No.10335
File: 1638075717223.jpg (1.55 MB, 2442x1661, 222:151, Wanda-Cooper-Jones-AP-Imag….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Bucking a trend of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice going back over a hundred years, in my opinion, a posse of white men who lynched an innocent black man for traveling in the wrong neighborhood and thus being considered a dangerous criminal have been found guilty in Georgia. The deceased's name was Ahmaud Arbery. He died in February 2020. His life mattered.
It's not only a devastating defeat for the American conservative movement that demonized that innocent black man and his defenders just as they've demonized black victim after black victim in the past, in my view, but it's also a victory for both the Arbery family and the Black Lives Matter movement, clearly. I'll happily go beyond that and say that when it comes to the terminal cancer patient that is America, a country stuck in the midst of twenty years of sharp decline with no sign of that stopping, this represents a kind of eye in the hurricane of hatred to me. For once, democracy won. Freedom won. Justice won. Liberty won. The underdog with the world stacked against him whipped the odds in true Hollywood miracle fashion. That's my take.
A detailed article going through the entire case is here:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wanda-cooper-jones-ahmaud-arbery-murder-justice-48-hours/What are your thoughts? Do you agree with my take? Do you disagree? Do you sympathize with the defense being mounted that the killers were only acting in self-defense and that they've been railroaded in some fashion? Perhaps the men found guilty deserve light sentences? Or long ones? And what does this mean for future cases in the endless, waterfall-like flow of American situations in which white men claim to have killed minorities in self-defense?
No.10362
>>10335>What are your thoughts?I'm not very familiar with the state of the law of Georgia at the time of the incident, but based on the facts of the case and my beliefs on what the law
ought to be, I agree that the guilty verdict was just. (I do have some qualms about the felony murder rule in general, but they're not very applicable to this case in particular.)
>Do you sympathize with the defense being mounted that the killers were only acting in self-defense and that they've been railroaded in some fashion?The right of self-defense is generally forfeited when one starts or provokes the physical altercation without legal justification. So the defendents need to claim not only self-defense but also that they were making a valid citizen's arrest. And it seems that the judge and jury rejected their claim that they were making a valid citizen's arrest.
>Perhaps the men found guilty deserve light sentences? Or long ones?I think they deserve sentences long enough to deter the type of conduct that they engaged in.
Also, I think that Tulsi Gabbard has a good take on the case:
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1463593471067844608"Jury in the Arbery case got it right, as did the jury in Rittenhouse case. Jurors (average Americans) had the intelligence and honesty to make the right decision based on evidence—not race or politics. This undermines the ‘woke’ narrative that Americans are stupid and racists."
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1463624982236319747"If America is a racist country, Arbery’s killers would not have been found guilty by a nearly all-white jury in Georgia. Most Americans (of all colors) believe in Dr. MLK’s adage that as God’s children we should be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin"
No.10367
>>10362I agree that the verdict was right, but Gabbard's hardline conservative take is pretentious nonsense.
The case was fundamentally about politics and race because the defense used politics and race to justify the murder. And people outside of the case supported the defense's cause for exactly those reasons. These are facts.
In finding for the Arbery family, the jury explicitly rejected the ethnic nationalism and prejudice that they encountered in favor of the principles of justice and the fair rule of law. Pretending that America is a post-racial utopia that only the far left has fault with where nothing keeps anybody down is pure denialism. If we were such a utopia, Ahmaud Arbery would still be alive. That he and other unarmed black people have been slaughtered over the past several years speaks to quite a lot of injustice, but what the verdict proves is that regular individuals can fight injustice.
No.10375
>>10368>>10369>>10370As long we have criminals making pro-prejudice arguments in defense of their crimes, with those outside of the court expressing sympathy for them also based on prejudice, then dealing with that isn't having a "racial focus" and engaging in "tribalistic politics". It's having a brain and accepting reality. Sheesh.
If we had a prominent case of a woman being raped in which the rapist claimed that she deserved it because of how she chose to dress and what she chose to say, in comparison, then there would be every reason to talk about sexism. And, should the rapist get put behind bars for a long time, it could be a reasonable argument that sexism is really on its way out. Then.
Truth is truth. Justice is justice. Being supportive of either means rejecting prejudice since the very definition of the term means refusing to take account context and facts when judging people. Come on.
