He's so godawful, this is what people mean when they say a character like that is a DEI hire. Because he certainly wouldn't have a career unless he filled a niche.
And the show is so painfully obvious that we'll be subjected to him for all ten episodes, and then Ozzy will kill him at the very end to represent his 'lost humanity.' You know it'll happen... this show is so cliche ridden
Oddly enough, I don't actually hate him. Don’t get me wrong, he's clearly a DEI hire, just like most of the Blacks in this show, but in my opinion, he does fit the role. Would I prefer a good young White actor? Absolutely. I’d love nothing more than to go back to normal when White people were the default because movies and shows were made by White people for White people. And honestly, I'm suffering from a serious case of negro fatigue. But as far as DEI hires go, this one isn’t the worst I’ve seen.
shareWhat's your proof of him being a dei hire?
shareMost blacks in TV and movies today are DEI hires. Just compare the number of black actors before mandatory DEI policies were put in place (pre-2014) to what we see now. Watching TV today, you’d think blacks make up over 50% of the population, when in reality they’re only 13%. In some places, there are hardly any at all. Many people’s friend groups are homogeneous — not these diversity rainbow coalitions you see on screen. DEI skews reality and forces black people into roles where they don’t belong. So, most blacks on screen today are there because of DEI. Sure, you can’t pinpoint every instance or prove that any single black actor is a DEI hire, but statistically, most are. If it's someone like Morgan Freeman or Samuel L. Jackson, it’s likely not DEI — and even if it is, no one cares. But if it’s some no-name actor with no reason for the character to be black, then yeah, they’re probably a DEI hire.
share>So, most blacks on screen today are there because of DEI.
"Source: I made it up"
>But if it’s some no-name actor with no reason for the character to be black, then yeah, they’re probably a DEI hire.
In most modern settings, there's no particular reason for a character to be any race. It doesn't directly play into their character. You could easily say "no reason for the character to be asian/hispanic/indian/white" and it would be equally true.
I used reason and logic applied to observable reality. That's my source.
Do you need a source to tell you that the sky is blue?
Your autism is insufferable.
>I used reason and logic applied to observable reality. That's my source.
You pulled your 80% claim from your ass. Your claim that black people are over 50% of the characters we see on screen now is equally unevidenced tripe. If I could be bothered, I'd count the leads and supporting characters in TV I've watched and give you the results.
Yet you keep replying. You keep saying you won't, but you do.
Have you ever wondered if you're a burden to the world? Well wonder no more — you are.
shareSo as usual, you can't answer. You make shit up, get called out on it and cry like a little bitch.
shareThe 80% or 50% numbers were meant as a kind of estimate based on observation not data gathered from thorough analysis. The fact that you can't discern this from the context demonstrates how profoundly autistic you are.
One more thing you fail to grasp is that when I stop responding to you or throw out an insult, it's not because I can't answer your questions — it's because I find you exhausting and repulsive. My options are either to ignore your comments and let you get away with making false or misleading claims about me, or to engage and get sucked into another tedious, pointless conversation. My approach has been to address your point, offer a reply or counter, and then disengage, because that's about all I can tolerate in dealing with an autist like you.
>The 80% or 50% numbers were meant as a kind of estimate based on observation not data gathered from thorough analysis. The fact that you can't discern this from the context demonstrates how profoundly autistic you are.
How on earth can you possibly observe that 80% of black actors are DEI? Are you personally present at a lot of casting sessions in TV shows?
And as for the 50%? Have you tallied the characters in the shows you watch?
>One more thing you fail to grasp is that when I stop responding to you or throw out an insult, it's not because I can't answer your questions — it's because I find you exhausting and repulsive.
I don't believe you.
>My options are either to ignore your comments and let you get away with making false or misleading claims about me, or to engage and get sucked into another tedious, pointless conversation.
What misleading claims are these? That you're a potential terrorist? I will not stop telling people this (when contextually relevant). I genuinely believe you could snap and take a knife or shoot up as many black people in your area as possible. I truly regard you as an unhinged psychopath.
>My approach has been to address your point, offer a reply or counter, and then disengage, because that's about all I can tolerate in dealing with an autist like you.
You haven't countered anything here. You've just pulled the woke "muh lived experience" as some kind of evidence.
How on earth can you possibly observe that 80% of black actors are DEI? Are you personally present at a lot of casting sessions in TV shows?
And as for the 50%? Have you tallied the characters in the shows you watch?
I don't believe you.
What misleading claims are these? That you're a potential terrorist? I will not stop telling people this (when contextually relevant). I genuinely believe you could snap and take a knife or shoot up as many black people in your area as possible. I truly regard you as an unhinged psychopath.
>Yes, I'm personally present. That's how I know.
Like most of your posts, I think you're just outright lying here.
>Yes. I tallied them all.
Present data then.
>This statement says more about you than it does me.
How so?
Like most of your posts, I think you're just outright lying here.
Present data then.
So as usual, unable to back your claims up and you just resort to behaving like a child.
Thought you were done with me?
I'm done with you now...
...at least for today.
