USA Universities learn the consequences of disrespecting free speech
Trigger Warning: diversity of thought apparently often not allowed, inclusion of conservatives denied, safe spaces "trump"ing all common sense. But! BUT! Your personal hero MILO, shows us that such insanity can sometimes have multi-million dollar consequences. Read it and laugh, snigger, indulge imperiously at the holes some universities dig in the name of combatting free speech to protect the modern extreme-Left precious snowflakes. Full text transcript: MILO Explains The Patriarchy At Ohio University http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/02/milo-explains-patriarchy-ohio-unive... " In March last year, Missouri admitted that they had lost about 1,500 students and were experiencing a budget shortfall of $32 million, just a few months after the protests. We’ve also learned that the university had to close four dormitories — including two called Excellence and Respect. " It is very easy, and perhaps we have been trained to do so, to accept the pre-ordained "boxes" dictated to us by others. So many times, reading, listening to or watching the original speeches and or writings of those who are publicly decried (truly, slandered) by others, can leave one refreshingly disabused of said falsities and slanders - one thing we can be thankful for the Internet for :) So remember good folk, when someone loudly proclaims or deems an en-boxed certitude of negativity regarding some public figure you have never personally read, listened to or watched, perhaps consider a little personal discovery in order to form a grounded personal opinion - Say NO today to dirty opinion porn. Stop mass debating in non-founded opinion porn of others. Get laid today in the actual facts. Be different, be kinky, respond to the opinion porn of another with some racy gratuitous and well founded facts. Trigger a closet totalitarian Liberal Lefty today - state a fact. Be a winner, except when embracing your inner sub (your inner lefty whiner that is). "Yeah! each to his own" I hear you say :) "Extreme Lefty Totalitarian wanna be" warning signs / examples: - "this is how it is" (without any supporting fact) - "the alt-right are fascist racist sexist bigoted dictators" (without any supporting facts) - "Breitbart are heavily biased baby seal clubbers" (without any supporting facts) - ... ditto :) Dude, club your inner sub already! -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/03/2016 04:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Trigger Warning: diversity of thought apparently often not allowed, inclusion of conservatives denied, safe spaces "trump"ing all common sense.
But! BUT! Your personal hero MILO, shows us that such insanity can sometimes have multi-million dollar consequences.
Read it and laugh, snigger, indulge imperiously at the holes some universities dig in the name of combatting free speech to protect the modern extreme-Left precious snowflakes.
Full text transcript: MILO Explains The Patriarchy At Ohio University http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/02/milo-explains-patriarchy-ohio-unive...
It's really hard to take a site seriously when it opens with a pop-up for a boycott of a cereal company (Kellogg's) that just did what any company would do when a site they advertise on continues to act contrary to that company's values. http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Breitbart-urges-Kellogg-s-boycott-over... I actually wanted to blog about this, but absent a source for a similar article without a ridiculous pop-up in front of it, I'm probably not going to. Which is sad. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled Who woulda thought? At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!! G T F O O H ! "And, like, you know, like, it's 2016 already! Like!" =( But Sean K Quinn, like really (like), thank you for your fact based opinion. That's (like) so substantial, raises the mass debate and provides facts for those who don't have time to read further. Why didn't I speak your words for you? Oh happy days! These day's are our -our -our our ours. (These days are ours!) <oh happy days!> Now, do NOT keep singing that song in your head. Like. ;) On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:32:46AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 04:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Trigger Warning: diversity of thought apparently often not allowed, inclusion of conservatives denied, safe spaces "trump"ing all common sense.
But! BUT! Your personal hero MILO, shows us that such insanity can sometimes have multi-million dollar consequences.
Read it and laugh, snigger, indulge imperiously at the holes some universities dig in the name of combatting free speech to protect the modern extreme-Left precious snowflakes.
Full text transcript: MILO Explains The Patriarchy At Ohio University http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/02/milo-explains-patriarchy-ohio-unive...
It's really hard to take a site seriously when it opens with a pop-up for a boycott of a cereal company (Kellogg's) that just did what any company would do when a site they advertise on continues to act contrary to that company's values.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Breitbart-urges-Kellogg-s-boycott-over...
I actually wanted to blog about this, but absent a source for a similar article without a ridiculous pop-up in front of it, I'm probably not going to. Which is sad.
On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
Who woulda thought?
At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site. Especially when shoved in the reader's face like that.
=(
But Sean K Quinn,
Shawn. S-H-A-W-N like it's spelled in the From line.
like really (like), thank you for your fact based opinion. That's (like) so substantial, raises the mass debate and provides facts for those who don't have time to read further. [...]
Whatever dude... -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:16:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
Who woulda thought?
At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site.
OK, so your first position that the pop-up had anything to do with what you were saying, is now retracted by you. I accept your retraction.
Especially when shoved in the reader's face like that.
Or not? So a 'news website' is talking about a boycott of Kellogs. And, in your illustrious opinion, this 'news' is "one-sided" and "deceptive". OK I'm hearing your opinion. Got something to back that up, or just hot air? Feel free to retract either "one-sided", or "deceptive", or both - I dunno why you have your opinion, so how would I know why you think what you think - but without some supportive facts, your thoughts are <how shall I say this> less than informative opinion porn?
=(
But Sean K Quinn,
Shawn. S-H-A-W-N like it's spelled in the From line.
Well now -that- certainly looks like a fact to me! I can agree with --that--.
On 12/03/2016 05:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:16:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
Who woulda thought?
At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site.
OK, so your first position that the pop-up had anything to do with what you were saying, is now retracted by you.
I accept your retraction.
The manner in which it was said did play a role. A banner off to the side talking about the boycott (which I was aware of) would have been a bit more reasonable. Yes, I'm equally annoyed about it when progressive news sites do the same thing, but usually there's some justification to it (i.e. Nestlé and this urge of theirs to bottle up water, especially in places like Michigan not too far outside of Flint).
Especially when shoved in the reader's face like that.
Or not?
So a 'news website' is talking about a boycott of Kellogs.
And, in your illustrious opinion, this 'news' is "one-sided" and "deceptive".
Breitbart is calling for the boycott themselves, just because Kellogg's pulled their ads. They are making it sound like Kellogg's is attacking the company, even though their PR guy clearly said the move is not political in nature. It's funny how both Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart seem to have problems keeping advertisers. Pop quiz: what do they have in common? -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:10:18AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 05:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:16:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
Who woulda thought?
At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site.
OK, so your first position that the pop-up had anything to do with what you were saying, is now retracted by you.
I accept your retraction.
The manner in which it was said did play a role. A banner off to the side talking about the boycott (which I was aware of) would have been a bit more reasonable. Yes, I'm equally annoyed about it when progressive news sites do the same thing, but usually there's some justification to it (i.e. Nestlé and this urge of theirs to bottle up water, especially in places like Michigan not too far outside of Flint).
Especially when shoved in the reader's face like that.
Or not?
So a 'news website' is talking about a boycott of Kellogs.
And, in your illustrious opinion, this 'news' is "one-sided" and "deceptive".
Breitbart is calling for the boycott themselves, just because Kellogg's pulled their ads. They are making it sound like Kellogg's is attacking the company, even though their PR guy clearly said the move is not political in nature.
Yet they got their PR guy to make a public announcement, letting the world know that, officially, Kellogs is pulling off all their advertisements from Breitbart, rather than just quietly pulling their ads and making no big loud public announcement. And somehow I'm supposed to believe that this very public pronouncement of action, by Kellogs, is not the slightest bit political, has no "political effect"? Shawn, are you seriously expecting me to believe that?
It's funny how both Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart seem to have problems keeping advertisers.
Early days Mr. Sean My-opinion-is-completely-unbiased Quin. Early days. By the way, the outcome, at least in the first two days, looks to be right up there with Target's $10 billion income and cap loss, and proportionally equivalent to Missouri U's $32 million dollar hit - but that's right, you're just like, you know, way above facts, superior in other ways too, far too superior to stoop to reading at Breitbart. Let's see how the next two months plays out for Kellogs and their "non political yet strangely very public" boycott of Breitbart ... <snigger>
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:10:18AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 05:23 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:16:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 04:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
SKQ - reaming it with Javascript and pop-ups enabled
Who woulda thought?
At least we learn something today - for those who're a bit on the slow side at least - web page pop-ups ACTUALLY still exist!!!
My point is not that the pop-up is there. My point is how such a one-sided, deceptive message discredits everything on that site.
OK, so your first position that the pop-up had anything to do with what you were saying, is now retracted by you.
I accept your retraction.
The manner in which it was said did play a role.
Touche SKQ, you successfully sidetracked relevant political discussion into your personal opinion porn of website aesthetics. Well done for hammering such "insight" for the benefit of 'others'. Since you raise the issue of Kellogs and their boycott of Breitbart, and the counter boycott which caused 3.44% stock price drop in two days (a fair start on Breitbart's side, given Kellogg's $70 billion share cap - this one's gonna be fun :) So back to a plitical comment: " Thus it’s easy to see how Kellogg could make the mistake it has made in picking a fight with Breitbart and, by implication, all Americans on the right. Without a doubt, the “experts” at Kellogg—in its communications, community relations, and other touchy-feely departments—assured top leadership that boycotting was the smart thing to do. And of course, the same viziers surely wrapped their argument in the latest PC jargon, as reflected in the words of Kellogg’s spokesperson Kris Charles:
We regularly work with our media buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that aren’t aligned with our values as a company.
We must pause to puzzle over this statement: What specific Kellogg “values” did Breitbart supposedly violate? And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China? And also, while we’re at it, why is Kellogg’s operating in such oppressive, murderous, and even genocidal countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates? How do those cynical actions square with Kellogg’s values, and the values of its customers—and former customers? " http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/03/virgil-the-lefts-long-mar... Bona fide deplorable. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/03/2016 08:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Thus it’s easy to see how Kellogg could make the mistake it has made in picking a fight with Breitbart and, by implication, all Americans on the right
The number of Americans who read Breitbart is microscopic. The ones who actually believe it's analysis can't spell 'analysis'. Rr Ps. It was just noted that Donald Trump @WhiteHouseInc has interest in many of the Fake News sites:
Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently under consideration to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity. One video produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.
But LifeZette, for all its influence, pales in comparison to the sites run by Floyd Brown, a Republican consultant close to Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Brown gained notoriety nearly three decades ago for his role in helping to produce the “Willie Horton” campaign advertisement, a spot criticized for its use of racial messaging to derail Michael Dukakis’s presidential bid. Brown is also the political mentor of David Bossie, an operative who went to work for Trump’s presidential campaign this year after founding the Citizens United group. In an interview this year, Brown called Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway a “longtime friend.”
