Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

I second this. 

This is awful. So many people there were children, I just wonder who would this and why? I mean, I'm not a fan of Ariana Grande, but seriously?!

Also, the death toll already rose from last night (My time). It was 19 at the time of the explosion, with like 60 injured.

I think he was making the joke of "I don't like Ariana Grande either, but that was a hell of a thing to do to one of her concerts."

Yeah, End, that's what I meant. Also, Mizal, it's not my first time seeing the news, and I also watch the Russian news, which is way worse than this. I said that because I don't see why bombing an Ariana Grande concert would matter to ISIS.

In truth, I feel like Sent, that this has happened so much, it doesn't even feel THAT important or terribly sad.

Ah, OK.

This is one of my favorite posts. As if the terrorist was entirely motivated by a hatred of Ariana Grande's music.

It sucks that this happened. I can only hope that this doesn't make the UK more of a knife-fearing Big Brother dystopia than it already is. I mean, that seems to be going fine for them, and they seem to be in great shape with nice living as far as countries go. what with the advent of modern technology reducing crime and letting them watch Big Brother back, but when you've got shit like banning specific genres of porn because they might be "Unsafe" and you have fearmongers calling out youtubers across the channel because they warned people about stab-proof vests being shitty, it's kind of a problem. Granted, the fearmongers also call out the government for being a knife-fearing Big Brother Dystopia, so it balances out. Sorry if I'm not sounding grief-ridden enough, it's just that this's happened so many times before, that I'm really just more concerned about concert security. My heart can't be broken for every teenager that gets murdered, even if it's a bunch of teenagers in specifics.

I mean, you could give the terrorists a hard time of it by arming everyone, or you could give the terrorists a hard time by watching everyone shit and being prepared to destroy them. It reminds me of that ancient meme end posted where you had to choose between Libertarians (a Mad Max screenshot,) and Socialists (1984/They Live or something)

Road Warrior and 1984.

(Pick Road Warrior, you get a cool car, a lot of weapons and excuse to walk around in S&M gear)

They Live is about capitalism gone mad. 

I mean, yeah, I read the short story, which is why it didn't feel like the meme made sense. All I know is that there were like red-faced aliens or something standing in a circle, so i figured it was some sort of far-fetched dystopia, like 1984, which makes more sense as a socialist strawmeme.

There's a tabloid that complains about the fact that you can sneak a 3D-printed gun into the tubes by showing one of their "reporters" sneaking a 3D-printed gun into the tubes. "Stab-Proof" vests are a thing in most of Europe, since knife violence is much more of a thing there, and they aren't as bulky as bullet-stoppers so they can be worn under clothes. The Slingshot Channel made a video basically saying "This cheap one isn't Kevlar or anything, it's actually just a vest that holds an aluminum sheet over your guts. Remember that it's stab-resistant, not stab-proof!" and then he proceeded to jam a homemade spike straight through it with his bare German weightlifter hands.

According to the British magazine, he was clearly a terrorist who was teaching people how to break through stab-proof vests and stab the police just like that other recent terrorist attack that nobody covered because it was only one dead guy and there wasn't any explosion to look at. This is despite the fact that they also published articles on how to kill a man in a stab-proof vest by doing what terrorists do- stabbing the dude in the neck and face- for the purpose of fearmongering and making people afraid to butter their toast with anything other than a spoon, and the guy was really eager to point out that fact. They threatened to demonetize all his videos before an appeal and a petition convinced Youtube to put everything back and not get involved.

But anyway, ramble aside, people really do walk around with Stab-Proof vests, and there's a few different grades of them. Police usually wear them when they don't expect to be shot at, which is basically never in America.

The police sometimes do, but I've never heard of a person doing it in my entire life besides them.

A tragedy, this was. If only things like this simply didn't happen.

Since Australia's an island country, we're lucky to avoid most of the heat from terrorists. Even so, we've had a significant influx of terrorism. Dark times...

I don't live in Sydney so I it's quieter where I'm at. Hopefully security holds up at Vivid; it'll probably be best to keep back from the larger parts of the crowd. I don't think anything is going to happen though.