That's a generalization. You don't get to cast that generalization and expect me to take that as fact. So until you can prove that this actor was a dei hire officially I am not buying your bullshit. Try again next time prick.
shareIf I have a jar of jellybeans where 75% are poisonous, it’s reasonable to assume that eating any jellybean from that jar will likely result in being poisoned, even though 25% of the jellybeans are perfectly safe to eat.
shareDifference is blacks are not poisonous or harmful by being represented. So your bad analogy is noted and dismissed. So as I originally stated unless you can prove it consider your claim and bullshit dismissed.
shareDifference is blacks are not poisonous or harmful by being represented
Any racism you post on here l will be reporting to the mods.
shareIs not wanting to see black people on screen racist? If so, then what you're saying is that anyone who complains about Diversity should be banned from the site. Is this what you're saying?
shareAmerica is diverse. There are races other than white in this country. Welcome to America. If you don't like it leave the country.
shareThe country was founded by White Europeans for White Europeans (See Naturalization Act of 1790). Blacks were a tiny minority and they were not even considered to be full persons. Even today they are only around 13% of the population.
The U.S. was ~90% White unit the 1970s. It wasn't until the 60's that we changed the laws to officially open up immigration to non-Whites. This is the only reason why our country is as diverse as it is and it was a mistake.
This is a White country, everyone else is just living in it. The entertainment media should reflect that culture. The only reason we have so much diversity in the media is because of DEI where every other group is over represented.
These facts are racist. Maybe you should report them to the mods.
Times change. Deal with it.
shareTrue. But they don't always change for the better.
shareYep but in case of diversity this place is much better than it was in the 60s. As a mixed person myself my life is great in this country and I love seeing races other than whites on screen. If you don't like it leave the country.
shareHow about you leave my country... Being mixed means that you ain't really White (half doesn't count) and this country is for White people... At least it should be.
Why should White people have diversity imposed on them? Many of us don't want it but it's being forced on us.
And where should he go exactly? He was likely born in the USA. Has always known the USA, and has the legal right to remain there. He is by law no less a US citizen than you.
>Why should White people have diversity imposed on them? Many of us don't want it but it's being forced on us.
Do you consider a TV show you don't have to watch being forced upon you?
>Do you consider a TV show you don't have to watch being forced upon you?
Yes.
That's genuinely pathetic and a truly utterly entitled babyman mentality.
By this logic is Christian media "forced" on me? Are Disney shows forced on me?
Yes.
shareAs usual, you have no arguments whatsoever and are just behaving like a child.
You are truly one of the stupidest people on here.
>You are truly one of the stupidest people on here.
Oh no, an autist whose entire existence is tied to an obscure movie forum has questioned my intelligence. However will I recover?
You are one of the most pathetic people here.
You speak as if you yourself don't use this obscure movie forum as some hub by which you seek to propagandise from. Do you have any self-awareness whatsoever?
You can't coherently respond to the absurdity inherent in the claim that a TV show (or film, or any piece of media) that you don't have to consume is somehow an imposition on you, somehow forced on you.
And again, since you're supposedly pro freedom of expression (you're not), you would respect the right of producers, writers, production companies to incorporate and do whatever they like in the films and shows they choose to make. Right?
You're genuinely too stupid to function. For a while, I thought you were deliberately being obtuse, twisting my words into strawman arguments. But now it’s obvious — you're not doing it on purpose. Your autistic mind is simply incapable of grasping nuance or complexity.
You’re either profoundly dense or outright disturbed, unable to understand anything beyond your own warped interpretations.
I've had more than enough of you for today — kindly fuck off now.
>You're genuinely too stupid to function. For a while, I thought you were deliberately being obtuse, twisting my words into strawman arguments.
What's the twisting here? Name them. You can't.
>You’re either profoundly dense or outright disturbed, unable to understand anything beyond your own warped interpretations.
I've had more than enough of you for today — kindly fuck off now.
As you well know, I do not answer to you. I will do what I like, whenever I like.
You're a child. Now go stand in the corner. I know you don't want to because you like to do whatever you like whenever you like, but go anyway and think about your autism.
shareSo as usual no answer, no ability to explain how I've supposedly twisted your words nor an explanation for how all media just by existing isn't inherently an imposition on everyone, according to your logic.
shareSo, as usual, the same stupid questions and vapid arguments, even after being repeatedly told to go fuck yourself.
shareYou refuse to answer the questions. I have no choice but to repeat them.
I regard you as unable to answer though because your logic about TV/film is so ass-backwards that you simply haven't considered the contradictions and inconsistencies with what you say about them.
Why should I answer your questions?
shareYou don't have to. But your stupidity and cowardliness simply remains a part of the public record.
shareIs it my stupidity and cowardice or is it that I’ve already answered your questions so many times it’s become tedious and exhausting? I’m tired of talking to someone whose arguments are full of shit and who keeps misrepresenting my position. I shouldn’t have to waste my time correcting your inaccuracies, and I'm tired of having pointless conversations.
share>Is it my stupidity and cowardice or is it that I’ve already answered your questions so many times it’s become tedious and exhausting?
It's both. You haven't answered any of the three questions I have put to you in this thread.
You've made excuses for why you won't. But they're just excuses.
>I’m tired of talking to someone whose arguments are full of shit and who keeps misrepresenting my position.
And how have I misrepresented you?
>I shouldn’t have to waste my time correcting your inaccuracies, and I'm tired of having pointless conversations.
You are not required to respond to me. Yet you do.
Same tired bullshit.
shareNope if you want to get technical native Americans we're here before whites. So you conquered the land and took it so now it's yours. Well looks like times are changing and now you will be conquered. Which I can't help but smile when it happens to people like you with your shitty attitude towards other races.
I know many people who want it. Bottom line tough shit bud. Deal with it.