As for Gabbard, she's clearly wrong. It took herculean effort to get this case actually to trial, and a guilty verdict wasn't expected. America is a bigoted country. This is a sign of the tide possibly turning, but it's beyond ideological blindness to pretend as if it's evidence that bigotry isn't a problem. Again, if America wasn't a bigoted country than the slain innocent man would be with his family today instead of being laid to rest due to his skin color.
No.10378
File: 1638234530565.jpg (87.5 KB, 948x1084, 237:271, 1688a5f41b34eb784400d6a4d1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>10375>As long we have criminals making pro-prejudice arguments in defense of their crimes, with those outside of the court expressing sympathy for them also based on prejudice, then dealing with that isn't having a "racial focus" and engaging in "tribalistic politics". It's having a brain and accepting reality. Sheesh.I think the point that Peaceful Starfish is making is that judicial proceedings should focus on ascertaining whether the accused individuals violated the law. The judge and jury should set aside their political views as much as possible.
>>10375>Again, if America wasn't a bigoted country than the slain innocent man would be with his family today instead of being laid to rest due to his skin color.Oh, then we're using "America is a bigoted country" in different senses. I meant, and I interpreted Tulsi to mean, that a large majority of Americans oppose racism. Of course there is still a non-negligible minority of Americans who are racist.
No.10379
>>10378>The judge and jury should set aside their political views as much as possible.Of course, yes, they should do whatever they can to look at the context and specific facts objectively.
Yet it's also true, I think, that if somebody commits a crime for a cultural, ideological, political, or social reason
in the first place, then their reasons become
germane to both the case itself and the discussion about it. It's no different than the general principle of law well-established that courts must take account the mindset of
why criminals do what they do and what their actions
mean. For example, a random salesman on needed prescription medications that unfortunately make him drowsy who accidentally runs over a child that jumped into the road suddenly should get a far lighter treatment, ethically, than a terrorist who deliberately ran their car into a group of pedestrians and struck a child.
Denying all that seems bizarre to me.
P.S. Another example comes to mind. Suppose some random idiot shoots at a shopper with a Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump t-shirt in a parking lot dispute and shouts that he's sorry that he missed because the shopper's clothing makes him so angry. It would be outrageous if the idiot gets no punishment whatsoever based on the argument that the shot missed, therefore the shopper wasn't actually physically harmed and thus has no case. Legal processes need to look at more than just what exactly happened in physical terms. Context matters. Intent matters.
No.10384
>>10378>Oh, then we're using "America is a bigoted country" in different senses. I meant, and I interpreted Tulsi to mean, that a large majority of Americans oppose racism. Of course there is still a non-negligible minority of Americans who are racist.It's not just individual belief. It's also that American institutions and the structure of U.S. culture is systemically bigoted. Of course, personal action does make life far, far worse than otherwise.
I'd like to highlight this article (
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/ ) that finds that the clear majority of Americans, a full 58%, explicitly believe that "race relations in the United States are generally bad."
It's not a 'far left' or 'woke' thing to be concerned. It's quite literally the consensus view of Americans to be concerned. That's a fact.
No.10385
>>10384>It's also that American institutions and the structure of U.S. culture is systemically bigoted.Do you have any specific examples of American institutions being racist?
>the clear majority of Americans, a full 58%, explicitly believe that "race relations in the United States are generally bad."Race relations being bad isn't the same thing as racism.
No.10386
>>10385>Do you have any specific examples of American institutions being racist?For a start, see:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/04/is-the-united-states-a-racist-country/>Race relations being bad isn't the same thing as racism.They're not technically the same literal thing, but pretending that they're not very closely related is beyond intellectually dishonest.
And it still goes to the larger point: the claim by conservatives that only the 'far left' and 'woke' feel concerned about U.S. racial issues is a pretty obvious falsehood.
No.10387
File: 1638243888726.png (275.29 KB, 828x575, 36:25, 1635291558029.png) ImgOps Google
>>10386>For a start, see: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2021/05/04/is-the-united-states-a-racist-country/Let me take a look at that...
>They're not technically the same literal thing, but pretending that they're not very closely related is beyond intellectually dishonest.I think that a survey asking "Is America a racist country" will have fewer than 50% responding affirmatively.