Don't sympathize with kid murderers, Will. That's a fairly easy role to follow in not being a dickhead.

not that i sympathize with murderers or anything, but i can understand the anger and frustration that can lead someone to snapping and killing innocents. i certainly dont feel comfortable in america. but as mizal pointed out, ariana grande fans don't really have anything to do with the us' exploitation of the middle east, so i wouldnt feel sympathy for the guy who did this.

i also do feel sympathy for my countrymen who have had their lives and families destroyed due to western imperialist efforts.

Are you an American citizen?

im going to choose not to answer this.

i assume you're going to talk about my incorrect usage of countrymen, though, right? i don't really care, i just didn't know a better word to use.

What a cowardly response. 

I was questioning as to why you had any particular loyalty to the people over there seeing as you're not from Syria or Iraq, as I don't know when you left, but you're currently enjoying the fruits and benefits of America with a far better life expectancy and lifestyle.

i dont care if its 'cowardly', but, i am a bit cautious and paranoid of people these days asking me such direct questions involving me and america (or really just in general personal information about myself), and i just wanted to know your motivation for asking me such a direct question. now that you have told me your reasoning, i will tell you that i am indeed a us citizen.

you're right, im not from Syria or Iraq (I was born in Pakistan) But to sum it up, i am an internationalist. i care about the plight of all oppressed peoples, be them Rohingya, Zimbabwean, Palestinian, American, or otherwise. I dont care if theyre somalian or ethiopian, becuase I dont care much for borders in the first place. We are all humans at the end of the day, and to worry so much over an imaginary line that this white man made at this latitude versus the line that this white man made at such latitude to me is incredibly petty.... and stupid.

 furthermore, the main victim of both us imperialism and ISIS attacks are Muslims. if you recall, I myself am a Mohammedan. The Ummah, the brotherhood of all Muslims, is stronger than any bondage a country or tribe could bring, hence why i will feel sadness when i hear about my fellow Muslims suffering.

Furthermore, I am aware of my privilege and quite frankly am disgusted by it. however, it is my hope that i can use my privilege to help the plight of all suffering peoples. Che Guevara (the most convenient example I can think of), for instance, used his privilege to become educated as a doctor and aided the revolution in that way, fighting among other things for the right of all Cubans to have free education.

Alright, I don't get what you were paranoid of that has changed.

Alright, so just sympathy for your fellow man, which had a lot less fucked up connotations than your countrymen. That's alright then. 

Well that's a lot of rubbish. Muslim sectarianism is fucking massive with huge amount of bloodshed, so the Ummah doesn't really count for jack shit I'm afraid. It seems when a bunch of people try following the words of a warlord, they make war even against each other.

>Alright, I don't get what you were paranoid of that has changed.

i dont really understand this question. i mean i know youre in patato land but surely you must know that america isnt the best place for colored muslim communists, right?

> Well that's a lot of rubbish. Muslim sectarianism is fucking massive with huge amount of bloodshed

yeah i guess so but its not supposed to be that way. personally i dont really care if a muslim is sunni or shia, so long as they arent Ameddiyan (heretics) or Wahhabists (degeneracy + decadence). maybe power hungry dick bags are going to be killing their fellow brethren in the middle east, but it wont stop me from feeling sorrow for them.

> It seems when a bunch of people try following the words of a warlord, they make war even against each other.

or maybe when saudi capitalists and american capitalists fuck things up for everyone, it creates a society wherein knowledge is only possessed by modern warlords like al-baghdadi who can point to the imperialism of capitalists as empirical evidence that america and all its citizens are the enemy that needs to be destroyed by any means necessary, and the aforementioned education-less citizens, who have no reason to disagree will join their crusade, all while americans themselves fund said warlords, who then go on to proclaim that certain islamic sects are also heretics that must be destroyed. then you have sects fighting one another.

of course this is only the tip of the iceberg of reasons why everything is shitty. imperialism has really created a clusterfuck of the middle east.