Here’s the thing though — something you clearly didn’t think through: there’s nothing magical about America. Its 'magic' came from the fact that it was a White country. We built civilization — it’s our history, our ingenuity, our experiences that made this country great. As the U.S. becomes a minority-White nation, that 'magic' will disappear.
All you non-Whites flooding in are just dragging the third world in with you. The U.S. will end up just like South America—another third-world shithole.
To put it another way, you're a cancer destroying the host. And when the host dies, so will you. Enjoy living in the decaying wasteland you’ve created, because without White people, that’s all you’ll be left with.
Your bullshit is dismissed. I love living here. I suggest you leave the country if you are unhappy. I for one think it's funny idiots like you are getting weeded out. Make room for a new world, the days of you oppressing people are over.
Don't worry it will be ok. What you want and what you get in life are two different things.
I’m sure you do love living here — it’s a great place, but it’s great because of White people. We built this. We created this. Why don’t you want to live in South America, Africa, or even China? It seems like everyone wants to flock to the U.S., Europe, and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Australia. And wouldn’t you know it, those are overwhelmingly White countries. So why do you insist on inserting yourself into White nations? It's because we are the best. But the more of you there are, the worse these countries become. Your presence destroys the very thing you admire about this place and you don't even realize it.
share>Why don’t you want to live in South America, Africa, or even China?
Why would he want to live in China? He likely doesn't speak Mandarin, and China is a totalitarian dictatorship.
What cultural and social affinity does he have with South America or Africa?
>So why do you insist on inserting yourself into White nations?
He was likely born in the USA. Plenty of non-white people are born in the USA.
Stay out of it snitch. No one asked you a goddamn thing.
Let me guess, you do what you like whenever you like and no one gets to tell you what to do...
Shut the fuck up and do what you're told fuckface. No one cares what you like or don't like.
And I don't care that you want me to "stay out of it".
You can't answer why someone who, as far as we know, was born in the USA would want to move to South America, Africa or China. Because as usual you're too stupid to back your position up.
>You can't answer...
You see what a lying piece of shit you are?
I’ve engaged with you more than most on this site, answering the majority of your questions, even after you claimed I couldn’t. Clearly, I’m capable of doing so if I choose to, but I don’t — and I’ve explained my reasons. Yet you continue to twist the narrative to suit your agenda. You do this because you’re a duplicitous subhuman shit.
>I’ve engaged with you more than most on this site, answering the majority of your questions, even after you claimed I couldn’t. Clearly, I’m capable of doing so if I choose to, but I don’t — and I’ve explained my reasons. Yet you continue to twist the narrative to suit your agenda. You do this because you’re a duplicitous subhuman shit.
No, in many threads you have not addressed many questions. On rare occasions you've admitted that your position is odd to most people.
The bottom line is that the claim that this user would, or should want to move to Africa, South America or China is indefensible. You don't know him. You know nothing about him. There's no reason to think he has any affiliation to any of those areas. It is a fundamentally baseless claim from you. You cannot defend it.
Your claim as well that entertainment you don't like, that you do not have to watch is somehow "forced" on you is utterly indefensible (as well as laughable).
Your claim that 80% of black people cast in modern TV is DEI is also utterly baseless, pulled out of your ass.
If you don't like me, go cry in a corner and stop whining. I will never stop regardless of what you say.
I didn't even bother reading your post.
share>All you non-Whites flooding in are just dragging the third world in with you. The U.S. will end up just like South America—another third-world shithole.
Moviefanatic was likely born in the USA. He didn't "flood" in. Where is it he should go, exactly?
You still, because you're a genuine fucking moron, have not answered this.
I haven’t answered you because you are the moron who can’t grasp complexity or nuance. Your autism is absolutely insufferable. Keep asking your questions, and I’ll keep ignoring most of them, because I don’t have enough respect for you to waste my time. You can convince yourself it’s because I’m too stupid to respond, but deep down, you know that’s not true. And if you actually believe otherwise, well, that only proves my point: there's no reason to bother engaging with you.
Now kindly go fuck yourself.
>I haven’t answered you because you are the moron who can’t grasp complexity or nuance.
And what's the nuance or complexity I can't somehow grasp here?
I think again that this is just an excuse, and you're just too stupid to provide a proper answer.
>And if you actually believe otherwise, well, that only proves my point: there's no reason to bother engaging with you.
Now kindly go fuck yourself.
As you well know, as I say often, I don't answer to you.
I will do what I like.
Stop doing what you like and do what you're told fuckface. Now get to it, lickety-split.
"Any racism you post on here l will be reporting to the mods."
😂 The mods don't care about that here. There is a plethora of full fledged stormfag white supremacists who frequent this message board. They'll only get a finger wag from the mods if they get start getting too belligerent with racial slurs or overly violent/genocidal with their white supremacist rhetoric. Pretty much anything else goes but preferably with at least a paper-thin layer of plausible deniability.