>And it still goes to the larger point: the claim by conservatives that only the 'far left' and 'woke' feel concerned about U.S. racial issues is a pretty obvious falsehood.I haven't heard of that claim. Personally, I would disagree with it.
No.10388
>>10387These are some intensely annoying word games here, to be honest.
At some point, I wish conservatives would just accept the reality that normal people care about ethnicity, race, religion, et cetera in the sense of wanting prejudice ended. And understand that being worried about bigotry, fighting to stop it, isn't an evil, nefarious plot by dangerous left-wing individuals. It's just people being people. Opposing hatred. Because normal people don't like it.
My God, imagine if conservatives treated being against brain cancer, car accidents, HIV, or some other large-scale social problem the same way. "You're so obsessive about cancer. The fact that a loved one of yours has died of cancer makes you too unobjectively minded. Stop pushing your agenda. Stop making peoples' deaths into statements. It's not a big deal."
No.10389
File: 1638246579899.png (334.04 KB, 871x907, 871:907, 1635292210980.png) ImgOps Google
>>10386From the linked article:
>Scott recounting the nearly 20 times he has been pulled over by policeOK, I guess the police qualify as an institution, and I remember a study found (with statistical signficance) that blacks are discriminated against in non-lethal encounters with the police.
I still don't like the phrasing "America is a racist country". I think it connotes a much worse condition than actually exists in America. If you say "Black people still experience racism in America" or "America still has elements of racism in it", I'd agree with you.
>>10388>These are some intensely annoying word games here, to be honest.I disagree; I think there are important nuances in meaning there.
>At some point, I wish conservatives would just accept the reality that normal people care about ethnicity, race, religion, et cetera in the sense of wanting prejudice ended.I can't speak for most conservatives (I'm more libertarian than conservative), but I also want prejudice ended.
>And understand that being worried about bigotry, fighting to stop it, isn't an evil, nefarious plot by dangerous left-wing individuals.While there are many well-meaning people who want to stop bigotry, there are also extremists who say crazy things like "punctuality is white supremacy" and do evil things like pressure MIT adminstrators to cancel Prof. Dorian Abbot's lecture.
No.10390
>>10389It's still amazing to me that in America it's considered worse to be anti-prejudice than pro-prejudice because being anti-prejudice is an "antifa", "far left", "SJW", and "woke" thing that gets you demonized.
That, to me, is the clearest evidence of all that America is a bigoted country. Because opposition to the current state of national conventions, culture, and laws gets somebody turned into some kind of brutal monster to be slain. It's so telling.
No.10392
>>10391>libertarians and conservatives are opposed to racismThis statement is sort of like saying "the Cuban leadership never let itself get taken advantage of by foreign powers" or "the Israeli state has never done anything to the Palestinians that they didn't deserve" or "the Soviet Union was always in favor of political freedom for its citizens". Or, to take politics out of it, "Americans from the U.S. south wear cowboy boots and eat barbecue in their pickup trucks while listening to country music". And "Taylor Swift fans are emotionally needy homosexuals." Well, yes, in part. Depending. In certain contexts. For some individuals.
From my point of view, I see quite literally that anyone of any background who speaks negatively against racial prejudice (or any other form of prejudice from anti-Semitism to homophobia to transphobia and more) publicly gets quickly subjected to passionate, seething hatred from the political right-wing. It's like clockwork. Few exceptions.
And, in terms of both policy and rhetoric, the political right-wing quite openly preaches a lot of horrifically bigoted nonsense. One core belief that sticks in my mind is that the U.S. is supposedly subject to an evil conspiracy to destroy the white Christian race through the immigration of non-Christian non-whites. Sometimes that it's explicitly a Jewish and LGBT people based plot is detailed, sometimes not. This isn't a fringe view held by only neo-Nazis. It's proclaimed by Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, and more. It's something that you're essentially required to think to be on the right-wing now. And that's literally just one example.
No.10393
>>10375The "pro-prejudice" arguments ought be dismissed. The refusal to engage with such nonsensical defenses ought be more than enough.
We should have colorblind justice, after all. Equal treatment under the law. What race you are ought have no bearing one way or the other.
>then there would be every reason to talk about sexism.Why?
It seems more reasonable to say "That's not a defense", and move on.
If the rapist says "I did it because she was dressed this way", then the court ought simply say "That's not an excuse, guilty".
No need to start some nonsense about a greater 'sexism' elsewhere. The case ought be handled without such extra external politicking.