What changed in me clarifying why I wanted to know? Why were you unwilling to say so and then suddenly willing, especially over the internet where I know nothing about you? I know you live in the US, so I don't see how being a citizen even mattered in the first place in regards to anti-black, anti-islam or anti-communist shit.

What the hell do you mean supposed to be? In the original texts? Because obviously there's not supposed to be any there, but the point is that your Ummah and the fact you say it creates strong bonds is easily shown to be false.

Yes, the feared degeneracy os the West, where we allow gays to get married and don't murder them, don't allow the beating of our wives, don't allow kid fucking, don't hate women and tolerate religion, what an enemy of yours. Good to know your sympathy for humans extended past religious.

Seeing as the Muslims enslaved and warred before America or Saudi Arabia were things, no.

>Why were you unwilling to say so and then suddenly willing

simply because you told me why you wanted to know in your later post. and that's pretty much all im going to say on that.

> but the point is that your Ummah and the fact you say it creates strong bonds is easily shown to be false.

perhaps not to an outsider, but to me, a person who actually engages in my local Islamic community, and once lived in a country with one of the largest amount of Muslim population compared to any other, i will have to disagree with you.  

furthermore im pretty sure not everyone in the middle east will murder you automatically if you say the wrong thing when asked "are you sunni or shia?"

of course there is a high level of violence and animosity between sects today. but I'm pretty sure Muhammad never advocated for such.

>Yes, the feared degeneracy os the West, where we allow gays to get married and don't murder them, don't allow the beating of our wives, don't allow kid fucking, don't hate women and tolerate religion, what an enemy of yours. Good to know your sympathy for humans extended past religious.

I have no idea what point you're making, but because it's irrelevant, whatever.

No, it's false because of a shit ton of sectarianism. Not everyone is violent about it,, but there's enough violence to show that there's no special sense of community between Muslims. 

Misread what you said, apologies.

No, not as violent to my knowledge, but they still fought, so Imperialism isn't the cause of sectarianism in Islam. It might contribute, but it's been happening for far, far longer.

im not sure why you're so opposed to the idea that groups of muslims may cooperate and like each other, but okay?

so according to you imperialism isn't the cause of the problems in the middle east including sectarianism, the cause is actually Muhammad?

Yes, they can be bonded, but there's no "special bond". You said the bond between Muslims is stronger than any other bond between a group, which is clearly wrong due to the amount of violence between thenm. Sure

I said Sectarianism has existed since just after Muhammad's time. There's many reasons for the problems today, one of which is Imperialism.

ok i can agree with that.

maybe not so much your first point, theoretically we're supposed to be cooperating.

Theoretically, I'm pretty sure that's the basis for every community.

Welp, then comes the question of how we actually resolve the issue. It's unlikely there'll be a compromise between ISIS and the governments, cultures and religions they seek to destroy. There hasn't been any excoriation of ISIS's terrorism from Muslim leaders and the Muslim community won't speak up (maybe due to the divisions existing within them such as the Sunnis and Shias). For example, after the Lindt Siege in Sydney, the Grand Mufti of Australia didn't say a word on the matter. Therefore, alienation of Muslims from Western communities becomes more commonplace - which leads to hostilities etc. etc. and the problem cycles around and is perpetuated. Perhaps this cycle would stop if A. Western societies accommodate for Muslims and(or) B. Muslims are assimilated into Western society and(or) C. a mutual agreement is made between these two incredibly different cultures. Then, ISIS would probably lose their influence over idiotic teenagers waiting to turn into sleeper agents. I don't see this happening, however, since the Western culture is almost a dichotomy to the Muslim culture - and either side becoming willing to compromise their beliefs is VERY unlikely. So what's the alternative? Get rid of ISIS through military means? Okay.

Hate to quote V for Vendetta here, but "Ideas, Mr Creedy, are bulletproof." The only cases where armed conflicts (such as cartel violence in South America) have been resolved have been through cases where both sides agreed to stop fighting (usually after decades of violence and major losses on every side). The way violence works, reacting to violence with violence encourages more violence.

