media, but I didn't appreciate him saying that people who think she might be a sham are shit. Lindsey Graham pointed out that Feinstein office was recommending a lawyer to Ford before august 20 when he met with Feinstein meaning Ford was prepping about a month before they revealed the allegation. Ford could have declined to be involved or voiced her lack of confidence in it being Kavanaugh but chose to at that time go in on the political stunt before she got coaching as Tim speculates. Even if something real happened to Ford at some point, most evidence points to her being a political operative in this instance. This is where Tim blind spot is revealed.
Does anyone know any good reporters for these sexual assault cases? This seems to be an area that's a real blind spot for a lot of people covering the news (not just Tim). Shapiro is pretty bad on this as well, Philly eat a D isn't great either, and a lot of others don't cover it (I don't blame them).
Can pls ask someone Ben if he is a Siscon?
He said a couple of times that his sister was the one who introduced his wife to him....
The thing to remember with Tim's stance is that, unless you can find the info to say "there is no way she could have been in that area during that time and she knows it", it's hard to prove she is actually lying. However, for him to actually declare she is lying opens him up to slander.
There is also the fact that someone, with a very similar style story may be discouraged if the default response they all see on the news is "clearly women who have blocked out memories are just lying for some kind of gains or revenge". The easiest way for Tim to avoid all these pitfalls is to simply say "whoever assaulted her wasn't Kav, and the Dems clearly have been using this for political gains at her experense"
Declaring her guilty without evidence is no better than declaring Kav guilty without evidence. And unfortunately, the beauty of her allegation is that it is very hard to prove she lied. And if you really want to prove she had ill intent, follow the money. Her attorney is working for free, so follow that go fund me money.
And tim fucks rabbits
See its not Tim’s job to prove he’s not a rabbit rapist
Its my job to show he’s a bunny fucker
If i cant then I should not be belived
but you might not be lying
you may very well have seen him fuck a rabbit.
but didn't take a video or a pitcutr
You are right so we should stop watching tim because of the allegation
Btw I saw you fucking the rabbit too
Grenade is correct
My problem is with tim saying she's honest, she's not. He could just say her claims are not credible.
Because she wasn't proven a liar in her accusations.
Perjury is a crime.
perjury is hard to prove
Innocent until proven guilty is in effect though
are the media and dems treating him like he's innocent?
And so we do to others what we don't want done to us?
It's apparent and provable that the left is playing a political game with the accusation
Die with principles huh?
We can accuse them, but to difinitively state that she is lying on all counts, that nothing ever happened to her
I want the burden of proof to be held above my claims and everyone else’s I dont believe shit unless i have evidence and anyone who does believes without evidence is a twat
Don't need to say she's lying. just that the claims have no credibility
Well why did you rape me
I'm pretty sure Tim's said that much.
Tims saying shes honest = telling truth
About being a victim
Why did all of you run a train on me
I agree, I do think she was a victim
Not enough crying, fati
Do you believe her claims about airplanes?
Is that better
I also have a fear of eating
no. That means she's not a credible witness
That doesn't mean she's lying on all counts
My family had to hold my hand last time i ate a burger
Do you beleive her claims it was 100% kavanaugh? do you beleieve her claims about location?
I'm convinced they both believe their own stories.
If she's not credible why are we even listeneing to her about kavanaugh?
You're arguing against perspectives not present
She was basically allowed to go before the nation and destroy a man's reputation regardless of her credibility
and you admitted she was not based on things we knew before she testified
Why do we put people on trial if they can just be found not guilty?
You're arguing against an irrational position.
We didn't get any new information
She provided it all by letter she did manage to stall the vote
The dems saw this worked and "new" allegation just started popping up demanding their own day at the hearing with more demands
As kavanaugh pointed out, she asked for anonymity.
It was a political operation that exposed her.