You have to almost respect curiousMInd101 for coming out and admitting to being a white supremacist(as if we didn't already know), instead of staunchly denying it like most of the cowards who spew the same rhetoric
To clarify, I identify more as a White Nationalist than a White supremacist. I can envision a future, for instance, where the Chinese surpass White Europeans in terms of accomplishments and cultural achievements. However, as things stand, I regard White people and White culture as unparalleled. In that sense, I suppose one could argue that I hold supremacist views as well, though my focus remains rooted in the preservation and advancement of White identity and culture rather than superiority for its own sake.
shareYou identify as that on a message board. In public you couldn't be paid to say the things you say on here. Folks like you value the safety of the keyboard and anonymity. It makes you feel tough and important. I think it's cute.
shareNo, I’m quite open about it in real life. I just present it in a friendlier, less provocative way. I frame it to sound more reasonable and certainly not hateful. For instance, I avoid using labels like 'White Nationalist' or 'White Supremacist' when speaking to my Black neighbor. Instead, I describe the concepts in a way that resonates. I might say something like, 'White people should have their own exclusive spaces where their culture and heritage can be preserved,' or 'Europeans have created the most advanced societies and cultures in history, surpassing those of other civilizations.' Interestingly, my neighbor agrees with these points, as they aren’t controversial to normal, anti-Woke people.
shareYep not buying the bullshit. Incels like you are weasels in real life. I've seen it far too often. Be proactive in real life like you are on here. You won't do it because you know better.
shareAh, the predictable 'incel' trope — truly the pinnacle of wit and originality. Is that the only feeble insult you retards can muster when you're incapable of constructing a coherent argument?
Run along now fool, you're embarrassing yourself.
More original than screaming woke for sure. Yeah I think I will stick to my incel insult towards you. Talk that shit in real life if you are not a paper tiger. I promise no one could pay you to do it. Run away weasel little bitch.
share"To clarify, I identify more as a White Nationalist than a White supremacist. I can envision a future, for instance, where the Chinese surpass White Europeans in terms of accomplishments and cultural achievements."
Tomayto, Tomahto. Only white supremacists argue that there is a meaningful difference between white supremacy & white nationalism. Giving fake props to East Asians is also a common white supremacist talking point. Richard Spencer & Jared Taylor love doing this. There are plenty of white supremacist weebs out there.
Preach brother!
shareYou have failed to demonstrate that 75% of all black people in TV shows are DEI hires in the first place. That's the deceit. It's rooted entirely in a baseless assumption from you.
shareIt's been demonstrated. You're just too stupid to see it.
Your autism is why you continue to fail.
No, it hasn't. You just made a claim, pulled the 80% number out of your ass.
You are making shit up. You admit you deliberately repost obvious fake news on a variety of topics.
Nope. You are wrong again.
shareNot remotely. Your post about the Irish guy arrested for opposing "LGBT propaganda" was an outright lie. You ended up conceding that it was and you just had no interest in checking it. You posted an AI generated video of a black kid. You posted a link about a church burning in France that you baselessly proposed was done by a muslim (turned out it wasn't).
Your 80% claim is from absolutely nowhere. You just made it up.
BTW bud I strongly recommend blocking this guy- most here do.
shareDo you mean Skavau?
shareyes
shareI get where you're coming from, and if anyone deserved to go on the ignore list, it's Skavau. But I can't stand censorship, and I make it a point not to block anyone. I believe it's important to be exposed to people you disagree with, even those you can't stand. That's exactly what I'm doing with Skavau. Though, I'll admit, I can only take him in small doses. He's one of the most insufferable and pathetic people on this board.
shareYou love censorship, you lying piece of shit. You want to punish people for what they say.
shareYou're fucking stupid or a liar, or both.
Actions speak louder than words. Despite being a self-proclaimed Nazi fascist, I’ve never reported anyone to the mods, nor have I ever put anyone on ignore. I’ve defended people against censorship, even those I despise or disagree with. You, on the other hand, are all about controlling speech, and you’ve snitched on people just to get them banned for saying things you don’t like. You are subhuman trash.
>You're fucking stupid or a liar, or both.
https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/6703df4e4a9bc26a2a7ab893/Internal-FEMA-Videos-Reveal-Agencys-ACTUAL-Top-Priorities?reply=6703ee824a9bc26a2a7ab8f0
What's this then?
"We, as White people, must rise up and do the same. We need to elect a leader who will punish our enemies — starting with the self-hating White traitors who celebrated our persecution. Those who are stealing our homelands and those who enabled them. The ones who imposed DEI and everyone who defended it."
"Any White person who believes it's acceptable to import non-Whites into their country, even to the point where Whites risk becoming a minority in their own homeland. These are people who think it's perfectly fine if third-worlders take over. It’s any White person who’s indifferent to, or worse, actively supporting the extinction of our race — whether by encouraging Whites to be gay, trans, childless, or by stoking division between White men and women. Essentially, it’s anyone who pushes woke agendas like feminism or LGBTQ ideology."
You want to "punish" people for doing those things. Of course you're still too much of a cowardly piece of shit to actually explain what "punish" means here.
>Despite being a self-proclaimed Nazi fascist, I’ve never reported anyone to the mods, nor have I ever put anyone on ignore.
So fucking what? You still want to censor people by the force of the state. By definition a fascist is censorious, you utter fucking moron. The notion that there's any comparison to reporting someone to online moderators (for inciting violence, calling for genocide) and you wanting the state to kick down people's doors and arrest them for expressing themselves is beyond absurd.
> I’ve defended people against censorship, even those I despise or disagree with. You, on the other hand, are all about controlling speech, and you’ve snitched on people just to get them banned for saying things you don’t like. You are subhuman trash.
Do you defend the right of progressives to express their opinions? Do you defend the right of LGBT people to express their subculture? You only defend the right of people who you agree with.
Or are you, as usual, a lying piece of shit? You love censorship. You hate free expression.