Brown now produces a flow of reliably pro-Trump Internet content through a company he co-owns with his family called Liftable Media Inc., which operates a number of high-impact, tabloid-style news outlets that exploded in size over the course of the election. One of Brown’s sites, Western Journalism, is the 81st largest site in the U.S. with 13 million monthly unique monthly visitors, according to rankings maintained by the site Alexa. Another, called Conservative Tribune, is the 50th largest site with over 19 million monthly unique visitors. Liftable Media is run on a day to day basis by Brown’s son, Patrick, who is the president of Liftable Media.
Brown’s sites churn out bombastic headlines with little regard to the truth. One viral piece shared by Brown’s news outlets claimed that President Obama had redesigned the White House logo to change the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” The Facebook post touted the article with the line, “We all know Obama hates the United States, but what he just did to the White House logo is beyond the pale.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:21:42PM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/03/2016 08:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Thus it’s easy to see how Kellogg could make the mistake it has made in picking a fight with Breitbart and, by implication, all Americans on the right
The number of Americans who read Breitbart is microscopic. The ones who actually believe it's analysis can't spell 'analysis'.
Rr
Your cite below quotes Alexa, which has Breitbart at number 36 in the US - ever so slightly above "microscopic" it seems. Admittedly your president-elect's recent victory has boosted their readership quite substantially, either that or there's a problem with the data. Made an assumption and spouted that as "fact" lately? =()
Ps. It was just noted that Donald Trump @WhiteHouseInc has interest in many of the Fake News sites:
Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently under consideration to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity. One video produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.
But LifeZette, for all its influence, pales in comparison to the sites run by Floyd Brown, a Republican consultant close to Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Brown gained notoriety nearly three decades ago for his role in helping to produce the “Willie Horton” campaign advertisement, a spot criticized for its use of racial messaging to derail Michael Dukakis’s presidential bid. Brown is also the political mentor of David Bossie, an operative who went to work for Trump’s presidential campaign this year after founding the Citizens United group. In an interview this year, Brown called Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway a “longtime friend.”
Brown now produces a flow of reliably pro-Trump Internet content through a company he co-owns with his family called Liftable Media Inc., which operates a number of high-impact, tabloid-style news outlets that exploded in size over the course of the election. One of Brown’s sites, Western Journalism, is the 81st largest site in the U.S. with 13 million monthly unique monthly visitors, according to rankings maintained by the site Alexa. Another, called Conservative Tribune, is the 50th largest site with over 19 million monthly unique visitors. Liftable Media is run on a day to day basis by Brown’s son, Patrick, who is the president of Liftable Media.
Brown’s sites churn out bombastic headlines with little regard to the truth. One viral piece shared by Brown’s news outlets claimed that President Obama had redesigned the White House logo to change the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” The Facebook post touted the article with the line, “We all know Obama hates the United States, but what he just did to the White House logo is beyond the pale.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/
-- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/03/2016 09:33 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Your cite below quotes Alexa, which has Breitbart at number 36 in the US - ever so slightly above "microscopic" it seems.
It's the same microscopic number of people over and over and over again. Talk UNIQUE hits. That effect isn't limited to right-side pubs btw. Rr
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:21:42PM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/03/2016 08:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Thus it’s easy to see how Kellogg could make the mistake it has made in picking a fight with Breitbart and, by implication, all Americans on the right The number of Americans who read Breitbart is microscopic. The ones who actually believe it's analysis can't spell 'analysis'.
Rr Your cite below quotes Alexa, which has Breitbart at number 36 in the US - ever so slightly above "microscopic" it seems.
Admittedly your president-elect's recent victory has boosted their readership quite substantially, either that or there's a problem with the data.
Made an assumption and spouted that as "fact" lately?
=()
Ps. It was just noted that Donald Trump @WhiteHouseInc has interest in many of the Fake News sites:
Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently under consideration to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity. One video produced by LifeZette this summer, ominously titled “Clinton Body Count,” promoted a conspiracy theory that the Clinton family had some role in the plane crash death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as the deaths of various friends and Democrats.
But LifeZette, for all its influence, pales in comparison to the sites run by Floyd Brown, a Republican consultant close to Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Brown gained notoriety nearly three decades ago for his role in helping to produce the “Willie Horton” campaign advertisement, a spot criticized for its use of racial messaging to derail Michael Dukakis’s presidential bid. Brown is also the political mentor of David Bossie, an operative who went to work for Trump’s presidential campaign this year after founding the Citizens United group. In an interview this year, Brown called Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway a “longtime friend.”
Brown now produces a flow of reliably pro-Trump Internet content through a company he co-owns with his family called Liftable Media Inc., which operates a number of high-impact, tabloid-style news outlets that exploded in size over the course of the election. One of Brown’s sites, Western Journalism, is the 81st largest site in the U.S. with 13 million monthly unique monthly visitors, according to rankings maintained by the site Alexa. Another, called Conservative Tribune, is the 50th largest site with over 19 million monthly unique visitors. Liftable Media is run on a day to day basis by Brown’s son, Patrick, who is the president of Liftable Media.
Brown’s sites churn out bombastic headlines with little regard to the truth. One viral piece shared by Brown’s news outlets claimed that President Obama had redesigned the White House logo to change the American flag to a white flag, “a common symbol for surrender, which has many people wondering if Obama was trying to secretly signal to America’s enemies that he was surrendering.” The Facebook post touted the article with the line, “We all know Obama hates the United States, but what he just did to the White House logo is beyond the pale.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/
On 12/03/2016 10:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
We must pause to puzzle over this statement: What specific Kellogg “values” did Breitbart supposedly violate?
Apparently customers of Kellogg had complained after seeing ads on Breitbart. The stories I'm seeing are light on details. They should be calling for boycotts on Allstate, Warby Parker, and BMW too: http://adage.com/article/digital/breitbart-urges-boycott-kellogg-brand-aband... And those four brands are the start of an undoubtedly long list, combined with many other companies, some of which have yet to be actually launched, who have removed advertising on Breitbart from consideration but said nothing about it.
And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China?
Profit. The same reason Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, and... well all the companies listed here: http://jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm sell in China. I guess you're going to boycott all of them too?
And also, while we’re at it, why is Kellogg’s operating in such oppressive, murderous, and even genocidal countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates? How do those cynical actions square with Kellogg’s values, and the values of its customers—and former customers?
You'd have to ask them to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it's about maximizing profits and market share. Abandoning the market just ensures someone else will step in and take those same profits, and that will not keep the shareholders happy. Note that I'm not saying it's right that this is the way things are. Public companies have to do what is in the best interests of the shareholders, or they can get sued. Among other tragedies, this is why there's a huge grassy field where Six Flags Astroworld used to be. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On 12/03/2016 09:25 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 10:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China?
What's wrong with selling products in China, Comrade? I mean you DO believe in Free markets and all don't you Fellow traveler? More proof of my basic premise that Libertarianism is just a fancy way of saying "I'm a Hypocrite" Rr
We must pause to puzzle over this statement: What specific Kellogg “values” did Breitbart supposedly violate? Apparently customers of Kellogg had complained after seeing ads on Breitbart. The stories I'm seeing are light on details.
They should be calling for boycotts on Allstate, Warby Parker, and BMW too: http://adage.com/article/digital/breitbart-urges-boycott-kellogg-brand-aband...
And those four brands are the start of an undoubtedly long list, combined with many other companies, some of which have yet to be actually launched, who have removed advertising on Breitbart from consideration but said nothing about it.
And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China? Profit. The same reason Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, and... well all the companies listed here:
http://jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm
sell in China. I guess you're going to boycott all of them too?
And also, while we’re at it, why is Kellogg’s operating in such oppressive, murderous, and even genocidal countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates? How do those cynical actions square with Kellogg’s values, and the values of its customers—and former customers? You'd have to ask them to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it's about maximizing profits and market share. Abandoning the market just ensures someone else will step in and take those same profits, and that will not keep the shareholders happy.
Note that I'm not saying it's right that this is the way things are. Public companies have to do what is in the best interests of the shareholders, or they can get sued. Among other tragedies, this is why there's a huge grassy field where Six Flags Astroworld used to be.
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 09:38:32PM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/03/2016 09:25 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/03/2016 10:53 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China?
What's wrong with selling products in China, Comrade?
I mean you DO believe in Free markets and all don't you Fellow traveler?
More proof of my basic premise that Libertarianism is just a fancy way of saying "I'm a Hypocrite"
Rr
Ack Razer, and hypocrisy is one thing Breitbart is calling out here.
We must pause to puzzle over this statement: What specific Kellogg “values” did Breitbart supposedly violate? Apparently customers of Kellogg had complained after seeing ads on Breitbart. The stories I'm seeing are light on details.
Classic Lefty tactics. "Trigger a Lefty today - present them with a fact" :)
They should be calling for boycotts on Allstate, Warby Parker, and BMW too: http://adage.com/article/digital/breitbart-urges-boycott-kellogg-brand-aband...
And those four brands are the start of an undoubtedly long list, combined with many other companies, some of which have yet to be actually launched, who have removed advertising on Breitbart from consideration but
said nothing about it.
You say that as though it's the same situation - did you get too many extra doses of fluoride as a tot? - Those last 4 words make all the difference. That's the point Shawne, Kelloggs decided to get political by making a big public statement of "pulling ads from Breitbart" whilst providing precisely ZERO facts in support of their position. And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements. I get it, 1 + 2 = 7
And if Kellogg is suddenly so finicky, we must ask: Why, then, does Kellogg deign to sell its products, according to its website, in 180 countries, including China? Profit. The same reason Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Procter & Gamble, and... well all the companies listed here:
http://jiesworld.com/international_corporations_in_china.htm
sell in China. I guess you're going to boycott all of them too?
And your position is that Breitbart (spectacularly :) launched their counter-boycott against Kellogs, was all about Kellogs selling into China... Yep, 3 - 1 = 11, got it Mista Quin. Really Shawn, unless you have a desired outcome, an actual intention (one grounded in those pesky little things called facts) when speaking / typing, then such inanity is likely to continue to issue forth from your keyboard.
And also, while we’re at it, why is Kellogg’s operating in such oppressive, murderous, and even genocidal countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates? How do those cynical actions square with Kellogg’s values, and the values of its customers—and former customers?