She was lawyering up in august almost a month before the allegation came forward
This isn’t a trial this is a witch hunt
An anonymous accusation would have been worse
this is common is dem playbook see: trump, herman cain, clarence thomas. difference is the #metoo movement
in past we would not have allowed the circus without real evidence
in the mean time keith ellison wins elections
@Faticati I agree if they would have allowed it to remain anonymous it would have been worse
we have a right to face our accusers.
What I do not understand is why you want to destroy the accuser when you don't have to to make your case?
Apparently, we do because believe all women.
It's about as self destructive as saying 'boys will be boys' to dismiss the accusations
If Judge Kavanaugh doesn't get the nomination what job can he get?
Also why do we have to destroy the accuser?
I agree with you to an extent but that is a separate issue
regardless of whether he's put on scotus democrats are going to try to impeach him.
If the Dems weren't playing politics they would have investigated and nothing would have happened because she hasn't provided evidence.
Your stance is to burn the protection that burden of proof applies
Lying to Congress is a crime
they crafted the accusation vague enough so she couldn't be jailed.
And you are convicting her in the court of public opinion
You're no better than them in that regard
There's a cultural issue plaguing both sides.
This is extremely simple NO EVIDENCE NO BELIEF
I am saying this never should have gotten this far.
Right now outside they're saying believe all women.
What I don't get is the automatic dismissal of someone's testimony based on the fact that she's unclear on certain details.
'false in one, false in all'
Is a legal principle
A person can be sure something happened in childhood and not remember the date/time.
Yeah, why dismiss on lack of evidence? /s
there needs to be corroborating witnesses and/or evidence. individual testimony is worth very little, even less if there is no specificity or if it's unfalsifiable.
witnesses deny it happened, even her friend
if you want to help women who have been victimized you need to start teaching young girls to immediately come forward when they have been victimized, and to go to the police. the police. not friends, not family, no teachers, or therapists. the police.
she didn't even do that
Why would the friend remember? She was downstairs.
and it's not victim blaming to tell young girls not to engage in demonstrably stupid and risky activities.
like underage drinking at a party where you don't know anyone.
Her friend said she never met brett.
and doesn't remember being at any event like the one described
met probably meaning being in the same place at one point in all their years
people claiming to be feminists are infantilizing women and removing their agency, and actually exacerbating the problems they're claiming to champion.
yeah, I hate this because it make credible claims look bad as well
credible = with more evidence
I expect more claims with no evidence or credibility until some people start looking at their own biases
You guys don't see the trap you're in.
I'll explain in a moment
Is the trap that I want evidence? (and we didn't get it in this case)
I'll check back in and try to respond when you post your thing. Got to do some work.
Lindsey Graham was right. Change my mind
So was McCain
So is Flake
So was Bush, so is Rubio
So, here's my premise.
I support Kavanaugh. I believe he's innocent until proven guilty. I believe the entire hearing was a farce
I believe one of the most telling moments in the hearing was Booker asking Kavanaugh if he would've preferred the accuser hadn't come forward.
That would be a sustainable objection at best and a disbarment at worst in an ACTUAL court of law.
The trap we fall in to, though, is hypocrisy.
That's because the only thing that differentiated this from a kangaroo court was the number of dems in seats lol
If we believe that Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty of his charges
We can't make charges of perjury - and make no mistake that's what you're doing when you call her a liar - without evidence.
And the absence of evidence in one is not sustainable proof of the other.
If you dislike this court of public opinion, you have to step up and take the high road against it.
I think her claims can be ignored due to zero evidence. Whether or not I think she's a liar is irrelevant.
Not someone else, it has to start somewhere.
Both can be true though, she can not be lying and Kavanaugh can not be a sex offender
Which is the position I've consistently held
Because the same protections that protect Kavanaugh are the same that protect Ford.
It's been over 3 decades. She could easily misremember details. Mistake Kavanaugh for someone else, coping mechanisms could have kicked in etc
Unless you have evidence to prove she's lying about ever being a victim, you have to accept an impasse.
Otherwise you risk hypocrisy, and that will only strengthen your opposition
It's not even an impasse
It is, though.