>Being supportive of either means rejecting prejudice since the very definition of the term means refusing to take account context and facts when judging peopleI agree, but that doesn't seem to be what you're doing, as far as I see.
You're making an external issue of outside politics part of the court's decisions.
I don't think that's right.
Courts have to look at the individual on the individual basis. If some guy claims bigotry as a defense, the court ought dismiss it. It isn't the court's place to grandstand on some greater societal issue. That's the realm of politics, not justice.
No.10394
File: 1638253320361.png (864.53 KB, 1080x1920, 9:16, Screenshot_20211130-011210.png) ImgOps Google
>>10392>I see quite literally that anyone of any background who speaks negatively against racial prejudice (or any other form of prejudice from anti-Semitism to homophobia to transphobia and more) publicly gets quickly subjected to passionate, seething hatred from the political right-wing. It's like clockwork. Few exceptions.I think a significant confounding variable is the political affiliation of the speaker. As a counterpoint, even the far-right site The_Donald (now patriots.win) has a rule against racism.
No.10395
>>10378> judicial proceedings should focus on ascertaining whether the accused individuals violated the law.Yes, pretty much this.
Politics and external societal issues are not a relevant matter to determining someone's guilt.
What should be considered is the objective facts that the individual themself is responsible for.
>>10379>For example, a random salesman on needed prescription medications that unfortunately make him drowsy who accidentally runs over a child that jumped into the road suddenly should get a far lighter treatment, ethically, than a terrorist who deliberately ran their car into a group of pedestrians and struck a child.Yes, because one's an accident, one's murder...
The politics shouldn't matter.
>It would be outrageous if the idiot gets no punishment whatsoever based on the argument that the shot missed, therefore the shopper wasn't actually physically harmed and thus has no case. Legal processes need to look at more than just what exactly happened in physical terms. Context matters. Intent matters.Attempted murder is still attempted murder.
Again; Politics doesn't come in to it.
I don't get why you'd use examples where politics is irrelevant, and then insist that politics be relevant to them.
What shirt set off the shooter is irrelevant. What's relevant is that he fired a shot unprovoked at someone, attempting to murder them.
It doesn't matter if he's on the 'red' team, or the 'blue' team. Attempted murder is attempted murder.
No.10396
>>10386>And it still goes to the larger point: the claim by conservatives that only the 'far left' and 'woke' feel concerned about U.S. racial issues is a pretty obvious falsehood.Nobody on the right says that.
Most everyone with a brain is concerned over racial issues, and likewise, feels race relations are bad at the moment.
There's a difference between saying "america isn't a racist country" and saying "race relations are bad".
With things like BLM, diversity quotas, critical race theory, and the various policies created along these ideological lines, I certainly am worried about racial issues in the United States.
I am not 'far left' or 'woke'.
>>10388>At some point, I wish conservatives would just accept the reality that normal people care about ethnicity, race, religion, et cetera in the sense of wanting prejudice endedThe vast majority do.
Tribalistic ideology instructs you otherwise, but that's a blindness on your part, not a reflection of reality.
> And understand that being worried about bigotry, fighting to stop it, isn't an evil, nefarious plot by dangerous left-wing individuals. Sure. Being worried about something isn't evil. Fighting it isn't inherently evil.
Specific actions taken might be evil.
For example, there's pretty major moral wrong in using prejudicial actions for your 'fight', on innocent people who've not done anything to you.
There's moral wrong with destroying the property, livelihoods, and in some cases outright killing innocent people, in your 'fight'.
There's a difference between actions and the motives.
Your motives might be pure. But pure motives have still lead to great harm, throughout history. Nothing is worse than the ends, when it comes to excusing the means.
No.10397
>>10390>It's still amazing to me that in America it's considered worse to be anti-prejudice than pro-prejudice because being anti-prejudice is an "antifa", "far left", "SJW", and "woke" thing that gets you demonized.Because you are a tribalist.
You do not care about the moral wrongs committed by a group, the actions done.
You are only concerned with what 'side' they're on.
It's okay to you for Antifa, SJWs, the far left, and woke folk, to do anything, in the name of the cause.
Anyone who hates them must hate the cause. Anyone who condemns them must condemn the cause.
It's not even about being "anit prejudice". The far left, SJWs, and the sort are often extremely prejudiced.