You'd have to ask them to be sure,
You say this almost as though you're chatting with me - but these words you're "responding" to are written by Breitbart - this is what's called a quotation, around which I put quotation marks (namely the '"' character), to distinguish that quotation as being distinct from my own commentary.
but I'm pretty sure it's about maximizing profits and market share.
Again completely ignoring, or sadly just plain missing with a massive whooosh, the point being made here (again, by Breitbart.com news).
Abandoning the market just ensures someone else will step in and take those same profits, and that will not keep the shareholders happy.
Note that I'm not saying it's right that this is the way things are. Public companies have to do what is in the best interests of the shareholders, or they can get sued. Among other tragedies, this is why there's a huge grassy field where Six Flags Astroworld used to be.
Speaking across the issue, draining the conversation into only marginally related inanity? Classic obfuscatory propaganda. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
You say that as though it's the same situation - did you get too many extra doses of fluoride as a tot?
Irrelevant
- Those last 4 words make all the difference. That's the point Shawne,
No E
Kelloggs decided to get political by making a big public statement of "pulling ads from Breitbart" whilst providing precisely ZERO facts in support of their position.
There is no obligation that they advertise with Breitbart. Or, for that matter, that they even advertise at all. (See No-Ad sunscreen, which as its name implies hasn't been advertised, and has been sold most of the time I've been alive and is still out there. It's actually pretty good sunscreen too. I guess you'd boycott them too, as they don't advertise on Breitbart either?)
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. So, they quit advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads in spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by those ads, and the lost profit that would result from lost customers had they simply maintained the status quo. And yeah, 1 + 1 = 2 (see Lou Bega - A Little Bit of Mambo, track 9) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:18:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
You say that as though it's the same situation - did you get too many extra doses of fluoride as a tot?
Irrelevant
Actually not irrelevant, but entirely apropos given your demonstrated challenge in holding to a line of reasoning (preferably based on fact). " As of February 2015, there are 43 studies associating fluoride exposure with reduced IQ in children. To see these studies, click here. http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ The researchers issued their warning after reviewing dozens of studies from the past two decades that have linked elevated fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children. "
From here: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/
- Those last 4 words make all the difference. That's the point Shawne,
No E
Kelloggs decided to get political by making a big public statement of "pulling ads from Breitbart" whilst providing precisely ZERO facts in support of their position.
There is no obligation that they advertise with Breitbart.
Again, see about fluoride above, since again you are responding with an irrelevancy - are YOU able to present a fact in support of your implied assertion that Breitbart is suggesting that Kellogs has an "obligation that they advertise with Breitbart"? When I put it that way, you might even see what I'm saying: that your assertion is not only baseless, and almost impossible to ever be proven (because no self respecting media organisation would ever say such a thing except in jest, of course), but that to top it all off, you are once again completely off the point. Your "assertion of a negative" ("no obligation") simply bypasses any meaningful discussion. Thus MY assertion that you are either willfully speaking at crossed purposes, which would imply bad faith on your part, or that you lack the IQ to realise what comes out of your own keyboard. I have yet to look into the existence of any therapies to counter the negative IQ effects of infact fluoride exposure (most everyone in the West today, due to almost universal municipal water fluoridation). So try coming back with something resembling logic, and ideally backed by a fact. Seriously. Good luck buddy, I do feel for you, Zenaan
Or, for that matter, that they even advertise at all. (See No-Ad sunscreen, which as its name implies hasn't been advertised, and has been sold most of the time I've been alive and is still out there. It's actually pretty good sunscreen too. I guess you'd boycott them too, as they don't advertise on Breitbart either?)
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. So, they quit advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads in spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by those ads, and the lost profit that would result from lost customers had they simply maintained the status quo.
And yeah, 1 + 1 = 2 (see Lou Bega - A Little Bit of Mambo, track 9)
-- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
-- Save America - www.DavidDuke.com
On 12/04/2016 04:37 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
-- Save America - www.DavidDuke.com
This discredits every point you are trying to make. It's like swapping out the concrete foundation of your million dollar mansion for quicksand. You may as well have said "Read 'Mein Kampf' by Adolf Hitler." It's about the same level. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:44:57AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 04:37 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
-- Save America - www.DavidDuke.com
This discredits every point you are trying to make. It's like swapping out the concrete foundation of your million dollar mansion for quicksand.
Got you hooked ;) (Truly, I massaged that sig specifically for you.) Now you might bring a fact. Go pick a fact, and bring it. Then lets debate that fact, rather than your non-contestable allusion/ metaphor. (Since of course, a mataphor can be post-facto massaged away into nothingness or everythingness, so there's just no point you see :)
You may as well have said "Read 'Mein Kampf' by Adolf Hitler." It's about the same level.
Yeah yeah, you got triggered on a throwaway sig. So, ball's in your court - bring a fact to the conversation - see if you can lift the dialog about that particular baited hook signature line :) This'll be fun...
Mr. Harkness, I refuse to engage in debate with anyone who is willing to basically say they approve of the KKK and the type of hate they are involved in. If you are willing to apologize and completely disavow your association with known racists and bigots such as David Duke, I might reconsider. Honestly, you're damn close to being the poster child for the reason we need moderation on this list. (Not censorship, moderation.) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 05:20:10AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Mr. Harkness,
I refuse to engage in debate with anyone who is willing to basically say they approve of the KKK and the type of hate they are involved in. If
That's not a substantial fact. But this is: Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence as any decent man would, and that when he discovered that a) other "klans" were violent and b) that he could not control or stop them, that he then left and has since forever publicly decried such violence?
you are willing to apologize and completely disavow your association with known racists and bigots such as David Duke, I might reconsider.
David Duke is only "a known racist" due to the 40 year vilification of him by the American "main stream" media. Is it possible that the image you have in your mind of David Duke, is antithetical to who he is as a real and compassionate human, and that this image has been constructed only secondarily by you, but primarily by the abhorrent propaganda against him over the last 40 years?
Honestly, you're damn close to being the poster child for the reason we need moderation on this list. (Not censorship, moderation.)
Please, bring a fact to the discussion. I respect, and wholly support your stance against racism and violence. When (if) you ever undertake first-hand research (such as reading David Duke's actual words, or watching him actually speak) you might just find yourself wholly surprised. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html Those familiar with George Orwell's "1984" will recall that "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." I recently felt the weight of this Orwellian ethos when many of my students sent emails to inform me, and perhaps warn me, that my name appears on the Professor Watchlist, a new website created by a conservative youth group known as Turning Point USA. I could sense the gravity in those email messages, a sense of relaying what is to come. The Professor Watchlist's mission, among other things, is to sound an alarm about those of us within academia who "advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." It names and includes photographs of some 200 professors. The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire "to make America great again" and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values. For many black people, making America "great again" is especially threatening, as it signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia. For us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare. The new "watchlist" is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of "disloyalty" to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the '50s and '60s. Its goal of "outing" professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence. ... So, in my classrooms, I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its subtle and systemic structure. I refuse to remain silent in the face of patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women's bodies, or about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how they should look and what they should feel and desire. I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent civilians are murdered in the name of "democracy." I refuse to remain silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia. I refuse to remain silent when it comes to transgender women and men who are beaten to death by those who refuse to create conditions of hospitality. I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still rendered "<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/mental-illness-is-not-a-horror-show.html>monstrous," and where the earth suffers because some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as "un-American," and apparently "dangerous." Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is dangerous.
Digging around, it looks like this is the post that lead to him being added to that list - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/ It's quite long, and self-indulgent at times, but worth a read. I can see how some would object to it though, a letter saying "If you're white, you're racist, even if you've never been racist, check your privilege" is something that's just not going to go down well. You may have never used the N-word in your life, you may hate the K.K.K., but that does not mean that you don’t harbor racism and benefit from racism. Not sure I agree with the whole idea of the professor watchlist, but I'm not entirely surprised he landed on it. But, good for him in continuing to stand and speak up for what he believes. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html
Those familiar with George Orwell's "1984" will recall that "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." I recently felt the weight of this Orwellian ethos when many of my students sent emails to inform me, and perhaps warn me, that my name appears on the Professor Watchlist, a new website created by a conservative youth group known as Turning Point USA.
I could sense the gravity in those email messages, a sense of relaying what is to come. The Professor Watchlist's mission, among other things, is to sound an alarm about those of us within academia who "advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." It names and includes photographs of some 200 professors.
The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire "to make America great again" and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values. For many black people, making America "great again" is especially threatening, as it signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia. For us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare.
The new "watchlist" is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of "disloyalty" to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the '50s and '60s. Its goal of "outing" professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence.
...
So, in my classrooms, I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its subtle and systemic structure. I refuse to remain silent in the face of patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women's bodies, or about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how they should look and what they should feel and desire.
I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent civilians are murdered in the name of "democracy." I refuse to remain silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia.
I refuse to remain silent when it comes to transgender women and men who are beaten to death by those who refuse to create conditions of hospitality.
I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still rendered "<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/mental-illness-i s-not-a-horror-show.html>monstrous," and where the earth suffers because some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as "un-American," and apparently "dangerous."
Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is dangerous.
-- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
Nytimes is shit- don't read it or you will end up like all other college age liberal pukes who want something for nothing - gtfo -------- Original Message -------- On Dec 4, 2016, 6:28 AM, Ben Tasker wrote: Digging around, it looks like this is the post that lead to him being added to that list - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/ It's quite long, and self-indulgent at times, but worth a read. I can see how some would object to it though, a letter saying "If you're white, you're racist, even if you've never been racist, check your privilege" is something that's just not going to go down well. You may have never used the N-word in your life, you may hate the K.K.K., but that does not mean that you don’t harbor racism and benefit from racism. Not sure I agree with the whole idea of the professor watchlist, but I'm not entirely surprised he landed on it. But, good for him in continuing to stand and speak up for what he believes. On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html Those familiar with George Orwell's "1984" will recall that "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." I recently felt the weight of this Orwellian ethos when many of my students sent emails to inform me, and perhaps warn me, that my name appears on the Professor Watchlist, a new website created by a conservative youth group known as Turning Point USA. I could sense the gravity in those email messages, a sense of relaying what is to come. The Professor Watchlist's mission, among other things, is to sound an alarm about those of us within academia who "advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." It names and includes photographs of some 200 professors. The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire "to make America great again" and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values. For many black people, making America "great again" is especially threatening, as it signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia. For us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare. The new "watchlist" is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of "disloyalty" to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the '50s and '60s. Its goal of "outing" professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence. ... So, in my classrooms, I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its subtle and systemic structure. I refuse to remain silent in the face of patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women's bodies, or about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how they should look and what they should feel and desire. I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent civilians are murdered in the name of "democracy." I refuse to remain silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia. I refuse to remain silent when it comes to transgender women and men who are beaten to death by those who refuse to create conditions of hospitality. I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still rendered "< http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/mental-illness-is-not-a-horror-show.html>monst rous," and where the earth suffers because some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as "un-American," and apparently "dangerous." Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is dangerous. -- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 02:28:46PM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:
Digging around, it looks like this is the post that lead to him being added to that list - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/
It's quite long, and self-indulgent at times, but worth a read. I can see how some would object to it though, a letter saying "If you're white, you're racist, even if you've never been racist, check your privilege" is something that's just not going to go down well.
