America - The Official Thread

[prisonermonkeys]

Mods, if any of you would mind shooting me a quick message to make sure that this isn't another lie,

The details of a private message are just that - private. They are between the messenger and the recipient. Since you are neither messenger nor recipient, you have no right or need to know what was said.

 

[Imari]

The details of a private message are just that - private. They are between the messenger and the recipient. Since you are neither messenger nor recipient, you have no right or need to know what was said.

No, but I don't need to know what the details of the message were. I can simply ask the mods to confirm or deny whether your previous statement was a lie. Just a yes or no. That seems reasonable, does it not? It doesn't reveal any information that you haven't already given me. Unless you were lying.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

It's closely tied to our history. We were pretty much dependent on Britain Blah, blah, blah...

I am talking about today.

Australia controls it's borders and Immigration policies. All we Americans want is for our country to do the same.

We were not blessed with a salt water moat like you guys were.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We were not blessed with a salt water moat like you guys were.

And large stretches of our coastline are, for want of a better word, unguarded. We have had fairly significant problems with asylum seekers attempting to cross the seas and make landfall. Many of the boats were barely seaworthy, and hundreds of people died attempting the crossing. There was one notorious incident in 2010 where an over-crowded boat capsized in high seas just off Christmas Island and was smashed against the rocks. Nearly fifty people died within sight of land, and the residents were powerless to help them.

 

[Com Fox]

And large stretches of our coastline are, for want of a better word, unguarded.

Officers on boats telling "boat people" to turn back isn't guarded?

Many of the boats were barely seaworthy, and hundreds of people died attempting the crossing. There was one notorious incident about a decade ago where an over-crowded boat capsized in high seas just off Christmas Island and was smashed against the rocks. Dozens died within sight of land, and the residents were powerless to help them.

Wait I thought you meant guarded as in guarded from illegals coming to our country. Guarded as in helping them, I assume, but the problem is, we don't exactly know when they're coming illegally before it's too late, tit's illegal immigration after all. It's something we're pretty much powerless to do.

 

[Imari]

I'm just curious. Do any countries have travel restrictions/"vetting" over there?

This did remind me of one thing.

I was talking to a guy who works in defense the other day, and we were talking about the vetting process that he had to go through to be certified to access certain types of confidential and secret information. Generally they check your background, where you've visited, your general circle of acquaintances and so on just to check that you're not a terrorist or whatever.

However apparently there are some countries where if you're connected then you're pretty much automatically disqualified. Mostly the ones you'd expect, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. He was telling me about this because there was one guy that was like their best engineer but I think one of his parents was from one of the banned countries or something like that. Not directly affiliated, but sort of tangentially. So they ended up having to get him named specifically as an exception on this official secrecy act, which we thought was amusing.

I mean, this stuff is sort of expected when it comes to defense and I'm sure that every other country in the world has something similar. I guess it goes to show that every government has a level where they'll draw the line, it's just higher or lower for different countries.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Appeals court rejects application to immediately reinstate travel ban:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-05/trumps-travel-ban-appeal-denied-by-us-court/8242780

Still subject to a full hearing.

 

[fatkrakr]

The details of a private message are just that - private. They are between the messenger and the recipient. Since you are neither messenger nor recipient, you have no right or need to know what was said.

Actually that says all we need to know.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Appeals court rejects application to immediately reinstate travel ban:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-05/trumps-travel-ban-appeal-denied-by-us-court/8242780

Still subject to a full hearing.

Can this potentially go all the way to the SCOTUS?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Actually that says all we need to know.

No, it doesn't. This does. @Imari is so intent on proving that I am lying that he's come up with the idea that I am claiming to have received a private message from the moderators when I never said anything of the sort. For the record, it was this post by @Famine that I was alluding to, and this one, but I had to Google the part about water and wine because I had never heard the expression before.

All that I tried to do was discreetly exit that line of discussion because it occurred to me that it was a lose-lose situation. Had I produced the evidence that others like Imari were demanding, it is unlikely that it would have been accepted. But no, he had to get one last jab in, and now we are in this situation where he is accusing me of lying after jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Now, can we please move this discussion along?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No, it doesn't. This does. @Imari is so intent on proving that I am lying that he's come up with the idea that I am claiming to have received a private message from the moderators when I never said anything of the sort. For the record, it was this post by @Famine that I was alluding to, and this one, but I had to Google the part about water and wine because I had never heard the expression before.

All that I tried to do was discreetly exit that line of discussion because it occurred to me that it was a lose-lose situation. Had I produced the evidence that others like Imari were demanding, it is unlikely that it would have been accepted. But no, he had to get one last jab in, and now we are in this situation where he is accusing me of lying after jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Now, can we please move this discussion along?

It'd be quite the double standard of the more than ten people that have asked you for this to say "oh yeah your lying we don't believe you" after they themselves have said you are on the wrong side of making a non-factual claim that Milo is lying about not being part of the alt-right. You yourself came to this round about way of saying he's lying and he's just shifting, and that he plays victim, yet now you're doing the same and claiming the same...

The way many of us understood Famine's post is that you don't attack people with slander or personal jabs, but no one has done that to you, we've requested actual proof. We've put you to task and you're just trying to put up walls. If you wanted it to go away, then just ignore it and move on.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

OT but what did this Arora do in his past life that got him banned?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you wanted it to go away, then just ignore it and move on.