It's entirely about the ideology. The colors you ascribe to people.
You might find America's a far less horrifying place to you, if you started engaging with facts and actions, instead of tribalistic colors.
No.10398
>>10393>>10395In a bigoted country such as America in which big institutions such as the justice system and law enforcement as well as large sections of the regular populace (obviously not everybody) are bigoted, believing in color-blind justice in which the objective rule of law is all that matters
is a political statement, and it's an
inherently anti-prejudice statement.If you treat people fairly based on the context of their behavior without bringing outside things into it, then
you're being political in a way that's
anti-prejudice.I've no idea how to get this through your head, or the heads of any other conservatives, though.
No.10399
>>10398That's
YOUR belief of America.
It's certainly not mine.
No.10400
>>10394They can set up such a rule, but what does it matter when Donald Trump is a racist himself who says and does racist things, especially in terms of racist political policy actions such as the example I mentioned?
>>10396I wish beyond words that you weren't such a brainless partisan ideologue who can't see reality outside of your bubble. God. What can one say?
In the real world, fighting bigotry isn't a sign that you're a bad person. That just how things are. Most people are anti-bigotry.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) No.10401
>>10397Jesus fucking Christ,
every single word that you just posted applies to me and not you!You're a tribalist. You don't care about anything other than that your 'side' gets what it supposedly deserves. All you believe in is 'the cause' and everything can burn in hell for all you care, including not just me but any other poor soul who gets in the way of your supposed right-wing utopia.
Can you give it a rest? For once? Maybe?
The Aubrey case is a victory for justice. It's that because an innocent soul slain by despicable criminals will at least be able to know in the afterlife that some accountability happened: those criminals will have the book thrown at them. As it should be.
This is a victory for
humanity.
No.10402
>>10400I already agreed, fighting bigotry doesn't make you a bad person.
It's HOW you fight it.
Maybe everyone wouldn't seem like a brainless partisan ideologue who can't see outside their bubble if you actually took the time to
READ what they say to you.
In the real world, yes, most people are anti-bigotry. Which is why many of them oppose the far left, and what they're trying to do throughout the country. Which is why many a parent is upset at what the public schools they pay for are forcing on their children. Which is why many a worker is opposed to racial hiring practices. Which is why many a student finds themselves at odds with inequal campus speech policies.
You call me a 'partisan ideologue' while you are incapable of even understanding my position.
That's one of the biggest tell-tale signs of a partisan I've ever seen.
No.10403
>>10401Really? is all you have a "NO U"?
Are you a 12 year old toddler who somehow got access to a computer?
Do you lack the intellectual capacity to actually give a basic argument?
I don't give a damn about "the cause", and I never have.
You, plainly put, are a liar.
You've placed to me a position that I do not hold, out of your own ideological insanity.
I don't give a flying fuck what a lying piece of shit asshole like yourself assumes I believe.
It has no bearing in reality.
Fuck off.
No.10404
>>10402>>10403Okay, serious question: are you mentally ill?
I'm not joking.
There genuinely seems to be no reason to engage with you at any level. I feel as if a time machine dropped off a caveman who's trying to grunt about how cannibalism and sacrifice to sacred trees is the best political position ever. God help us.
Can you maybe scroll up and realize that outside of you and your brainless horseshit ranting there was an actual, legitimate discussion going on? Before you came in? You know?
No.10405
>>10404>claim someone believs something they clearly don't>get called out on it>"R U MENTLY IL?"No, but you clearly are.
Get help before you hurt someone, you deranged psychopath
No.10406
>>10405I can say with near absolute certainty that you're probably going to hurt or even kill someone, given your behavior in this thread and past threads.
I'd ask you to seek help, but you're clearly not going to.
Maybe you could at least go away and let everybody else have the polite intellectual discussion that you're not able to have?
No.10407
>>10406No argument at all, no defense of what you've done.
Your claims are meaningless to me. Especially considering your own statements prior, of how you'd explicitly murder
me in cold blood based on that factless fear you have, expressed here as well.
>Maybe you could at least go away and let everybody else have the polite intellectual discussion that you're not able to have?Because making shit up about other people is a "polite" and "intellectual" way of responding?
No. When you're actively lying about other people, you cannot claim to be polite.
You actively ignore what I post, and make up shit, because I'm on the wrong team.