But a great dialectic to catalyze. How excellent :) To be triggered, or to do a double take even and think "huh, am I understanding what this one's saying?" is a good achievement on his part. Trigger a bigot today - put forward a contentious proposition.
You may have never used the N-word in your life, you may hate the K.K.K., but that does not mean that you don’t harbor racism and benefit from racism.
Not sure I agree with the whole idea of the professor watchlist, but I'm not entirely surprised he landed on it. But, good for him in continuing to stand and speak up for what he believes.
Ack. Me thinks those professors might be receiving a greater level of interest in their ideas at this point. Streissand Effect an all that... Let's hope this watch list helps to get more folk reading, and we can hope, even putting some effort into thinking about oneself and ones views. Trigger a totalitarian today - disagree with them.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 1:59 PM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/opinion/i-am-a-dangerous-professor.html
Those familiar with George Orwell's "1984" will recall that "Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought." I recently felt the weight of this Orwellian ethos when many of my students sent emails to inform me, and perhaps warn me, that my name appears on the Professor Watchlist, a new website created by a conservative youth group known as Turning Point USA.
I could sense the gravity in those email messages, a sense of relaying what is to come. The Professor Watchlist's mission, among other things, is to sound an alarm about those of us within academia who "advance leftist propaganda in the classroom." It names and includes photographs of some 200 professors.
The Watchlist appears to be consistent with a nostalgic desire "to make America great again" and to expose and oppose those voices in academia that are anti-Republican or express anti-Republican values. For many black people, making America "great again" is especially threatening, as it signals a return to a more explicit and unapologetic racial dystopia. For us, dreaming of yesterday is not a privilege, not a desire, but a nightmare.
The new "watchlist" is essentially a new species of McCarthyism, especially in terms of its overtones of "disloyalty" to the American republic. And it is reminiscent of Cointelpro, the secret F.B.I. program that spied on, infiltrated and discredited American political organizations in the '50s and '60s. Its goal of "outing" professors for their views helps to create the appearance of something secretly subversive. It is a form of exposure designed to mark, shame and silence.
...
So, in my classrooms, I refuse to remain silent in the face of racism, its subtle and systemic structure. I refuse to remain silent in the face of patriarchal and sexist hegemony and the denigration of women's bodies, or about the ways in which women have internalized male assumptions of how they should look and what they should feel and desire.
I refuse to be silent about forms of militarism in which innocent civilians are murdered in the name of "democracy." I refuse to remain silent when it comes to acknowledging the existential and psychic dread and chaos experienced by those who are targets of xenophobia and homophobia.
I refuse to remain silent when it comes to transgender women and men who are beaten to death by those who refuse to create conditions of hospitality.
I refuse to remain silent in a world where children become targets of sexual violence, and where unarmed black bodies are shot dead by the state and its proxies, where those with disabilities are mocked and still rendered "<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/opinion/mental-illness-i s-not-a-horror-show.html>monstrous," and where the earth suffers because some of us refuse to hear its suffering, where my ideas are marked as "un-American," and apparently "dangerous."
Well, if it is dangerous to teach my students to love their neighbors, to think and rethink constructively and ethically about who their neighbors are, and how they have been taught to see themselves as disconnected and neoliberal subjects, then, yes, I am dangerous, and what I teach is dangerous.
-- Ben Tasker https://www.bentasker.co.uk
-- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/04/2016 04:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence as any decent man would,
You're making shit up. The only violence Dave Duke abhors is violence against him. Here's Dave Duke calling for the death of the Chicago 7, 8 21, whatever. https://68.media.tumblr.com/a3d726351033555a271a8cb9bc0758ea/tumblr_oho3blp0...
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 07:38:06 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/04/2016 04:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence as any decent man would,
You're making shit up.
What does the rayzer scumbag stands for? He is a gallant defender of the commie dictator castro and the fucking jew-kristians (like him), EXCEPT 'catholics'. Those are bad, mind you. And why is a complete anti-libertarian scumbag like the rayzer subscribed to this list? Because he is a troll.
The only violence Dave Duke abhors is violence against him.
Here's Dave Duke calling for the death of the Chicago 7, 8 21, whatever.
https://68.media.tumblr.com/a3d726351033555a271a8cb9bc0758ea/tumblr_oho3blp0...
On 12/04/2016 12:35 PM, juan wrote:
And why is a complete anti-libertarian scumbag like the rayzer subscribed to this list?
I dunno? "Libertarian" wasn't in the list of qualifications for deluxe membership. Ps. Libertarian Anarchists are cut from the same block of scum they cut Anarcho-capitalists from, except if you're libertard there no escaping the fact you heart predatory capitalism and you have no business whatsoever referring to yourself as "Punk" because all you have to do is take one look at it's modern iteration, and you get musicians who didn't give a fuck if they sold one album and never tuned their guitars before they smashed them on someone's head. Someone like you, Juan. Further, wIth anarcho-capitalist there SOME hope of re-indoctrinating them. But LIbertards... Just put them out of their misery before they breed. ROTF! Rr
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:38:06AM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/04/2016 04:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence as any decent man would,
You're making shit up. The only violence Dave Duke abhors is violence against him. Here's Dave Duke calling for the death of the Chicago 7, 8 21, whatever. https://68.media.tumblr.com/a3d726351033555a271a8cb9bc0758ea/tumblr_oho3blp0...
Can no man change ever change his views, as a rebellious young man? Or must we hold that something someone said 45 years ago (even IF it was truly held belief by him back then - I cannot yet find proof of that) may never be recanted, that such a man must be vilified for the remainder of his life regardless? Is there no other discussion possible, only "where there's smoke there's fire, so fuck off"? -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:42:21AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 07:38:06AM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/04/2016 04:31 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence as any decent man would,
You're making shit up. The only violence Dave Duke abhors is violence against him. Here's Dave Duke calling for the death of the Chicago 7, 8 21, whatever. https://68.media.tumblr.com/a3d726351033555a271a8cb9bc0758ea/tumblr_oho3blp0...
Can no man change ever change his views, as a rebellious young man?
Or must we hold that something someone said 45 years ago (even IF it was truly held belief by him back then - I cannot yet find proof of that) may never be recanted, that such a man must be vilified for the remainder of his life regardless?
Is there no other discussion possible, only "where there's smoke there's fire, so fuck off"?
PS, even in his "Klan" days, Duke was a 'progressive' if we can call it that :) See here: " Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership.[61] " http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-david-duke-phd.htm
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:31:05 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Are you not aware that David Duke abhors violence
Really? So he's an anarchist? OK, OK, no he doesn't abhor violence. Duke is a fucking american nazi, of the sincere variety. What are you trying to do, exactly, Zen? You are of course free to say whatever you want, but it would be nice if you made it clear what you stand for. Whatever it is, it seems as relevant to this list as rayzers mental vomits praising castro and his beloverd jew-kristian nazis.
any decent man would, and that when he discovered that a) other "klans" were violent and b) that he could not control or stop them, that he then left and has since forever publicly decried such violence?
you are willing to apologize and completely disavow your association with known racists and bigots such as David Duke, I might reconsider.
David Duke is only "a known racist" due to the 40 year vilification of him by the American "main stream" media.
You think you are opposing the 'mainstream' by supporting a guy like duke? Don't you realize that he is the 100% part of the amerikan mainstream? The only difference between duke and quinn is that quinn speaks about 'niggers' io private while pretending to be a 'progressive' in public.
Is it possible that the image you have in your mind of David Duke, is antithetical to who he is as a real and compassionate human, and that this image has been constructed only secondarily by you, but primarily by the abhorrent propaganda against him over the last 40 years?
Honestly, you're damn close to being the poster child for the reason we need moderation on this list. (Not censorship, moderation.)
Please, bring a fact to the discussion.
I respect, and wholly support your stance against racism and violence.
When (if) you ever undertake first-hand research (such as reading David Duke's actual words, or watching him actually speak) you might just find yourself wholly surprised.
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 05:20:10 -0600 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Mr. Harkness,
I refuse to engage in debate with anyone who is willing to basically say they approve of the KKK
Shawn, you are an american statist. The KKK is just a tiny fraction of the nazi state you fully support. *Your* whining about the KKK is the ultimate form of unintentional self-parody. That said, you are right in that any correct point Zen may make will tend to be overlooked by the fact that he takes a fucktard like duke seriously. Then again, you are in no position to complain since you do the same thing he does, but to an even bigger extent.
and the type of hate they are involved in.
As opposed to the the type of hate an americunt nazi like you support. Pot, kettle. Tell me Shawn, how many nazi states had slavery, seggregation and have the highest incarceration rate on the planet?
If you are willing to apologize and completely disavow your association with known racists and bigots such as David Duke, I might reconsider.
Honestly, you're damn close to being the poster child for the reason we need moderation on this list. (Not censorship, moderation.)
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:37:01PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
I have yet to look into the existence of any therapies to counter the negative IQ effects of infact fluoride exposure (most everyone in the
s/infact/infant/
West today, due to almost universal municipal water fluoridation).
From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. "Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whetherKelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PCthat Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearlywon't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nationsaround the world. So, they quit advertising on Breitbart. I don't blame them; their shareholders would throw a shitfit if they lost customers by continuing to run their ads in spite of known customer dissatisfaction with what is being paid for by those ads, Presumably, Kelloggs has at millions of regular customers, and millions have"customer dissatisfaction" with a lot of external facts. But I strongly doubt that more thana tiny fraction of those customers are wacky enough to insist that Kelloggs refuse to putadvertising on a site based solely on some vague idea of political orientation. At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attemptsto obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable. Jim Bell
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nations around the world.
Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt this was necessary. Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create an obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.
At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable.
"Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you like, but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech, conflicts with their company values, or their customers' values. You are welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet). -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:52AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nations around the world.
Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently
"apparently" eh?
in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
"felt" eh?
this was necessary.
Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create an obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.
