Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

SJW and PC are both terms with negative connotations, because they have negative things going for them. Making the words naughty does not solve this problem.

Yes, the problem is that you have an objection to people you have never met expressing views that you imagine based off a handful of extreme cases.

Imagine if I said "well some bernie sanders supporters are racist and some of them are hardcore communists so every bernie sanders supporter is a Socialist Racism Revolutionary."  And then every fucking conversation I said "God, I'm sick and fucking tired of the SRRs."  And if anyone made a vaguely socialist comment I would call them a SRR.  Not to their face mind you, I would call them that while discussing them in third person.  Or maybe I'm a socialist myself so I'd only call people with a different brand of socialism then mine SRRs.  Oh and it's mostly young white males that are SRR so by !(logic) every young white male is assumed to be a SRR.  Oh dont worry, I'm sure that you are the exception.  I'll just bitch and moan about the SRRs every time you talk.  Oh no, I'm not talking about you.

The problem isn't that SJW or SRRs are out there.  They exist.  The problem is people feeling that the existence of some view by some indeterminate number of people means they have an excuse to strawman people.  And the number of people they want to slander varies from user to user but it's always way more people then the number of kooks.  It's dishonest and a blight on the conversation.

The fight against civil rights for black people was largely based around such tactics.  You take the worst examples of black people and you label all black people that way.  You dont treat them as a people, you treat them as... well you know the racist slur.  That's what happened with the feminists, the gay rights movement, heck, even going back to the chartists.  Heck, even back further to that you can see the derision the sons of liberty faced back in europe.

The use of a term like SJW isn't just ignorant, it undermines the entire concept of liberalism.  It's not a disagreement with their viewpoint, it's treating them as unworthy of a viewpoint.  While it's hardly the end of the world in it's own right it's something with no redeeming qualities.

So yeah, execute people who use the term SJW.  The world would be a better place.  PC is not quite as bad is SJW but it's a heavily misused term.

[RedKing]

Can we please not rerail the derail?

[MarcAFK]

Sons of liberty is a good name for a trumpest militia, that or the freedom brigade.
Get some freedom or we'll bust you up something good boy!

[mainiac]

Sons of liberty is a good name for a trumpest militia, that or the freedom brigade.
Get some freedom or we'll bust you up something good boy!

Past men of courage are a goldmine of names and imagery for any two bit thug.

[HAMMERMILL]

NEVER! Cry havoc and unleash the flames of postwars (or something like that...)

I think it'll be hard to stay frosty in the summer once the reconstructed Bernie Bros become Hillary's paramilitaries (Hill's Angels?) and are fighting running Street battles with Trump's Redcaps.

Oh my droogies, it'll be a lovely bit of the old ultraviolence, with the shoom and the tolchoking millicents...

Afaik, Trumps nascent Brownshirts call themselves Lion's Guard, after the mediocre performance of Trump's SS detail when the crazy beardo rushed the stage.

But yeah a new civil war will be interesting! With this time, nuclear weapons! Hope your city is gerrymandered the right way!

Yeah, I don't think the "Lion's Guard" moniker is going to stick. Sounds too royalist. Eagle Guard, maybe, but then that plays into the Nazi symbology even more. Redcaps seems harmless enough and functionally descriptive.

Eagle Guard also plays into Roman symbology, actually, it'd play into the symbology of a bunch of cultures. Not sure how it'd play into nazi symbology since the eagle/hawk was already part of the German Coat of Arms.

There are definitely times I wish they had sided with Ben Franklin and made the turkey our national bird.

So it's 'Lions Guard' because instead of the donkey or elephant, it's a lion to symbolize how Trump and his supporters are dislike the conventional parties.

Trump didn't make this shit up, it's his supporters.

[smjjames]

Actually, I think I saw somewhere a sign which had the lion (drawn in the same style as the republican elephant and democrat donkey) above the the elephant and donkey. It was above the elephant to be exact, though a little more in the middle than directly above.

A lion is totally fine as a political symbol I suppose. The symbols of both parties have changed over time anyway, so....

[RedKing]

Actually, I think I saw somewhere a sign which had the lion (drawn in the same style as the republican elephant and democrat donkey) above the the elephant and donkey. It was above the elephant to be exact, though a little more in the middle than directly above.

A lion is totally fine as a political symbol I suppose. The symbols of both parties have changed over time anyway, so....

Considering the male lion sleeps 90% of the time, lets the females do all the actual hunting and cub-rearing, and is basically just there for the sex and to be loud -- yeah, seems legit.