It’s already been explained to you, retard. Persecution isn’t censorship. Holding people accountable for their beliefs and the actions those beliefs inspire is not censorship. I oppose censorship. I don’t want websites taking down posts or dictating what people can say, nor do I want the government telling newspapers what they can or cannot print. In fact, I want people to speak their minds — that way, I know exactly who my enemies are.
Example: Woke retards on Twitter should be free to say that White people are evil and deserve to have everything taken from them. But woke retards in the workplace, pushing DEI policies that actively harm White people, should be persecuted and punished for the damage they've caused to White people.
Do you understand you autistic fuck or is that too much nuance for your autistic mind to grasp?
>It’s already been explained to you, retard. Persecution isn’t censorship. Holding people accountable for their beliefs and the actions those beliefs inspire is not censorship.
No, this is false assertion from you. Persecution for **what people say** is 100% an attack on freedom of expression. This is basic stuff.
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations."
"Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".
What is it that happens if the state "interferes" with someone's life because of what they say? What would that be called? You are a fucking moron.
>. I don’t want websites taking down posts or dictating what people can say,
But you do want those website owners "punished" if they "promote" "LGBT ideology" or feminism.
What do you think those website owners would do if they risked being punished for that?
>nor do I want the government telling newspapers what they can or cannot print.
But you do want those newspapers "punished" if they "promote" "LGBT ideology" or feminism.
You are a fucking slimey weasel.
>Example: Woke retards on Twitter should be free to say that White people are evil and deserve to have everything taken from them. But woke retards in the workplace, pushing DEI policies that actively harm White people, should be persecuted and punished for the damage they've caused to White people.
But you've also said that "woke retards" that you refer to there should be punished for what they say. In what ways should they be punished? Who should be punishing them? Or are you rolling back your initial post on this topic in that other thread?
>Do you understand you autistic fuck or is that too much nuance for your autistic mind to grasp?
I understand you're a cowardly pissant too scared to substantiate what you mean by "punish", and you're too stupid to understand freedom of speech.
Fucking moron.
I'm done going in circles with you.
The only thing I have to say is that you are subhuman and that the world would be a better place without you in it. I still wouldn't censor you though.
This is in contradiction to many previous claims about freedom of expression. You hate it.
shareSame bullshit over and over and over.
• "Provide data!"
• "Answer all my questions!"
• "You didn't answer ALL my questions, therefore stupid/coward"
• distort opponents words, call them fascist piece of shit
• misunderstand argument, call opponent stupid
• When understand argument, misinterpret or interpret in the least generous way possible
• When opponent sick and tired claim can't answer question/can't make argument; therefore stupid/coward
Rinse and Repeat... Day in, Day out... All day, Everyday... On MovieChat and on Reddit.... All day, Everyday.
Is this your core programming austist bot?
>• "Answer all my questions!"
I fail to see why this is unreasonable in any argumentative context.
>• distort opponents words, call them fascist piece of shit
What words of yours have I distorted? You have on many occasions openly supported restrictions on freedom of expression, then apparently you receive a new update and contradict yourself. Or you don't understand what freedom of expression means. Or all of it.
You also admit to being a fascist (which again is another contradiction to your claim that you support freedom of expression).
>• misunderstand argument, call opponent stupid
What have I misunderstood?
>• When understand argument, misinterpret or interpret in the least generous way possible
Name some.
>• When opponent sick and tired claim can't answer question/can't make argument; therefore stupid/coward
I've already explained in this specific context why I believe you can't answer the 3 main questions I've put to you in this thread. They're fundamentally unanswerable. You trap yourself in absurd positions.
Also I thought you had nothing else to say to me?
Rinse and repeat.
shareTurns out if you keep making the same claims, I have little choice to do anything but ask you to back up those claims. Or challenge them.
shareYou got owned get back to 4chan where you belong incel.
shareI didn't. He and I have a history, and I can only tolerate him in small doses, as he is known for being quite a pest. However, if you'd like to discuss free speech and the distinction between persecution and censorship, I'm more than happy to do so right now. I have my arguments ready; I just prefer not to debate with Skavau
And 'incel'? Really? You're resorting to that tired, cliche insult? You're embarrassing yourself. The only people who use that as a retort are those who lost the argument.
The state arresting someone, or "punishing" them purely for what they say as you've intimated support for many times (you have on many occasions said that pro-LGBT positions, pro-immigration and pro-feminist positions should be punishable by the authorities) is pretty bog standard state infringement of freedom of expression.
Whether or not you choose to respond to me in such a back and forth, I will reply to your baseless horseshit claims all the same.
Okay. I'll try this once more with you. If you don't get this than there is no hope for you.
Would you agree that the U.S. has near-absolute free speech, with a few reasonable exceptions like direct, imminent threats of violence, defamation, fraud, and so on?
If you do, then it's fair to say that you are free to express anything without the government throwing you in jail.
Now, consider someone who publicly declares their sexual attraction to young children. While they haven’t committed a crime by saying it, it’s reasonable to assume they would face severe backlash, both verbally and probably physically. They would likely lose their jobs, friends, and more. Are they being persecuted? Yes. Have they been censored? No. Do they still have freedom of speech? Absolutely.
They’re not being persecuted for what they said; they’re being persecuted for what they are. Similarly, an LGBTQ activist, a so-called race traitor, or a feminist would be persecuted for who they are, not solely for their words. What they say merely reveals their identity and intentions, which is ultimately what they are being persecuted for.