Again missing the point, and the difference with the examples you brought up (such as BMW) and your claim that they are the same, and your final claim that Kellogg is not being political in the way they executed their 'hit' on Breitbart.
At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable.
"Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you like,
"but you may experience consequences" such as when a company decides to get really political by being particularly public about a 'target' of their 'non advertising'.
but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech,
Oh so Breitbart publishes hate speech hey? I'm assuming it must be "easy" for you to provide a couple examples...
conflicts with their company values,
... or the "company values" held by Kellogg which conflict with which specific articles over at Breitbart, for a random example.
or their customers' values. You are welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet).
Take a baseless stand in support of a fascist pillaging, opportunistic corporation with a PR department evidently under the control of extreme Lefty morons. Of course that's what you'd do Shawne when you have ZERO facts to support your position. You keep repeating your moronicity over and over again. "Trigger a retard today: point out his total lack of facts." Anon. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
I was going to provide another response to Shawn K. Quinn, but after reading your own, I can see that he's been beaten quite effectively. Jim Bell From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 12:19 AM Subject: Re: USA Universities learn the consequences of disrespecting free speech On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:52AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nations around the world.
Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently
"apparently" eh?
in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
"felt" eh?
this was necessary.
Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create an obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.
Again missing the point, and the difference with the examples you brought up (such as BMW) and your claim that they are the same, and your final claim that Kellogg is not being political in the way they executed their 'hit' on Breitbart.
At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable.
"Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you like,
"but you may experience consequences" such as when a company decides to get really political by being particularly public about a 'target' of their 'non advertising'.
but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech,
Oh so Breitbart publishes hate speech hey? I'm assuming it must be "easy" for you to provide a couple examples...
conflicts with their company values,
... or the "company values" held by Kellogg which conflict with which specific articles over at Breitbart, for a random example.
or their customers' values. You are welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet).
Take a baseless stand in support of a fascist pillaging, opportunistic corporation with a PR department evidently under the control of extreme Lefty morons. Of course that's what you'd do Shawne when you have ZERO facts to support your position. You keep repeating your moronicity over and over again. "Trigger a retard today: point out his total lack of facts." Anon. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:30:38AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
I was going to provide another response to Shawn K. Quinn, but after reading your own, I can see that he's been beaten quite effectively. Jim Bell
It's really easy to do these days, because (sadly) fluoridated and (also sadly) usually excessively vaccinated, Liberal Lefty morons, are almost always completely free of facts. Their mantra is always of emotion, appealing only to Safe Spaces, cry-ins and close to zero tolerance for anything remotely resembling free speech. Also, the self contradictions tend to roll off their keyboards in abundance. So as I read somewhere by someone on the Internet this one time:
"Trigger a retard today: point out his total lack of facts." Anon.
(Should be his or her or shis or shims or its or thems or theys or theirs or any other gender indefinite article missed <GENDER-IST TRIGGER WARNING:> a cry-in for those genders feeling as targets of hate with such rampant disclusion of their particular gender identity, can go cuck Pepe for all I care :D </> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-alt-right-terminology-20161115-story... http://rebrn.com/re/never-forget-carl-the-cuck-2960483/ "That hurt my brain. Props to Alex for putting up with a bunch of libtards that use identity politics and non sequitirs instead of actual logic." (I would add: "or facts" :) You've heard of "peak oil", well this is "peak 2016": ‘Peak 2016’: David Duke responds to Jenna Jameson’s ‘massive crush’ on Bibi Netanyahu http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/12/04/peak-2016-david-duke-responds-to-je... Get triggered already! There was some song, may be "Hammer Time"? which would jam rather well with "trigger time" ... no no NO! NOT!!! Do NOT run that round your brain!!!! ) -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/05/2016 01:11 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Their mantra is always of emotion, appealing only to Safe Spaces
Actually you're confusing right and left. Typical stupid right-wing disinformation ploy. The NAZIS were masters of shit like that. I've never really noticed the right had any ideology at all. By nature it's ALWAYS in reaction to something someone else does or says. That's why right-wingers have ALWAYS been referred to as RE-ACK-SHUN-AIRY (yeah I know it has a lot of syllables but you'll figure it out) In this case they're REACTING to customer complaints to Kelloggs about the content of a blog they happen to believe like the word of Dog by boycotting the company. Unfortunately for them, the company doesn't give a fuck about a few thousand people out of millions and millions. The only safe space you need is your bunker full of Prepper supplies. Don't forget to bring enough socks. Bundy's Bozos forgot to pack enough with their (snigger) "Tactical Bacon" and were begging for them... Rr Ps Trump in his own element below.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 07:02:43AM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/05/2016 01:11 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Their mantra is always of emotion, appealing only to Safe Spaces
Actually you're confusing right and left. Typical stupid right-wing disinformation ploy. The NAZIS were masters of shit like that. I've never really noticed the right had any ideology at all. By nature it's ALWAYS in reaction to something someone else does or says. That's why right-wingers have ALWAYS been referred to as RE-ACK-SHUN-AIRY (yeah I know it has a lot of syllables but you'll figure it out)
In this case they're REACTING to customer complaints to Kelloggs
Well now that's where you might consider that ye be missin a point. Imagine for a moment, if you are capable (yes, I know imagination is difficult), that someone (now let's not rush in and call them Dems or Jews mind you, please!) someone has a political agenda, and they infiltrate Kellogg, their PR and advertising department to be precise, and they get the top job there. Is it possible that Kellogg's public statement could be an excuse, could be making a mountain out of a molehill so to speak, and thereby politicising an event that other large companies have managed to conduct, without the politics ("publicity")? I dunno, seems hard for folks to hold a simple thought these days.
On 12/04/2016 11:35 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt this was necessary.
DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system. Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be free. Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad people probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more customers who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house, but it became a liability... It's history. Rr
*From:* Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. You are writing this as if there is only one kind of Kelloggs customer, and that customer "Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising. " Well, I'm a Kelloggs customer, and while before I heard this I didn't care whether Kelloggs advertised on Breitbart, now I do. I find it amazingly biased and PC that Kelloggs would refuse to advertise for an obviously bogus reason, one that it clearly won't apply to advertising on other media organizations, or marketing in other nations around the world. Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt
On 12/04/2016 10:20 PM, jim bell wrote: this was necessary.
Again, purchases of advertising in the past do not in any way create an obligation for purchases of advertising in the future.
At this point, I am inclined to join the anti-Kelloggs boycott. I access the Breitbart website an average of once a year or so, but I find such lame and unjustified attempts to obstruct freedom of speech to be detestable. "Free speech" refers to freedom, not price. You can say what you like, but don't expect an advertiser to fund it for you if it is hate speech, conflicts with their company values, or their customers' values. You are welcome to do what you like, of course; personally I'm inclined to celebrate the willingness of Kellogg's to take a stand with a bowl of Frosted Flakes (or maybe Frosted Mini-Wheats, I haven't decided yet).
On 12/05/2016 08:44 AM, Razer wrote:
DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.
Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be free.
Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad people probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more customers who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house, but it became a liability... It's history.
Dude... I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply explaining the way things work in the corporate world, particularly regarding advertising and the decisions behind it (I worked in marketing for a while and some would say in a way I still do). I'm not saying I like it or that I'm an advocate of it. There is a huge difference. I would not call Breitbart a "pissant little blog" anymore, not with the way they are expanding. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On 12/05/2016 07:04 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.
Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be free.
Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad people probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more customers who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house, but it became a liability... It's history. Dude... I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply explaining the way
On 12/05/2016 08:44 AM, Razer wrote: things work in the corporate world, particularly regarding advertising and the decisions behind it (I worked in marketing for a while and some would say in a way I still do). I'm not saying I like it or that I'm an advocate of it. There is a huge difference.
I would not call Breitbart a "pissant little blog" anymore, not with the way they are expanding.
Sorry. I should have said:
DUDE You're invoking the FREE Market system to people who only believe in it when it suits them.
I seriously doubt their unique readership numbers are expanding in the sense that there are more people buying into BreitBull. If their readership is expanding, it's to analyze the information being inculcated in a number of very dangerous people's minds by the American Crypto-Fascist Right which Breitbart directly represents, or find out what all the brouhaha (hahaha!) is about. Rr
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:04:37AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/05/2016 08:44 AM, Razer wrote:
DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.
Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be free.
Kelloggs, a multinational corporation that OWNS MARKETS could give no shits about a pissant little blog like Breitbart. One of their ad people probably thought it might be a good way to pick up a few more customers who'd buy healthyflakes at the local Prepper supply house, but it became a liability... It's history.
Dude... I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply explaining the way things work in the corporate world, particularly regarding advertising and the decisions behind it (I worked in marketing for a while and some would say in a way I still do). I'm not saying I like it or that I'm an advocate of it. There is a huge difference.
Shawn, you are a deceiver. One could hold the hypothetical view that your numerous willful deceptions and persistent talking at crossed purposes, arises pursuant to employment compromise or other compromise within you. Totally hypothetical conspiracy theory of course ... -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/05/2016 04:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Shawn, you are a deceiver.
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad hominem attacks. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Dec 5, 2016 7:31 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2016 04:28 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Shawn, you are a deceiver.
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad
hominem attacks. Shawn, if I am not mistaken, there is no moderator here. Don't feed the trolls, let them starving until the death.
On Dec 5, 2016 7:54 PM, "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:31 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad
hominem attacks.
Shawn, if I am not mistaken, there is no moderator here. Don't feed the
trolls, let them starving until the death. I am against the moderation in a cypherpunk, anarchist list, but it doesn't mean I support coward agressions and 'ad hominem' offenses. Haters and bullies are always cowards and, usually, pretty stupid and limited in several senses. When they have no rational arguments, absolutely no reason, they attack, trying to 'win' discussions at any cost. Personally, I would rather be ravaged by wild beasts than waste my time again with dishonest and contraditory liars like Zzz and Juan, but it is your choice only, Shawn. Whether these trolls' parents didn't teach them good manners and about respect and moral integrity, the life will be their teacher, not me. Good luck, Shawn. Wish you patience and serenity.
On 12/05/2016 06:33 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:54 PM, "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com <mailto:cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:31 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad
hominem attacks.
Shawn, if I am not mistaken, there is no moderator here. Don't feed
<mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com>> wrote: the trolls, let them starving until the death.
I am against the moderation in a cypherpunk, anarchist list, but it doesn't mean I support coward agressions and 'ad hominem' offenses.
Haters and bullies are always cowards and, usually, pretty stupid and limited in several senses. When they have no rational arguments, absolutely no reason, they attack, trying to 'win' discussions at any cost.