You can never militarily 'destroy' ISIS, because it is a belief, not a country. Case in point, the Americans 'took control of' both Afghanistan and Iraq militarily, which did nothing to stop organized anti-state actors. Tragically, it's often pointed out that attacking Iraq galvanized a lot of factions and in fact led to the creation of Al-Qaeda and its more radical offshoot, ISIS, to counter the outright visible presence of foreign armies on sovereign soil.

The kicker? Most of those who are at the receiving end of drone strikes and other 'civilized' warfare have only begun down the path of violence, for it is all they'll have seen. The consequences of trying to 'fight terror with terror' are well known historically (Equip Mujhadeen in Afghanistan vs Soviets, Mujhadeen remnants morph into Al-Qaeda vs the US), and yet it's what's being proposed in Syria. The outcomes of the 2010s will start to show in the 2020s, and more likely in the 2030s, when an age of youth who grew up in fear of drone strikes from blue skies starts influencing policy.

If ISIS is purely an idea, and if it is this idea that prompts people to bomb concerts and so forth, that would mean removing their influence over Iraq and Syria would be all for naught. Yet, wouldn't fighting them off their 'territory' weaken their hold on places such as Mosul? After Bin Laden was killed and al Qaeda's network and logistic trails were mostly destroyed, there was a reduction in terrorism until around 2011/12 (causation or mere correlation? I don't know). Admittedly, this period of time was short-lived. Shouldn't removing the (symbolic) figurehead of ISIS, however, and destroying their networks etc., discourage and dissipate overseas support? Seeing that this is our only tangible solution to the problem I think we need to go ahead with it, lest ISIS becomes stronger in the Middle East. Solving the problems in places such as Iraq and Syria, and diminishing support for ISIS, will require satisfying the belligerent people in those regions - which comes about through education, peace and so forth. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen anytime soon. At this point, we can either let it happen or fight against it. I blame 'merica.

Fair enough. I think it can be agreed that solving this problem is going to take a really long time (if someone ever makes a start on it).

I'll give it a spin then.

Why me in particular?

No, this seems like a bunch of biased bullshit trying to act like Syria was some Western-friendly place instead of the shithole it was, making no mention of the security risks we have by taking in these refugees or making mention of just how opposed to our culture theirs is.

Aren't you in favour of letting in more refugees?

Why do you think that?

Because I can count on one hand the number of  issues that we agree on. Also, I thought you leaned heavily left. This is a generalization, but I usually assume leftists support letting in refugees. At least to some degree.

I really don't like Muslims.

Really? Me too!

When did you start thinking this? I'm intrigued as to why you'd think Steve would become so progressive different all of a sudden?

It's not exactly a brainwashing thing. Terrorist organizations are basically like the Mafia, but with a more sharply spiritual-political bent. You pay them off, and they'll protect and support your village/home/whatever. And by Protect, I mean that in the gangster fashion, which means they won't allow other gangs to operate in the area while allowing you to buy whatever they want to sell you and "stimulate the local economy". If you don't pay them off, or utterly revere everyone in the gang, you're an infidel and you get a machete in your ass.

In third-world areas and cities ravaged by street warfare, it's a pretty tempting offer to join up and be in some form of power or control even if you don't plan on killing yourself. I mean, seeing as how they, like gangsters, portray themselves as playing it cool and being badass in the face of violence, oppression, and crushing poverty, the Death Cult Mafia can be a frighteningly believable offer for control and stability in a place where virtually none of that stuff exists for the rural poor and the recently bombed. And, because the rural middle east and the war-torn cities can be a bit of a disconnected wasteland, the power of an echo chamber than can kill you for disobeying can be almost irresistible.

It's also got some Catch-22 joining logic going for it. If you believe in Islam, and have been hoping that there's good in all the chaos and that God Will Provide for so long, and you're clinging to your faith because that's the only thing in the world that seems truly good in the unstable crapsack you've been living in, you're likely to jump on any holy boat that seems credible and spiritual enough. And what better way to gain a better life than ushering yourself out of the world of trials and tribulations and onto 72 Virginia drive? If you've been truly broken by the crapsack and decide that the world is too shit for God to exist, and you don't actually believe in any of the shit they're teaching but you pretend to so you can get by, what better way to stick it to the pointlessness of existence than putting on a faux-religious front and blowing up in parts of the world that've screwed you over?