>Would you agree that the U.S. has near-absolute free speech, with a few reasonable exceptions like direct, imminent threats of violence, defamation, fraud, and so on?
Sure. One of the best examples on earth for this.
>If you do, then it's fair to say that you are free to express anything without the government throwing you in jail.
Sure.
>They’re not being persecuted for what they said; they’re being persecuted for what they are. Similarly, an LGBTQ activist, a so-called race traitor, or a feminist would be persecuted for who they are, not solely for their words. What they say merely reveals their identity and intentions, which is ultimately what they are being persecuted for.
Right, but you didn't specify it being social responses. You just said they should just be "punished" without any particular elaboration. And your affiliation with fascism also directly contradicts your position here. If you support no state retaliation for what people say, with laws on free speech roughly akin to the USA - then you can't coherently be called a fascist.
And you, on prior occasions have directly called for state censorship. I recall you specifically supporting Russias laws on "LGBT propaganda". Are you repudiating past comments on that by you?
Your history on free expression generally is horribly inconsistent.
---
Also some social consequences in your ideal world, for being LGBT or a feminist (ie: expressing arguments and ideas consistent with that) could be getting banned from internet communities. Would that be appropriate in your mind?
Right, but you didn't specify it being social responses. You just said they should just be "punished" without any particular elaboration.
And your affiliation with fascism also directly contradicts your position here. If you support no state retaliation for what people say, with laws on free speech roughly akin to the USA - then you can't coherently be called a fascist.
>I don't need to specify every single detail; I'm speaking off the cuff. In these situations, people typically have the grace to interpret each other's words charitably, assuming that everything is coherent, even if it isn't explicitly spelled out.
No. You've been very inconsistent on this issue specifically. I fully expect to see you endorsing the state arresting LGBT/progressive/feminist activists in another thread.
>They don’t immediately deconstruct every argument or nitpick every word; they recognize that there’s likely a reason for any apparent contradiction or misunderstanding. But I know that's too much to ask from you.
All I did initially was ask you what you mean by "punish".
>When I refer to myself as a Nazi or a fascist, I usually do so tongue-in-cheek.
Yeah you say this, and then you contradict it a thread later. Or even in the same chain.
>The only real connection I have with Nazis or fascists is that they oppose the same things I do, such as views on race, LGBTQ issues, and progressivism, and I appreciate how they dealt with those elements of society, save for the extermination part.
Part of what they do before they get to extermination is state censorship. It's one of the first things they do. So is your only objection there just extermination? If you're consistent regarding free speech, you'd also have to oppose them way before they get to mass slaughter.
>To the extent that I do support fascism, it’s only as a means to an end, not an end in itself. My goal is to see Woke LGBTQ activists, feminists, anti-racists, and race traitors marginalized and removed from mainstream society.
I'll ask again, since you ignored them: And you, on prior occasions have directly called for state censorship. I recall you specifically supporting Russias laws on "LGBT propaganda". Are you repudiating past comments by you on this?
And: Also some social consequences in your ideal world, for being LGBT or a feminist (ie: expressing arguments and ideas consistent with that) could be getting banned from internet communities. Would that be appropriate in your mind?
I’ve already told you I'm not interested in having a discussion with you; I was only responding to clarify my position. Honestly, I only did this because MovieFanatic505 was under the impression that I lost the argument for not addressing your criticism of my persecution vs. censorship argument. So, I condensed what would have been a long back-and-forth into a clear and concrete example that illustrates the relationship between the two concepts.
Now, will you admit that the only reason I didn't answer your question was that I chose not to, not that I couldn't?
>I’ve already told you I'm not interested in having a discussion with you; I was only responding to clarify my position.
Don't care. I'm going to reply anyway.
>I was only responding to clarify my position. Honestly, I only did this because MovieFanatic505 was under the impression that I lost the argument for not addressing your criticism of my persecution vs. censorship argument.
You never clarified that you were referring to social consequences at any point, and given your horrific record on free speech on here, there's every reason to think you meant "punishment" in the sense of state response rather than social consequences. In addition, I still don't really truly believe you because you've got such an inconsistent track record on this.
>Now, will you admit that the only reason I didn't answer your question was that I chose not to, not that I couldn't?
I mean, as I suggested above - I don't really believe your answer (or rather clarification on what you meant by "punished") because you're so inconsistent on this. You have, across many threads, at many points, endorsed the actions of authoritarian countries (like Russia) when they target liberals and progressives and LGBT people. You have also told me directly on a few occasions that you're genuinely warming to endorsing the state directly persecuting LGBT, and 'woke' expression. Either you were lying then, or you're lying now. Or you've changed your mind. Are you repudiating comments and suggestions you've made on this in the past?
And I will ask AGAIN: Some social consequences in your ideal world, for being LGBT or a feminist (ie: expressing arguments and ideas consistent with that) could be getting banned from internet communities. Would that be appropriate in your mind?
So no, you're not going to admit when you're wrong.
Okay. Well thanks for the chat then. Till next time
Wrong about what? My position rested on the proposition that by "punished" you meant state response, ie: being arrested, fined, imprisoned, etc.
You eventually said you didn't mean that but meant social responses. But this is inconsistent with many, many comments you've made relating to free speech in the past.