Personally, I would rather be ravaged by wild beasts than waste my time again with dishonest and contraditory liars like Zzz and Juan, but it is your choice only, Shawn.
Whether these trolls' parents didn't teach them good manners and about respect and moral integrity, the life will be their teacher, not me.
Good luck, Shawn. Wish you patience and serenity.
I miss the list the way it was back in the 90's. Sure there were fights but there was so much more content now it just seems to be the trolls. I learned so much back in the early days of the list. That is why i came back here. Well i'll hang around a bit more after filtering some and see what comes of it. --- M
Marina - please remove yourself from the list. You are no longer wanted here - -------- Original Message -------- On Dec 5, 2016, 3:39 PM, Marina Brown wrote: On 12/05/2016 06:33 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:54 PM, "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com <mailto:cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:31 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad
hominem attacks.
Shawn, if I am not mistaken, there is no moderator here. Don't feed
<mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com>> wrote: the trolls, let them starving until the death.
I am against the moderation in a cypherpunk, anarchist list, but it doesn't mean I support coward agressions and 'ad hominem' offenses.
Haters and bullies are always cowards and, usually, pretty stupid and limited in several senses. When they have no rational arguments, absolutely no reason, they attack, trying to 'win' discussions at any cost.
Personally, I would rather be ravaged by wild beasts than waste my time again with dishonest and contraditory liars like Zzz and Juan, but it is your choice only, Shawn.
Whether these trolls' parents didn't teach them good manners and about respect and moral integrity, the life will be their teacher, not me.
Good luck, Shawn. Wish you patience and serenity.
I miss the list the way it was back in the 90's. Sure there were fights but there was so much more content now it just seems to be the trolls. I learned so much back in the early days of the list. That is why i came back here. Well i'll hang around a bit more after filtering some and see what comes of it. --- M
On Dec 5, 2016 9:54 PM, "rooty" <arpspoof@protonmail.com> wrote:
Marina - please remove yourself from the list. You are no longer wanted
here - What the fu¢k are you saying, rooty? Are you crazy? Who are you to judge if Marina is wanted here or not? She's completely free to stay here or to leave this list when she wants. Only Marina can take her decisions. Her life, her choices. Learn to respect the persons, selfish boy. Your opinion about her is insignificant, was not requested and makes no sense.
On Dec 5, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 9:54 PM, "rooty" <arpspoof@protonmail.com> wrote:
Marina - please remove yourself from the list. You are no longer wanted here -
What the fu¢k are you saying, rooty? Are you crazy? Who are you to judge if Marina is wanted here or not?
Don't feed the rootys. Razer might accuse you of multiple personality syndrome ;) I agree the list is toxic. Juan's attacks are way over the top. His brand of toxicity pales in comparison to Zen though - a more pointless, dishonest, BORING racist caricature would be hard to make up. Notice how he mostly responds to himself? No doubt the aggressive bullying and "my way or the highway" tactics are stifling discussion. Anyway, fuck it. Every dog has his day.
She's completely free to stay here or to leave this list when she wants. Only Marina can take her decisions. Her life, her choices.
Learn to respect the persons, selfish boy. Your opinion about her is insignificant, was not requested and makes no sense.
On Dec 5, 2016 10:48 PM, "John Newman" <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
Don't feed the rootys. Razer might accuse you of multiple personality
syndrome ;) Hahaha!! Unhappily, the precaution makes much sense, haha!! ;D
I agree the list is toxic. Juan's attacks are way over the top. His brand of toxicity pales in comparison to Zen though - a more pointless, dishonest, BORING racist caricature would be hard to make up. Notice how he mostly responds to himself?
Well, I really would appreciate a lot if Zzz could stop posting garbage, get a life and travel to Moscow to visit his intimate friend Putin(ha) and know new restaurants in the city. They love rats like Zzz there and he finally would be useful to some people! :D https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/18/hot-rat-is-so-hot-right-now-mo... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3952964/Waiter-s-rat-burger-Rodents-... http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/23/this-russian-restaurant-is-serving-up-burgers-... Russia is a gorgeous country and Zzz is already like a Russian matryoshka doll, completely full of himself, haha!! ;D That's the reason why he always responds to himself several and several times. Nobody cares about his boring messages and he is ignored, but has an ego inside an ego, inside another ego, and so goes on 'ad infinitum'... :) - c. PS: - 'Putinha' ('Little Slut', in Portuguese) is a tender nick for Zzz's favorite President. Aww, lovey-dovey nicks... <3
She illegal tor bot -------- Original Message -------- On Dec 5, 2016, 5:30 PM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote: On Dec 5, 2016 9:54 PM, "rooty" <arpspoof@protonmail.com> wrote:
Marina - please remove yourself from the list. You are no longer wanted here -
What the fu¢k are you saying, rooty? Are you crazy? Who are you to judge if Marina is wanted here or not? She's completely free to stay here or to leave this list when she wants. Only Marina can take her decisions. Her life, her choices. Learn to respect the persons, selfish boy. Your opinion about her is insignificant, was not requested and makes no sense.
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:33:08 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:54 PM, "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 5, 2016 7:31 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
Moderator, please remove Mr. Harkness from the list for repeated ad
hominem attacks.
Shawn, if I am not mistaken, there is no moderator here. Don't feed the
trolls, let them starving until the death.
I am against the moderation in a cypherpunk, anarchist list, but it doesn't mean I support coward agressions and 'ad hominem' offenses.
lapdog cecilia keeps licking the boots of scumbags like her 'friend' quinn. I guess she's willing to lick the boots of anything as long it is fascist and american. Poor cecilia is both sad - and revolting.
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 06:44:11AM -0800, Razer wrote:
On 12/04/2016 11:35 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Companies decide that an advertising contract no longer suits their business needs, whatever those needs may be, all the time. Often they don't write a press release about it and explain their choices, but apparently in this case Kellogg's got enough complaints that they felt this was necessary.
DUDE You're arguing for the FREE Market system.
Despite their lips moving making sounds that they are the most ardent supporters of Fre Markets, Most of the Libertarians I've met or read only believe in Free Markets when it's 'free' the way THEY want it to be free.
Kellogg made a big public announcement, where's Shawen's other examples, such as BMW, just quietly did what they chose to do, without making the big public announcement and proclaims that these situations are the same - that is, that one is no more nor less political than the other, and implies that Breitbart is "in the wrong" for their counter-boycott (similarly public). No one's speaking against the "free market" here (not that we have a free market in the West, another story). Politics, that IS what's happening here between Kellogg and Breitbart. You can miss that point in a thousand emails, but doing so is, I'm sorta grasping at straws here, perhaps unlikely to make this point go away. Not that I want logic to prevail or anything ... what would the world be without culturally enriching logic-free diatribes and emotive swipes at individual's attempting to understand situations.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 04:18:56AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
On 12/04/2016 03:56 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
And of course you say that's not a political action, and is the same as these other supposed companys who did not make such public statements.
Kellogg's wanted to retain their customers. Their customers didn't want the company supporting Breitbart with advertising.
If Kellogg's customers were so fucking principled, they'd have years ago boycotted Kellogg altogether for selling into Saudi Arabia. But no "if Kellogg didn't sell into Saudi Arabia, someone else would, so that's ok". Shawn, your "arguments" if we can call them that are breathtaking. Breathtakingly biased that is. You are actually permitted to read this article if you want to try communicating with facts. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/03/virgil-the-lefts-long-mar... Shawn K. Quin, another establishment retard bites the dust, again and again and again. Seriously Shawn, look into the toxicological effects of fluorisis and the like, and investigate possible detoxing if such exists at all. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:32:46AM -0600, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
I actually wanted to blog about this, but absent a source for a similar article without a ridiculous pop-up in front of it, I'm probably not going to.
Oh isn't he just such a -smart- boy! Give him a clever star already.
Which is sad.
I shall try to create an ascii tear drop for you Sean: | / \ |_| * (The asterisk is an optical / lense sparkle.) And here's a safe space for you to grieve within (as in, safely): _ _ _ _ /s e a n\ | _ | |_| |_| ] __] (That bottom bit's a footpath, in case you get lost.)
On 12/03/2016 02:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, as is his specialty, a racist sexist, antisemitic right-wing hit site famous for publishing disinformation:
"In March last year, Missouri admitted that they had lost about 1,500 students and were experiencing a budget shortfall of $32 million,
That's because no self-respecting 18 year old want to be the fuck in Missouri, Moron :/ It's REALLY that simple. They go to Cali, or NY, or even Florida, the limp dick hanging off the southern edge of the continent. WTF goes to college in Misery, except maybe some kid who wants to take "Kitchen Science" so they can get a good job as "Line Cook" at the local Dennys. Rr
LMFAO -------- Original Message -------- On Dec 3, 2016, 7:41 AM, Razer wrote: On 12/03/2016 02:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, as is his specialty, a racist sexist, antisemitic right-wing hit site famous for publishing disinformation: "In March last year, Missouri admitted that they had lost about 1,500 students and were experiencing a budget shortfall of $32 million, That's because no self-respecting 18 year old want to be the fuck in Missouri, Moron :/ It's REALLY that simple. They go to Cali, or NY, or even Florida, the limp dick hanging off the southern edge of the continent. WTF goes to college in Misery, except maybe some kid who wants to take "Kitchen Science" so they can get a good job as "Line Cook" at the local Dennys. Rr
On 12/03/2016 09:41 AM, Razer wrote:
On 12/03/2016 02:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, as is his specialty, a racist sexist, antisemitic right-wing hit site famous for publishing disinformation:
"In March last year, Missouri admitted that they had lost about 1,500 students and were experiencing a budget shortfall of $32 million,
That's because no self-respecting 18 year old want to be the fuck in Missouri, Moron :/
It's REALLY that simple. They go to Cali, or NY, or even Florida, the limp dick hanging off the southern edge of the continent. WTF goes to college in Misery, except maybe some kid who wants to take "Kitchen Science" so they can get a good job as "Line Cook" at the local Dennys.