At least, that's probably how it is with foreign terrorists. Domestic Islamic terrorists tend to be mostly delusional cunts, and I don't have any idea how they manage to reach them other than the notion that they too were about to kill themselves anyway.

Many of these dudes are born in the first world countries they attack and live fairly alright lives.

It's messed up. Apparently, they suspect that the person who planted the bomb very recently entered to country, and that it was more on a whim than a planned attack (I'm looking at you ISIS. Nobody believes you're omnipresent so just fuck off). The World seems to be progressing into a darker place for sure, you can feel the tension rising. I feel like a big part of that is because of the echo chambers people get trapped in on social media, which loop fear mongering articles and views that tend to match the person's own beliefs instead of opening them up to all perspectives. Who knows though, that would only be one reason among many, if at all. Let's just hope it gets better soon!

Yes, on a whim. You know, you get the materials to build a bomb, you build the bomb and you blow up the bomb without planning.

Well, as in choosing the site on a whim. 

Didn't really care, nor did I have any sympathy for them. This is the result of letting undesirables into your borders. Hopefully this serves as an example to the people who want these same undesirables to come here to America, but I won't hold my breath.

just want to point out the irony of you advocating for increasing border strength while at the same time authoring a story called "no gods, no masters", lol.

To be fair, the fact that it's his title doesn't show that he'd support the sentiment n anyway. It could be some Authoritarian wet dream for all we know about how lack of government control leads to Mad Max.

Edit: Can't confirm, he's not written anything for it.

Most of my writing is done on Twine and transfered over.

Well then was I right?

Yes to a degree. "No Gods, No Masters" takes place in the Western U.S. that rejected the literal corporate takeover in the East. There are some areas that are outright chaotic amd some that are orderly. Order is kept by the Regulators, which is a volunteer force. I'd draw a parallel to the Wild West, where there technically was no government controlling the area.

So libertarian then.

Libertarian's anti-Regulation.

So there's just a gang shutting down any corporations that get to big?

Pretty much this. Seeing the result of lifting regulations in the East has led the West to completely distrust big business. And yeah, they are more or less a gang fighting against the spread of big corps.

Are you implying that an anarchist society wouldn't want to protect its borders or whatever they'd call home?

Is your game pro-Anarchy?

It depends on how you look at it. I see it more as a struggle of the corporations vs the common man.

So your thingy is about seizing the means of production, and then getting rid of the state?

i have never met an anarchist who was pro-borders. (ancaps don't count.)

No, but they do believe in protecting their homes and that they don't need a government to do that. There's nothing stopping an anarchist society from letting people inside. Anarchy is just the lack of government, not some all inclusive utopia.

Yeah, but in an Anarchist society there's no borders to protect, other than the one directly around your personal shit.

True, but what about when you have a bunch of people band together into a small town (or something similar)? They might not some people getting in.

You could do that. But then governments just start to form, as what always happens. Some dude's not going to want to contribute to the safety of the town because others will do it anyway, and people are going to get pissed, and if you want to force him to contribute or exile him you'll need a hierarchy, and then that's just the start.

Well, that's what the Regulators are for. They are technically the only form of "government" in the West. They serve as the order keepers in the West and help solve any disputes that people have (assuming that said dispute couldn't solve itself). But being the order keepers and fighting against the East is all they are supposed to do. They fill the minor role of government so no one else has to.

What's the difference between them and a government, exactly?

Both the East and West are flawed version of what they're ideally supposed to be. This was done intentionally.

Well that didn't answer or even address my question.

They don't make laws; the people do and they enforce them as the people want them to. They don't really do anything to control people's lives aside from settling disputes that people can't handle themselves. If you were to consider them a government, they are very hands off.

How the hell do the people make laws without a government? Also, if the people make laws, they Regulators will control people's lives. This is a stupid idea that makes no sense.