You're a shit human being, and it has nothing to do with your race or your politics.
It's entirely to do with your behavior.
No.10408
>>10407Can you please go away and let everybody else have a reasonable discussion about the thread topic?
Feel free to make whatever insane, paranoid rants you want about hurting or killing me as well as somebody like me or some wider group I'm a part in, but can you at least finish and let the regular chatting continue?
No.10409
>>10408I'd say the same to you.
It certainly wasn't my goal to get into a pissing match with a lying piece of shit like yourself.
I just wanted to refute some claims made by the OP that I didn't feel were accurate, or were otherwise an issue.
The political posturing I took issue with. You started the thread with an assumption of your ideological enemies I did not believe was accurate.
Hell, you realize most the people on that jury, being in the south and all, were probably conservatives, right?
Georgia's not a blue state. And yet you ascribe some major demonization to the entirety of a side of politics, because of your own obsessive hatred.
As someone who leans that way, who has family on that side, who knows friends and colleagues who vote that way, I'm certainly going to call that out.
If that offends you, maybe stop being an asshole who makes up shit about people and demonizes a whole section of the population.
No.10410
>>10409You've already vented quite a lot of deeply passionate hatred.
Is that enough?
Can you go away now?
No.10411
>>10381>>10382Okay, so here's how things have been more than a bit complicated and confusing: in state terms, the case against the people who killed the jogger was a straight-forwards murder investigation that didn't have "hate crime" related elements to it put in explicitly. However, the federal government is simultaneously undertaking an explicit "hate crime" case that's also important, which will naturally involve bringing up evidence and hashing through that r.e. race.
Official link:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-georgia-men-charged-federal-hate-crimes-and-attempted-kidnapping-connection-deathYou're certainly correct that what exactly is being evaluated in the court system depends on the charge(s).
No.10413
>>10410And you haven't?
What else possesses you to make up such insane nonsense about me, trying to craft this narrative of me as a hateful bigot?
Honestly, I don't know which would be worse. Doing it out of the hatred in your own heart, or just doing it as a tactic against those who disagree with you.
>>10411Personally, I'm of the stance there shouldn't be a 'hate crime' standard, as murder is murder. But I also feel the same for terrorism, so I grant I might be a bit naive with the way such matters are dealt with.
This aside, I wonder if it'd stick in the case. If memory serves, they were essentially called in, after the local police forwarded their number for issue. Which, incidentally, probably will get that police department in no trouble, thanks to the bothersome way such things are handled.
Why they lost the self defense claim, as I understand it, is essentially that they provoked it by confronting the 'victim' as it were, armed and aggressively.
I suppose they'd need ask the question of whether or not that aggressive confrontation was because of the call, or his race, maybe?
Don't quite know if that's enough for the standard. But it'd be interesting to see how it plays out.
Suppose in a way it's a moot point anyhow. But still.
No.10414
>>10413Can you please just fuck off?
Seriously?
Yes, I'm aware that you're a hateful, violent person who wants to do hateful, violent things to me and those like me.
That doesn't matter.
This is a thread about an actual topic.
Please leave us alone.
No.10415
>>10414Nope. Unlike you, I don't want to do any violence to anyone.
I'd defend myself, sure, but unlike you I wouldn't shoot anyone unprovoked because they 'might' do something one day based on some fantasy I made up in my head.
Anyway, I am engaging with the thread's topic, in that 2nd half of my post, so the only one going off topic here is you pal.
If you're wanting private conversation, go to Discord. This is an open board, and you'll have to deal with that unfortunately.
People are allowed to contradict you, to argue against you, and to refute your fearmongering narrative about conservatives.
No.10416
>>10415Exactly what the fuck is wrong with you?
Anyways, alright, if you're going to keep trolling, there's probably nothing left but to lock the thread through moderator action or something like that.
No.10417
>>10416Nothing. I'm relaxing here, eating some chips, watching some videos.
I just happen to disagree with you, that's all.
Sorry you're so offended by that.
No.10418
>>10417I wish at some point you'd learn that you're not an infallible God and everybody who dares to disagree with you isn't Hitler or equal.
At any rate, alright, you've apparently won.
Can moderators kill this thread?
No.10420
>>10418I don't claim to be an infallible god.
This is another position you've forced on me.
Another lie you've created to attack me for being of the wrong tribe.