I have wanted to visit parts of Missouri, and wouldn't mind spending a week in St. Louis or maybe Kansas City. But damn if I would ever have wanted to go to school there for four years. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
[OT - OT - OT] On Dec 3, 2016 12:42 PM, "Razer" <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/03/2016 02:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, as is his specialty, a
racist sexist, antisemitic right-wing hit site famous for publishing disinformation: Sorry, my dear Razer, what were you waiting for? Zzz -- yawn, boring! -- is a so pretentious guy who was able of calling himself "ShitLord" in several messages few days ago, even being just a little and insignificant poop... :(( Better saying, just a 'little and insignificant fart', because Zzz has no considerable substance to be a poop. Too old, so verbiage and still so limited, tsk tsk... Being a 'dictionary boy' means nothing when you have absolutely no content. Empty and annoying non-stop blah blah blah... :( I know Shawn -- not Sean! -- is a good person, very patient and polite and likes to present other perspectives, but wasting time with a so illogical and senseless person like Zzz is pure masochism, absolutely not reasonable. "Neko ni koban", Shawn. You are "giving koban (Japanese gold coins) to a cat". It's an old Japanese saying, our version of "throwing pearls before swine". You know, wasting time and good resources, material and/or intellectual, with stupid people is usual in the whole world. :( I am still receiving his creepy daily spams and Zzz created another fake profile for me in a Russian dating site this time. As usual, he misspelled my name and said I am a 'lesbian slut'. Aff, coward and not original as always... :P He does simply not care about the people and never respects their identities, preferences and personal convictions. He have no ethics, no moral integrity or intelligence, and never remembers that exactly like him, I do love dicks, not girls. Zzz has the intellectual density of a dirty mud puddle and always writes wrongly all the personal names. You all know, 'Shawn' and 'Sean' have the same sound and spelling, haha!! He already called 'Griffin' as 'Graham' and misspelled my name and Georgi's almost all the times. I have dyslexic friends and it isn't the case. It's just pretentious dumbness. :) Zzz tattoos examples: https://www.buzzfeed.com/juliegerstein/tattoo-fails-guaranteed-to-make-you-l... Wish you all a lovely Sunday, cypherpunks! And Zzz, get a life please. It'll be good for you! :) Ceci
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:58:04 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I know Shawn -- not Sean! -- is a good person, very patient and polite and likes to present other perspectives,
Quoted to highlight the fact that you side with just another pro-censorship piece of american shit, who wants censorship everywhere and wants to call the cops on people who doesn't 'respect' his deranged dictates.
On Dec 4, 2016 5:32 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:58:04 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I know Shawn -- not Sean! -- is a good person, very patient and
polite and likes to present other perspectives,
Quoted to highlight the fact that you side with just another
pro-censorship piece of american shit, who wants censorship everywhere and wants to call the cops on people who doesn't 'respect' his deranged dictates. Daijoubu, my dear Juan. No unjustified worries please. You know I don't support censorship and repression. Tender kisses. Be well.
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 21:14:14 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 5:32 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 12:58:04 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I know Shawn -- not Sean! -- is a good person, very patient and
polite and likes to present other perspectives,
Quoted to highlight the fact that you side with just another
pro-censorship piece of american shit, who wants censorship everywhere and wants to call the cops on people who doesn't 'respect' his deranged dictates.
Daijoubu, my dear Juan. No unjustified worries please. You know I don't support censorship and repression.
Maybe you don't, but quinn, whom you are so thouroughly praising, certainly does. There's a rather big group of people who support censorship in this very same list and as far as I can tell you never speak against it or them. Furthermore, when the Tor Inc. pentagon nazis censored 'their' list your reply was something like "I don't like it but it is their list" - so you DO support censorship.
Tender kisses. Be well.
On Dec 4, 2016 9:04 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe you don't, but quinn, whom you are so thouroughly praising,
certainly does. His convictions, not mine.
There's a rather big group of people who support censorship in
this very same list and as far as I can tell you never speak against it or them. Please, search better in the list archives and verify my older messages. I already said it would _not_ be correct to moderate a cypherpunk list.
Furthermore, when the Tor Inc. pentagon nazis censored 'their'
list your reply was something like "I don't like it but it is their list" - so you DO support censorship. I was kick-banned of Tor-Talk list and everybody knows I didn't like it at all. It was an unpleasent and pretty humiliating experience because Boyce said I was doing "rape apology" when defending Jake to justify my expulsion. I cried for days, in several moments hidden in the bathroom of the office, because I didn't want to tell to my co-workers what was happening. I didn't want more judgements about my past, my character, about my friend's life and more and more prejudice. I was deeply hurt and the false allegation of "rape apology" still hurts a lot until now. Boyce and the other moderators, including the 'fake victims', knowed I was already raped twice and about my emotional and physical scars. It always will be impossible to me to do any kind of rape apology. I was just questioning all the lies and the bullying against Jake, against one of my friends, a person who I knowed in person and loved a lot. I don't think my expulsion was fair or correct, but I respected their decision, because it is a Tor Project list and it follows their management rules. I am not saying their rules are right or fair, but Tor-Talk is one of their lists, Juan. Their list, their rules. I respect a lot of Tor Project colaborators in the whole world and their respective works, their sincere efforts. I never would harm their work or would cause troubles because of injuried pride or revolt, Juan. Sorry, it doesn't work this way. I will fight against censorship when it will be necessary, not only for stubbornness or pride. Ceci
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:58:55 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 9:04 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe you don't, but quinn, whom you are so thouroughly praising,
certainly does.
His convictions, not mine.
What is that supposed to mean? He is a shitbag, but according to you he is a great. YOU are the one who SIDES with a SHITBAG like quinn. It is YOUR problem. Do not take me for an idiot, Cecilia. You can't be 'anti-censorship' and pro-quinn who is a fucking CENSOR.
There's a rather big group of people who support censorship in
this very same list and as far as I can tell you never speak against it or them.
Please, search better in the list archives and verify my older messages. I already said it would _not_ be correct to moderate a cypherpunk list.
Thanks for making my point again. It's not just this list, but any medium. It is not correct to moderate anything. You should have just said that, but you didn't. As to you speaking against the many censors who advocate censorship here, feel free to link your posts criticizing them. I doubt there's any.
Furthermore, when the Tor Inc. pentagon nazis censored 'their'
list your reply was something like "I don't like it but it is their list" - so you DO support censorship.
I was kick-banned of Tor-Talk list and everybody knows I didn't like it at all.
Completely irrelevant like the rest of your soap-opera-like tirade, except for this "I respected their decision, because it is a Tor Project list and it follows their management rules. " "I am not saying their rules are right or fair, but Tor-Talk is one of their lists, Juan. Their list, their rules." So you are a fully fledged totalitarian who parrots the most stupid, right-wing slogan ever. Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'. Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother pretending that you don.t It was an unpleasent and pretty humiliating experience
because Boyce said I was doing "rape apology" when defending Jake to justify my expulsion.
I cried for days, in several moments hidden in the bathroom of the office, because I didn't want to tell to my co-workers what was happening. I didn't want more judgements about my past, my character, about my friend's life and more and more prejudice. I was deeply hurt and the false allegation of "rape apology" still hurts a lot until now.
Boyce and the other moderators, including the 'fake victims', knowed I was already raped twice and about my emotional and physical scars. It always will be impossible to me to do any kind of rape apology. I was just questioning all the lies and the bullying against Jake, against one of my friends, a person who I knowed in person and loved a lot.
I don't think my expulsion was fair or correct, but I respected their decision, because it is a Tor Project list and it follows their management rules. I am not saying their rules are right or fair, but Tor-Talk is one of their lists, Juan. Their list, their rules.
I respect a lot of Tor Project colaborators in the whole world and their respective works, their sincere efforts. I never would harm their work or would cause troubles because of injuried pride or revolt, Juan. Sorry, it doesn't work this way. I will fight against censorship when it will be necessary, not only for stubbornness or pride.
Ceci
On Dec 4, 2016 10:17 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? He is a shitbag, but according to
you he is a great. YOU are the one who SIDES with a SHITBAG like quinn. It is YOUR problem. Well, tecnically, you are also a "shitbag", toxic garbage, waste of time and a lot of bad things, but I do like you too and it's a public fact. :P
Do not take me for an idiot, Cecilia. You can't be
'anti-censorship' and pro-quinn who is a fucking CENSOR. Juan, sorry, I am not taking you for an idiot. Sorry if you have any kind of inferiority complex and feels idiot because are not able of understand me. Search for psychological support and think more about tolerance and respect for other persons, please.
Thanks for making my point again. It's not just this list, but
any medium. It is not correct to moderate anything. You should have just said that, but you didn't. Juan, please stop flirting with Alzheimer. We already had dozens of discussions about moderation x censorship, even in private messages. You know I am a moderator in some tech and legal lists and groups.
As to you speaking against the many censors who advocate
censorship here, feel free to link your posts criticizing them. I doubt there's any. Don't be lazy and research, Juan. You know very well you have much more free time than me. :P
Completely irrelevant like the rest of your soap-opera-like
tirade, except for this My life is a bad soap-opera, but it is millions of times more interesting and funnier than yours, mal cogido. ;)
So you are a fully fledged totalitarian who parrots the most
stupid, right-wing slogan ever. Oh, am I ?! God, are you sure? Is it contagious? :-o
Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it
is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'. OK, so you can create your own list, with no moderation, no rules, no themes, and be happy, instead non-stop complaining and whining about everybody and all the things in other lists.
Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother
pretending that you don.t Yeah, Juan, you know me much better than myself. I am so happy you are sharing with me so valious informations about my own believes and convictions. Thank you! :D Good night and have sweet dreams, Juan. I really think it's pretty funny when you try to censor my personal opinions, imposing yours as an absolute true. :)
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:53:31 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 10:17 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? He is a shitbag, but according to
you he is a great. YOU are the one who SIDES with a SHITBAG like quinn. It is YOUR problem.
Well, tecnically, you are also a "shitbag",
I don't advocate any sort of criminal activity - quite the opposite. I don't work for the government and I am not a lawyer, unlike you. so no, I'm not a shitbag. You on the other hand...
Do not take me for an idiot, Cecilia. You can't be
'anti-censorship' and pro-quinn who is a fucking CENSOR.
Juan, sorry, I am not taking you for an idiot.
Course not. You are trying to, which is incredibly stupid on your part. In other words, at least have a shred of intelectual honesty and admit that you 'like' scumbags like quinn because you are hardly different from scumbags like quinn.
Juan, please stop flirting with Alzheimer. We already had dozens of discussions about moderation x censorship, even in private messages. You know I am a moderator in some tech and legal lists and groups.
Well, thanks for making it clear that you yourself are a censor. No wonder you like scumbags like quinn and his support for censorship.
As to you speaking against the many censors who advocate
censorship here, feel free to link your posts criticizing them. I doubt there's any.
Don't be lazy and research, Juan. You know very well you have much more free time than me. :P
What the fuck do you know about how much 'free' time I have? Bottom line : you never spoke against censorship. You can't search the archives for your anti-censorship posts because they do not exist.
Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it
is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'.
OK, so you can create your own list,
What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Nothing. But of course, since you know that what I say is true and you have zero arguments against it, you go off in a stupid dishonest tanget.
Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother
pretending that you don.t
Yeah, Juan, you know me much better than myself.
I know what you publicly do, you dishonest retard. You don't even understand they garbage you are just typing?
I am so happy you are sharing with me so valious informations about my own believes and convictions. Thank you! :D
Good night and have sweet dreams, Juan. I really think it's pretty funny when you try to censor my personal opinions,
I'm not censoring anything, you dumb dishonest fuck. imposing yours as
an absolute true. :)
Juan, I really don't care about your lies and your opinion about me. I am a lawyer. So what? Should I be punished for still believing in Justice and using legal resources against corruption, censorship, violation of rights? I am just using the System's weapons against the System. You are the real censor here, not me. Always repressing spontaneous manifestations, always judging, offending and humiliating people in the most aggressive ways, with bizarre distortions of the messages and its contents. It is being really 'dishonest'. You are dishonest in several senses and with your attitudes and behavior, if you had any integrity, you would be living in a cave, using at most stone tools, not the Internet. Good bye, Juan. I won't read your messages anymore. Be happy with your little nazi buddy Zzz in my trash. - c. On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:16 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:53:31 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 10:17 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? He is a shitbag, but according to
you he is a great. YOU are the one who SIDES with a SHITBAG like quinn. It is YOUR problem.
Well, tecnically, you are also a "shitbag",
I don't advocate any sort of criminal activity - quite the opposite. I don't work for the government and I am not a lawyer, unlike you. so no, I'm not a shitbag.
You on the other hand...
Do not take me for an idiot, Cecilia. You can't be
'anti-censorship' and pro-quinn who is a fucking CENSOR.
Juan, sorry, I am not taking you for an idiot.
Course not. You are trying to, which is incredibly stupid on your part. In other words, at least have a shred of intelectual honesty and admit that you 'like' scumbags like quinn because you are hardly different from scumbags like quinn.
Juan, please stop flirting with Alzheimer. We already had dozens of discussions about moderation x censorship, even in private messages. You know I am a moderator in some tech and legal lists and groups.
Well, thanks for making it clear that you yourself are a censor. No wonder you like scumbags like quinn and his support for censorship.
As to you speaking against the many censors who advocate
censorship here, feel free to link your posts criticizing them. I doubt there's any.
Don't be lazy and research, Juan. You know very well you have much more free time than me. :P
What the fuck do you know about how much 'free' time I have?
Bottom line : you never spoke against censorship. You can't search the archives for your anti-censorship posts because they do not exist.
Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it
is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'.
OK, so you can create your own list,
What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Nothing.
But of course, since you know that what I say is true and you have zero arguments against it, you go off in a stupid dishonest tanget.
Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother
pretending that you don.t
Yeah, Juan, you know me much better than myself.
I know what you publicly do, you dishonest retard. You don't even understand they garbage you are just typing?
I am so happy you are sharing with me so valious informations about my own believes and convictions. Thank you! :D
Good night and have sweet dreams, Juan. I really think it's pretty funny when you try to censor my personal opinions,
I'm not censoring anything, you dumb dishonest fuck.
imposing yours as
an absolute true. :)
On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 09:18:29 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
Juan, I really don't care about your lies and your opinion about me. I am a lawyer. So what? Should I be punished for still believing in Justice and using legal resources against corruption, censorship, violation of rights? I am just using the System's weapons against the System.
Sure. Good Lawyers for Justice. That really makes sense.
You are the real censor here, not me.
Sure. According to your own made up and absurd definition for censor. But hey, aren't you the same person who repeatedly told me to "stop complaining"?
Always repressing spontaneous manifestations, always judging, offending and humiliating people in the most aggressive ways, with bizarre distortions of the messages and its contents. It is being really 'dishonest'. You are dishonest in several senses and with your attitudes and behavior, if you had any integrity, you would be living in a cave, using at most stone tools, not the Internet.
Good bye, Juan. I won't read your messages anymore. Be happy with your little nazi buddy Zzz in my trash.
- c.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 12:16 AM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 23:53:31 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 10:17 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
What is that supposed to mean? He is a shitbag, but according to
you he is a great. YOU are the one who SIDES with a SHITBAG like quinn. It is YOUR problem.
Well, tecnically, you are also a "shitbag",
I don't advocate any sort of criminal activity - quite the opposite. I don't work for the government and I am not a lawyer, unlike you. so no, I'm not a shitbag.
You on the other hand...
Do not take me for an idiot, Cecilia. You can't be
'anti-censorship' and pro-quinn who is a fucking CENSOR.
Juan, sorry, I am not taking you for an idiot.
Course not. You are trying to, which is incredibly stupid on your part. In other words, at least have a shred of intelectual honesty and admit that you 'like' scumbags like quinn because you are hardly different from scumbags like quinn.
Juan, please stop flirting with Alzheimer. We already had dozens of discussions about moderation x censorship, even in private messages. You know I am a moderator in some tech and legal lists and groups.
Well, thanks for making it clear that you yourself are a censor. No wonder you like scumbags like quinn and his support for censorship.
As to you speaking against the many censors who advocate
censorship here, feel free to link your posts criticizing them. I doubt there's any.
Don't be lazy and research, Juan. You know very well you have much more free time than me. :P
What the fuck do you know about how much 'free' time I have?
Bottom line : you never spoke against censorship. You can't search the archives for your anti-censorship posts because they do not exist.
Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it
is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'.
OK, so you can create your own list,
What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Nothing.
But of course, since you know that what I say is true and you have zero arguments against it, you go off in a stupid dishonest tanget.
Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother
pretending that you don.t
Yeah, Juan, you know me much better than myself.
I know what you publicly do, you dishonest retard. You don't even understand they garbage you are just typing?
I am so happy you are sharing with me so valious informations about my own believes and convictions. Thank you! :D
Good night and have sweet dreams, Juan. I really think it's pretty funny when you try to censor my personal opinions,
I'm not censoring anything, you dumb dishonest fuck.
imposing yours as
an absolute true. :)
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 10:17:22PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:58:55 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016 9:04 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Furthermore, when the Tor Inc. pentagon nazis censored 'their'
list your reply was something like "I don't like it but it is their list" - so you DO support censorship.
I was kick-banned of Tor-Talk list and everybody knows I didn't like it at all.
Completely irrelevant like the rest of your soap-opera-like tirade, except for this
"I respected their decision, because it is a Tor Project list and it follows their management rules. "
"I am not saying their rules are right or fair, but Tor-Talk is one of their lists, Juan. Their list, their rules."
"Trigger a closet totalitarian today - quote their own words back to them." Anon.
So you are a fully fledged totalitarian who parrots the most stupid, right-wing slogan ever.
Newsflash for you Cecilia!! It is not their list. If anything it is taxpayer owned. And they have no 'right' to make nor 'enforce' any 'rules'.
Like I said Cecilia, you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP. Don't bother pretending that you don.t
-- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 22:58:55 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I respect a lot of Tor Project colaborators in the whole world and their respective works, their sincere efforts. I never would harm their work or would cause troubles because
Translation : you support the operation of the cyber-weapon tor and support the imperialist policies of the US military which are the reason why tor exists.
of injuried pride or revolt, Juan. Sorry, it doesn't work this way. I will fight against censorship
...in china, I know. That's what the agents of the US nazi government do. Pretend to 'fight' 'censorship' 'abroad' while working for the pentagon.
when it will be necessary, not only for stubbornness or pride.
Ceci
On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:41:54AM -0800, Razer wrote:
...
So Razer wrote about Breitbart.com using the following fact-free epithets:
On 12/03/2016 02:16 AM, Zenaan Harkness quoted, as is his specialty, a racist
a quote from said site in support of your position please Razer
sexist,
a quote from said site in support of your position please Razer
antisemitic
a quote from said site in support of your position please Razer
right-wing
As a generalization, where "right-wing" means "conservative" or something, I'll probably agree with.
hit site
Dunno what this means, again Razer, your definition of "hit site" please, with a supporting fact, to demonstrate cogency on your part, otherwise we simply have no idea what you're rambling about. And finally:
famous for publishing disinformation:
So again, please provide a fact in support of your assertion that breitbart.com is not only a "publisher of disinformation" but in addition to this first fact, is also famous for being alleged disinformation publisher. Set yourself quite a bar here... Now if you can't be bothered, I'll refer you to the following English Professor writing for TIME magazine ... " McWhorter, who has spoken out against the regressive elements of the left in the past, claims that there is a new leftist contingent that calls any white person who questions a position associated with minority groups as white supremacists. “A leftist contingent is now charging any white person who seriously questions a position associated with people of color as a white supremacist,” John McWhorter, previously a linguistics professor, wrote for TIME magazine. “The idea is that if you go against a certain orthodoxy, then it isn’t only that you disagree, but that you also wish white people were still in charge, that you want people of color to sit down and shut up.” McWhorter contends that “white supremacist” is now being used by the left because “racist” has been so overused that it has started to lose its meaning. " Professor: Stop Calling All People Who Disagree with You ‘White Supremacists’ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/03/professor-stop-calling-people-disag... ... and respectfully suggest, dear colorful Razer, that you kindly pull your head in. -- Certified Deplorable Fake News Nazi (TM)(C)(R) Executive Director of Vice, Ministry of Winning Shilling for buxom Russian swastika clad minxes since 1488
On 12/05/2016 12:41 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote over and over and over again like a proverbial right wing echo chamber of Limbaugh-ian dittioheads:
a quote from said site in support of your position please Razer
Umn... Those are the customer's complaints. I have no complaints. You really need to read more about Goebbels propaganda machine. You fail, and fail badly to understand how disinformation and propaganda work. FIRST the person(s) targeted have to have a psychological or emotional attachment. I could give a flying about Kelloggs I could give even less of a flying about some right wing blog. I think both need to be.... For want of a much harsher, violent term, redacted. And for about the same reason. One is unhealthy for the body, the other is unhealthy for the mind. Rr
"What is to be abolished is not the reality principle; not everything, but such particular things as business, politics, exploitation, poverty." ~Herbert Marcuse, "Love Mystified", a critique of UCSC Philosophy professor Norman O. Brown
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/love-mystified-a-critique-of-nor...
participants (11)
-
Ben Tasker -
Cecilia Tanaka -
jim bell -
John Newman -
John Young -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Razer -
rooty -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Zenaan Harkness