Again, the best parallel I can draw is with the Wild West. It's similar to that, except the Regulators also see the East as an enemy.

They had a government in the Wild West. I feel you have a warped view of history.

No, Steve, but the idea is taken from that. The Regulators are similar to the Sheriffs in this case. That's the idea.

Ah fuck it.

In what case? The Regulators aren't the arm of a powerful government, and Sheriffs sure as shit didn't shut down businesses, so they're not similar in that case, they just seem to be a hybrid of a lynch mob and anarchist terrorists.

Yeah, I admit that I didn't understand how the Wild West was as far as the government was concerned. That being said, it's where I got the idea for the Regulators. I don't know how to explain it, you'll just have to come to your own conclusion about them assuming I ever finish the story.

Ah. Okay, well I saw that incorrectly. What I'm getting at is that the government didn't have a big presence there. At least it didn't seem like it.

Why the fuck are you replying to me, bitch?!

Living in a country that sees cross-border incited violence in the northernmost province (Jammu and Kashmir), Naxal guerrilla warfare in the middle (with police death tolls in the double or triple digits per attack), has seen terrorist attacks in our financial capital, and other mischief regularly on the border, I hate to say it, but I'm desensitized to this.

The way the world is, it's easier than ever before to become an insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter/whatever the news comes up with next/rebel than at any point in history AND at the same time, due to technology, individuals (e.g. hackers) now have more power than some nations, in their ability to inflict harm on others. Cause-motivated (religion/political/ancestral) violence, much like wars, is a fact of human life. As much as I hate saying it, terrorism and attacks like this are probably a fact of life, and always will be, and with anything individual events will only get worse. If anything, for perspective, I fall back to Stalin's quote - the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic.

In a world with a population like ours, people will have quarrels. Some will choose to resolve them violently, and people will die. It's hideous, it's unfair, it's not a solution to anything, but it will happen.

//Tangent// Furthermore, the way human minds are wired, we see abnormal threats (like shark attacks) as far more vicious and frightening than they really are, and we will over react. Cows and hippos kill more people every year than sharks, but we for some reason think the latter two as kind and cute animals. We don't handle facts very well, and it leads to situations like the present issue with shark populations, which are under severe pressure. We just don't mind killing sharks, and they have no say about the matter. We do things out of instinct that do not make sense to a probabilistic comprehensive mind. Moving on from the shark example, we as humans over-react. We enact 'tough laws,' and try to feel safe. Fun fact, after the Charlie Hebdo attack, the French, traditional guardians of personal freedoms rushed through a couple hundred new laws that gave the police sweeping powers, which would never have passed under any other circumstance. The laws' implementation is a knee-jerk reaction, their consequences will last for lifetimes. Such is the problem, and insidious effectiveness of such attacks, that they cause us to do things we would not otherwise. //End Tangent//

Everything I've said does not in any way lessen the pain of the loss that is felt. However, I do not see anything more 'noble' in the deaths of the concert viewers compared to victims of a school shooting, or to the victims of a car bombing in Iraq. Senseless death is by its nature senseless. The challenge with thinking about attacks of this nature, is that your response to them is a terrible catch-22. To acknowledge them, and the wounds they inflict, is to support a cycle of fear and hatred. All said and done, the attacks are far more psychological than material (yes, obviously not to the victims themselves, but I hope I've covered the point of perspective already). Yet to ignore them is also not right.

The only real solution that I can see is to A) Keep calm and carry on, and B) Help others, I mean reach out to others. This particular instance was of urban violence, and probably by a single individual. This is my hunch, but an increasingly digital world has made us more distant than ever before. A paradox where everyone is always one text message away, yet we have no idea who our neighbors are, much less their joys and sorrows. It's that alienation, I suspect, that fuels a large amount of these incidents.

The ones who were lost in this senseless violence have passed on, it's up to the ones who live to make out meaning of this incident, and the many more like it that will happen over our lifetimes.

That seems depressingly true. It seems that people aren't even willing to debate anymore about their views anymore. It's just both sides shouting to see who's got the loudest voice because both think they're right, based on post-truth articles and other people spawning the same cookie-cutter opinions without thinking much.