I know you're not gay but you have the mentality of a bull queer. I'm genuinely concerned for the people around you. I'm afraid for the women who might say no to you or tell you to fuck off. I can see you following them all the way home and watching them though their windows.
shareIs this your attempt at parodying my position that you're a potential mass shooter?
Not sure how you compare replying with people on a forum with that accusation. In order for this to be remotely comparable I would have to be like, spamming your DMs, replying to you in every thread etc. All I do is reply to your replies.
I hold my position about you on the basis that you make deranged, psychopathic, pro-genocidal comments and have openly endorsed bomb threats on one occasion.
MovieFanatic505 knew full well that you won the argument, he’s trolling you, so is Skavau, although in Skavau’s case it’s more sinister because his goal is to bait you into saying controversial things and then report you to the mods in the hope of getting your account banned.
The only reason to communicate with Skavau on here is to expose his tactics and kick the shit out of him for fun. ‘Fuck off snitch’ is usually the best response.
>MovieFanatic505 knew full well that you won the argument, he’s trolling you, so is Skavau, although in Skavau’s case it’s more sinister because his goal is to bait you into saying controversial things and then report you to the mods in the hope of getting your account banned.
And how am I trying to bait him here specifically?
>The only reason to communicate with Skavau on here is to expose his tactics and kick the shit out of him for fun. ‘Fuck off snitch’ is usually the best response.
The "tactics" still being something you can't articulate and explain because, like curiousmind, you're too stupid - and it says something about your level of maturity that you find it genuinely fun to act like a 12 year old internet troll to people. That you pathetically call "kicking the shit" out of someone. And you're so easily amused, so easily entertained that simply saying "fuck off snitch" is so entertaining to you.
No wonder you have such a basic bitch TV/movie taste.
I must ask though, are you back with renewed vigour to reaffirming your life to being about nothing but following me around on an internet forum?
I figured as much, but I still felt like I hadn’t explained my position clearly enough, so I wanted to provide a concrete example that perfectly illustrates my point. Honestly, I did it mostly for anyone who might stumble across this exchange, and of course, to make sure Skavau and MovieFanatic eat their words.
As for Skavau, you're right — 'Fuck off, snitch' is a solid response. In fact, I think I was the first to start calling him a snitch, so I'm glad you’re keeping that alive. I don’t want him to forget it. That said, I still find it useful to go a few rounds with him every once in a while. It helps me refine my arguments and clarify them for others.
BTW Thank you for exposing this cretin and his tactics. It is useful for others to see him for what he is.
>I figured as much, but I still felt like I hadn’t explained my position clearly enough, so I wanted to provide a concrete example that perfectly illustrates my point. Honestly, I did it mostly for anyone who might stumble across this exchange, and of course, to make sure Skavau and MovieFanatic eat their words.
No, you never specified until late in the hour that you were apparently referring to social consequences only. But this is in complete contradiction to many other positions you've expressed regarding free expression.
It also begs the question if you think it acceptable, legally, for people to be fired or shunned for the opposite: for being anti-immigration or anti-feminism, or anti-LGBT as they sometimes are now.
>As for Skavau, you're right — 'Fuck off, snitch' is a solid response. In fact, I think I was the first to start calling him a snitch, so I'm glad you’re keeping that alive. I don’t want him to forget it. That said, I still find it useful to go a few rounds with him every once in a while. It helps me refine my arguments and clarify them for others.
Do you think calling me a snitch is somehow hurtful to me or something?
>BTW Thank you for exposing this cretin and his tactics. It is useful for others to see him for what he is.
And how did he do that?
By your logic, Melton is very much a "bull queer" type. He devotes his life to responding to me. Check his post history.
No, you never specified until late in the hour that you were apparently referring to social consequences only. But this is in complete contradiction to many other positions you've expressed regarding free expression.
>Just a quick clarification. While I mostly focused on social consequences, my argument holds up even if it’s the government persecuting you, because once again, you're being persecuted for who you are, not for what you said.
This is such a dumbass position. The government is persecuting you for who you are in this scenario because of something you've said. What you've said indicates you're pro-LGBT, or pro-feminist etc. It means people cannot freely express their positions on those topics without fear of being arrested. Is that something you support?
Someone being tagged a feminist or progressive essentially is just a tag given to someone based on the opinions they hold. If the state bans such identities, they are effectively banning any pro-progressive or pro-feminist expression.
>For instance, we could make it illegal to be LGBTQ. That would mean LGBTQ people are persecuted for who they are, and if you were prosecuted for expressing LGBTQ beliefs or behaviors, it wouldn't be an attack on your free speech. You're not being punished for what you said; you're being punished because what you said is proof of who you are.
And it amounts to a de facto ban on expressing LGBT "beliefs" or "behaviours" too. If an identity, a sexuality is expressedly banned from public presence then by consequence so are any expressions of it. Is that something you think should happen?
No worries, and yes I think you were the first to accurately call Skavau ‘snitch’.
It’s great because it lets other people know that he’s a snitch bitch, and warns the mods that he’s a serial snitcher who’s using them to get wrongthinkers banned.
>No worries, and yes I think you were the first to accurately call Skavau ‘snitch’.
You are truly easily impressed.
>It’s great because it lets other people know that he’s a snitch bitch, and warns the mods that he’s a serial snitcher who’s using them to get wrongthinkers banned.
This would seem utterly irrelevant if the post I am reporting is actually a violation of community standards. Someone inciting violence or making threats is still inciting violence or making threats regardless of how you feel about why it was reported in the first place.