[Frumple]

I'unno, if I were going to take a lion as a political symbol it'd be the lioness instead. The maned ones are honestly kinda' useless. Elephants and donkeys are both pretty good critters all around, but male lions are just sorta' lazy jackasses that barely even exist as sperm donors. Not the animal I'd choose.

And ninja'd once again. Bah.

[mainiac]

It's quite perfect when you put it that way.

[smjjames]

Actually, I think I saw somewhere a sign which had the lion (drawn in the same style as the republican elephant and democrat donkey) above the the elephant and donkey. It was above the elephant to be exact, though a little more in the middle than directly above.

A lion is totally fine as a political symbol I suppose. The symbols of both parties have changed over time anyway, so....

Considering the male lion sleeps 90% of the time, lets the females do all the actual hunting and cub-rearing, and is basically just there for the sex and to be loud -- yeah, seems legit.

Someone should tell the Trump supporters that.

I'unno, if I were going to take a lion as a political symbol it'd be the lioness instead. The maned ones are honestly kinda' useless. Elephants and donkeys are both pretty good critters all around, but male lions are just sorta' lazy jackasses that barely even exist as sperm donors. Not the animal I'd choose.

And ninja'd once again. Bah.

Well, the current symbols got popularized in political cartoons in the 1870's, so, it might not even end up being a Lion anyway.

[Loud Whispers]

I'unno, if I were going to take a lion as a political symbol it'd be the lioness instead. The maned ones are honestly kinda' useless. Elephants and donkeys are both pretty good critters all around, but male lions are just sorta' lazy jackasses that barely even exist as sperm donors. Not the animal I'd choose.

And ninja'd once again. Bah.

I wouldn't, as both tend to sleep 20 hours a day and you pick the mane for the sole reason that it looks regal as fuck whilst you have the actual workers get the job done even if they're only working 50 minutes a day. Actually that sounds less Romantic, but I suppose there is something to be said in how short their lifespans are due to THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE CONSUL mentality, and male Lions are more likely to give food to their cubs than lionesses (damn commies giving away carcasses they didn't scavenge themselves. Also ironic, as carcasses they scavenge themselves they are less likely to give away). If we want to get all toleran the main purpose of the male lion is killing intruder males (who the male can't stand) or females (who the pride can't stand), whilst the lionesses hunt the buffalo and zebra the male lion just kills anything that tries to kill its cubs. It's like some egalitarian sparta where all of society wants to kill you

[smjjames]

Theres all kinds of animal symbolism that don't fit the way they actually behave in the wild. I'm sure the lion isn't the only one.

[RedKing]

Obviously the answer is the Tyrannosaurus.

Loud and seemingly the "King of Dinosaurs", though in reality it is now thought to be mostly a scavenger that bullied away other meat-eaters from their kills. Plus, tiny hands. 

EDIT: Also uneducated white males something something extinct. Make America Cretaceous Again.

[Loud Whispers]

Thinking back to that Natgeo doc on Lions where they followed the path of male lions I've rekindled an old respect for the lazy sods. They're born in equal numbers but there's a reason there are so few of the male ones. At the age of 2 the male cub is betrayed by its own family and exiled under threat of death: Enter Genghis Khan mode. Out in the wild the male cub must skirt its way through every single pride, aware that if it is caught by any of them, even its own, it will be killed. It does not know why this is happening. Sometimes his sisters and brothers will be so attached that they will leave with him when he is exiled, this is a mistake as they simply will not be able to provide food for all of them. Most will starve to death, if not all. Somehow they have to survive long enough to reach their full potential, the point where their size will make them strong enough to fight. This is hard as their mane is biologically designed to make it harder for them to hunt, making them more visible and likely to die of overheating under the scorching Savannah sun. Most will die attempting to steal food from rival prides or hyenas, biting off more than they can chew. What few lions survive then until adulthood must then take over their own pride or else die in the wild, they cannot survive on their own forever and they must father their own offspring or be forgotten by evolution. Sometimes three or four big, scarred males will form a coalition to take on an established pride, whether these allies will not immediately begin killing each other in victory is a question they do not ask themselves until their enemies are in defeat. If they are not ended by disease or hunter, accident or rival, and they take over their own pride, to cement their rule they remove the last vestiges of their past - killing their enemies' children to free up resources for their own. Sitting at the top of the animal Kingdom they wait and they guard their pride and their children, ever wary that one day challengers will arrive who will score victory upon him, kill him and all of his children. When his sons reach the age of 2, to avoid them growing too confident and accidentally end up killing his pride's own cubs, he drives them from the pride. They don't understand, but the ones that survive will.

[Loud Whispers]

And the documentary didn't even cover their success as solo hunters or of animals too large for lionesses to quarry, I learn something new every day.