"We make fun of COG a lot here but the way they handle 'discussion' really is a depressing example of a larger trend. "

CLOSED MAY 24

Okay, I'm locking this topic.

This thread seems to have degenerated into name calling and an excuse to throw around racist statements.

Edit: Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to Mizal, I think I replied to Endmaster! 

I completely disagree with you on everything you just said and I'm right be because I'm always right and It's all a global conspiracy obviously and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.

All jokes aside, the echo chamber is so true. What's COG by the way? Yeah, and something that can be seen pretty much everywhere is people who literally can't admit they're wrong. Even if they're refuted with good arguments, they tend to just stubbornly shout their point or resort to ad hom. Like come on, there's nothing wrong with being incorrect about something and realising it and change your opinion. That's the beauty of debate.

(^ Oh god... I can feel years of repressed internet rage swelling up. It's.. Too powerful...)

COG stands for Choice of Games. They publish choose your own adventure storygames for Steam etc. At least, that's what I believe mizal is referring to. 

Ah I see, yeah the whole SJW thing ties in the echo chamber effect, which I think is probably a big reason for both the rising in the extreme left and the extreme right. I agree that setting limiting restrictions on what people can have their characters say and even think is a bit radical, not to mention similar to many concepts in 1984, but I suppose that's a different topic of debate for a different thread.

Yeah, you're right. Straight up radical then!

If only SJWs were as totally gnarly... Dude.

Instead of thinking about the political spectrum as a straight line, with communism on the left and fascism on the right, think about it as a circle. Both extremes end up becoming extremely similar to each other in practice, and both directly oppose the 'centre' of the spectrum (that is, the educated people that can see the faults and strengths of both 'sides'). For example, Pol Pot burnt books, destroyed schools, killed teachers and anyone that wore glasses during the Cambodian Genocide of 1975 and 1979. He fought to 'nationalise' Cambodia under the banner of his party: Khmer Rouge, which is as far left as you can go. Hitler burnt books. Stalin burnt books. Mao burnt books. Extremism is a meme that needs to die.

Yeah seems to check out.

More like this

but that gave me a giggle.

Another common misconception about Communism has occured here.

Stalin's version of "communism" was faulty and broken, not at all like true communism. True communism is an ideal utopia environment, and is ideal. Of course, it's unrealistic to think that humans can achieve this, but don't go around dissing Communism because of Stalin's influence on it. It's not really extreme unless you make it extreme!

What I'm trying to say is: whenever people have tried to adopt and enforce either extremes into a system of government, bad things happen to everyone and the end result turns out to be quite similar - despite both ideas being on the opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not a diss on communism, but a 'diss' on everyone that has tried to put it into practice. Soz if that wasn't clear.

Besides that, I wonder if the concert was any good.

Didn't know Roger Moore died.

Fortunately the UK still has 5 other James Bonds to send after ISIS.

Apparently the New York Times published leaked forensic pictures during the investigation. Now Britain is pissed at America; tensions between the two have worsened. Apparently Theresa May is gonna confront Trump on the issue during the Nato summit. I just heard this on the radio and found these articles from The Guardian and the ABC (don't worry they're reliable):

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/us-officials-leak-more-manchester-details-hours-after-uk-rebuke

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/theresa-may-to-tackle-donald-trump-over-manchester-bombing-evidence

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-25/manchester-attack-officials-say-us-leaks-damage-trust/8557010

To sum it up:

The paper said the pictures — published just hours after British Home Secretary Amber Rudd condemned leaks to the media by US officials — showed the bomb was a highly-powerful device full of shrapnel including nuts and screws. 

A spokesman for the National Police Chiefs council said the publication of the images could undermine their investigation.

"We greatly value the important relationships we have with our trusted intelligence, law enforcement and security partners around the world," the spokesman said.

"These relationships enable us to collaborate and share privileged and sensitive information that allows us to defeat terrorism and protect the public at home and abroad.