Yawn. Whatever snitch.
Nobody buys your pathetic excuses.
Yes, a lot of users on here are delicate little snowflake flowers who can't cope with people who don't just fold over and agree with them on everything. Apparently this includes you.
shareYour bullshit is again dismissed. Native Americans we're here before whites, their land got stolen. America isn't the best at many things in the world. Asia has a far better education system than all of America and that isn't a white country. Times are changing bud you should be afraid. Your bullshit isn't going to be tolerated anymore.
shareWe didn’t steal anything. The Native Americans were savages who didn’t even have a concept of land ownership — they merely used it. We came, conquered, and brought civilization with us, building the greatest country the world has ever seen.
I agree, our K-12 education lags behind Asia's, but our universities — at least before wokeness infected academia — were second to none.
And yes, times are changing, but not in the way you imagine. There’s a growing, silent majority in this country that’s sick to death of wokeness and progressive nonsense. They’ve been neglected and ignored for too long, and now they’re angry, looking for solutions. The younger generation, especially men, are increasingly turning to the far right. They reject liberalism and certainly have no patience for woke progressivism. As they grow older and see what’s been stolen from them — their birthright, their future prosperity — they’re going to turn to fascism. This is already underway, and when it fully arrives, I doubt you’ll like their solutions.
America isn't the best country in the world. That's a bullshit lie you have been fed and don't think to question. Also yep it was conquered and now you are getting conquered for the better.
Nope for decades our education even in college always was behind other countries.
It won't be happening. Anyways mind your tongue. Any racist things you post will be reported to the mods. I'm done with people like you spreading hatred on here. Tread carefully.
Tread carefully? LOL
Is that a threat little man?
[deleted]
We came to North America as explorers and conquerors. We didn’t care that there were savages here — they weren’t doing anything with the land, just wandering around aimlessly. We brought civilization, creating a home for Europeans who wanted a fresh start and to build a new colony, eventually crafting a revolutionary form of government. We brought a small number of Africans along for the same reason we brought animals — purely for labor, like farm equipment, because that’s all they were good for. We didn’t enslave them; they were already enslaved by their own people and sold by Jews who controlled the slave trade. We just bought them and put them to work.
Soon after, many of us realized that slavery wasn’t for us. Unlike any other civilization, we freed our slaves. But our biggest mistake was letting them stay. Instead of sending them back to Africa, we naively believed these animals would be grateful for our compassion. That was our downfall — being too kind to a people who didn’t deserve it.
Whites are supreme. This is obvious to anyone who is honest with themselves.
[deleted]
I don’t actually hate anyone; I just tend to express provocative opinions here. As a White supremacist and White nationalist, I don’t equate my views with hatred for other races. For me, it’s simply about loving my race, my people, and my culture. I want to protect and preserve what I cherish — that’s all.
I agree with your sentiment. Outside of the politics board, I’m nothing but kind and respectful; it’s in my nature. But within this space, I think of it as a gladiatorial arena. Here, I tap into my darker side and take down my opponents in the most brutal way for amusement of the crowd, relishing the thrill of the battle. It’s fun and cathartic, allowing me to embrace the 'bad guy' persona, which is the complete opposite of how I usually present myself in real life.
It seems so forced and its so weird
shareI don't mind him in the show tbh but he does seem miscast. He doesn't strike me as the type of kid who would get involved in a life of crime leaving his girl behind etc. But at the same time I think it is to make Penguin a bit more likeable.
DEI hires do suck though. Its watering down the quality of shows/movies. It should just be the most talented people who fit a certain role, not some mandated BS. But at the same time if a show takes place in Baltimore where the majority of the population is black, then the show can reflect that, no problem. I just hate that DEI is being shoved in peoples faces and in situations where it doesn't make sense, especially if it waters down the quality of the product.
He's miscast because he's awful, his attempt as a stutter is making me lose brain cells. It's the typical Hollywood thing where they decide a minority character has to be in there, then of course they realize he has to be perfectly good hearted and innocent (can't send a bad message!) even if they're all criminals. It's also kind of cringe inducing how Ozzy is so inappropriate and rude to almost everyone, but kind to POC so that the audience is still on his side lol.
shareYou're right, he's not the best actor, but so he's a DEI hire? You're pretty worthless.
shareYou can always tell someone's character by how easily they go from 0-100 over some ridiculous social issue. You're clearly a self righteous leftist who just wants to feel emboldened to be abusive if you feel you can, so why waste my time indeed. I didn't realize we have to lie that awful actors are in shows for reasons other than DEI in order to meet your standard
shareThere are various dodgy actors in many shows I've watched over the years. Some are white. Some are black. Just because a black person may be a poor actor doesn't necessarily mean they were a DEI hire. You immediately jumping to that conclusion is just as much going from "0-100 over some ridiculous social issue".
shareYou can explain it to him all you want. He won't get it. He's consumed by racism and bigotry, and those types of people are blinded by it. Mostly likely, he was hit too hard on the head on 1/6.
shareIndeed.
shareHe is the BEST actor ever.
shareI'd be surprised if the actor has that much range but I thought he was cast perfectly for the character he was portraying. His performance felt completely organic for that character. OP is quite obviously just looking for any excuse to whine.
shareHe was cast perfectly for a DEI hire token minority character who had no reason to exist in the plot otherwise. So you're right about that lmaooo
shareIf his aim was to present a character that came off as a poor actor then he's a master thespian.
share