"When that trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses and their families." - ABC

Here's the article in question:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/24/world/europe/manchester-arena-bomb-materials-photos.html

Given how much Trump isn’t fond of the New York Times and is one of many outlets he goes on to calls fake news, he’ll probably throw them under the bus, pointing out how they lack integrity and how he was right about them all along.

In spite of the fact that there are almost always plenty of good, self-conscious immigrants outnumbering the idiots that do come, I've always wondered why extremely violent dissent hasn't been absolutely crushed in European nations compared to what the US does in similar riots (LA, Ferguson, etc.).

Not generalizing Muslims in general, but at the same time I'm still wondering why at least some these people aren't in prisons, dead, or crippled by the police for doing things like this :

Apparently there are 'no go zones' in Paris that are effectively Muslim-only ghettos. They started popping up around when the refugees were coming over in 2015. By 'no go zones', that also means police can't enter the ghettos. In light of this, to see a police car set on fire doesn't seem ridiculous when sharia law is taking over whole neighbourhoods. This is also happening in places such as Sweden and Germany, who also took the brunt of the first wave of refugees. When we talk about "good, self-conscious immigrants", I think we need to remember that these are refugees that don't want to live in France or Germany - they want to live in Iraq or Syria. Immigrants migrate to these places because they do so out of their own volition, therefore they are more accepting of Western culture and more willing to be 'assimilated'. Refugees have fled from their homes because it is too dangerous to live there. Knowing this, it's clear there's going to be a culture clash between those that want to bring the customs from Syria and Iraq to France and Germany. 

These are articles I quickly searched up that elaborates more on the situation:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/french-bar-tells-women-isnt-paris-men/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/742883/Immigration-French-women-protests-take-back-streets-Muslim-majority-areas-France-Paris

Fact checking this one for you, please do it before posting. Whenever I see anything that seems inflammatory, my first response is to check Snopes for a confirmation. In this case, the video of the burning car is from a protest last year, misattributed by a website with an agenda. Claims of this sort are not to be taken lightly, and far more often than not are fabricated.

The description of the incident where the car was burnt (and you can see the people beneath the face mask are Caucasian):

"Strikes by French railway and port workers halved train services and prompted cancellation of ferry links to Britain on Wednesday as labour unions sought to force President Francois Hollande’s government into retreat on labour law reforms. After weeks of protests in which hundreds of their number have been hurt, police held a rally of their own to vent frustration over the stresses of near daily clashes with violent youths on the fringes of the anti-reform movement. As they did so, a crowd chanting “police everywhere, justice nowhere” surrounded a police patrol car, which went up in flames after the police officers inside fled the scene, a few hundred metres from where their colleagues were rallying."

The French don't think so, links below. Also, in that video, the narrative where immigrants destroy French police car and walk over the rights they don't have in their home country for which we should treat them as demons is very different from the narrative that a police car was burnt somewhere else in the past, which was stuck on an inflammatory article for clickbait and xenophobia. Admit it, if you (anyone) didn't know the truth in the latter former, on first glance anyone would believe the former, and that would harm everyone.

France extends draconian anti-terrorism laws

France passes new surveillance law in wake of Charlie Hebdo attack

France Has a Powerful and Controversial New Surveillance Law

Nothing that the NSA hasn't done already, I don't think.  Skeptical for its effectiveness at the current time, though.  Oh come the fuck on man, I practically pulled a microaggression if you want me to be inflammatory like that.

I'm a little late to this.
Ever since the 9/11 embassy incident, I haven't been effected by this at all. Much like a morally good and famous person dying, I'm saddened, but I expected it to happen sooner or later. The only time I'm truly scared is when terrorist attacks and/or shooting happens close to where people I know live at.

I am disgusted that terrorists attack young women, but I am not surprised. They are among the softest targets (with little probability of fighting back). The world has gotten to the point where basically anybody can kill over a dozen people with homemade bombs or a vehicle. Humanity is a naturally violent people, and when violence can help your deity, get you on worldwide news, and give your life "worth"... I just don't see any other outcome. My thoughts and prayers are with the UK and those directly effected by this evil act of murder; however, I believe that the victims need more than that.