I did. Or at least I thought I had. I walked away, and came back when the discussion had moved on. When I was asked about it with a smart-arsed comment, I tried to post a tactful message to explain that I was dropping the subject and got accused of lying because somebody jumped to the wrong conclusion.

 

[polysmut]

OT

Yes it is.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I did. Or at least I thought I had. I walked away, and came back when the discussion had moved on. When I was asked about it with a smart-arsed comment, I tried to post a tactful message to explain that I was dropping the subject and got accused of lying because somebody jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Any time you send a response message, it's not ignoring it. It's quite simple, you have nothing to say at all, thus you let it go, and post other things in regards to the topic at hand. Which you had done, but still allowed yourself to keep debating or agreeing with others on the topic. Even though now you say you tried...doesn't seem like this massive effort by you.

What I see you getting called out on, is a verification of proof, something that when given you denied to a certain subject just a few pages back. I also understand why you were asked to verify, because of the nature of your posts when you want to fly by and say something but never actually be apart of the conversation in a intricate matter. I too would have asked to please have a verified answer on if you were told to move on, because of the potential it would hold for myself getting in trouble or others.

OT but what did this Arora do in his past life that got him banned?

Famine explained it in the post, and I'm sure if it mattered it will be posted on the ban user log, with a witty quote as to what happened.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Famine explained it in the post, and I'm sure if it mattered it will be posted on the ban user log, with a witty quote as to what happened.

GTP has a Hall of Infamy?!

 

[TenEightyOne]

To think he went through all that and his beer still sucked.

Yup, it gets called "Bud" here and, as you'd expect from a rice beer, it's horrid. Proper Czech Budweiser (goes back to the 1400s iirc) is far nicer

GTP has a Hall of Infamy?!

Certainly does. There was never an entry for KSaiyu though, real shame.

 

[Imari]

No, it doesn't. This does. @Imari is so intent on proving that I am lying that he's come up with the idea that I am claiming to have received a private message from the moderators when I never said anything of the sort.

Well, now. That's funny.

The details of a private message are just that - private. They are between the messenger and the recipient. Since you are neither messenger nor recipient, you have no right or need to know what was said.

Why make this post with regards to a private message if there never was a message?
If you were only talking about the public post by Famine, why not just point that out in the first place?

I mean, what you said was:

It was suggested to me that discretion is the better part of valour and that I might be better served letting the discussion move on regardless of whether or not I could provide the requested information. I received that advice before I even started looking, and chose to observe it.

That seems pretty specific. It's strongly implied that whatever communication it was was directed specifically at you, which the Famine post was not. It strongly implies that the communication directly addressed the discussion that you were having, given that it mentioned whether you could provide information or not.

I think you're trying to pull a fast one. Again.

Just stop.

For the record, it was this post by @Famine that I was alluding to, and this one, but I had to Google the part about water and wine because I had never heard the expression before.

All that I tried to do was discreetly exit that line of discussion because it occurred to me that it was a lose-lose situation.

Hardly. If you have the evidence you claim, we're all a little more educated about Milo Yiannopolous. If you don't, we're all a little more educated about prisonermonkeys.

Seems to me either way the rest of us win. And only one way do you lose.

But no, he had to get one last jab in, and now we are in this situation where he is accusing me of lying after jumping to the wrong conclusion.

Prove that it's the wrong conclusion. I say you're still lying until proven otherwise. You're going to way more effort at this point than it would have taken you to post a simple article or video, so I'm not buying it.

Now, can we please move this discussion along?

No.

You made a statement. You refuse to provide evidence of it. You hide behind a post from Famine that takes some real twisting to make mean what you want it to mean, which is giving you an excuse to bail from actually standing behind some of the outrageous things that you say. Whether Milo Yiannopolous obstructs free speech is and was relevant to the conversation surrounding him, the events at Berkeley and the protesters/rioters there.

Whatever else it may be, a respectful discussion is founded upon the participants not making up facts and lying to each other. If you make a controversial or unintuitive statement, we should ask for an explanation or proof as appropriate. You should expect us to, because you sure do when anyone else makes a statement that you think it bollocks.

I'm a little surprised that the alternative facts thing has made it's way into this forum so quickly. I'm a little more surprised that it's you making up the alternative facts, given that you're usually the one taking people to task for not having evidence up to your high standards. Then again, given your past history of dodging uncomfortable questions when asked I suppose maybe not.

If you can't speak honestly and provide some reasoning and evidence for your claims, why are you in this discussion at all? So that you can attempt to troll people and see how many will accept claims without evidence? So that you can perform psychological experiments like seeing how people behave when you avoid simple, direct and relevant questions?

The AUP says thou shalt not lie. I don't see you making any effort to do that. You're quite happy to make statements that on the face of them appear to be untrue, provide no evidence to the contrary and walk away.

For myself, and many others it looks like, that's not a person whose speech can ever be taken seriously.

I think that this is important for all people in this discussion particularly, what with Trump's attempts to control the media and the flood of misinformation that's available at the moment regarding all political happenings in the US. If nothing else, we need to be honest to each other in this discussion no matter how much we may disagree, and I think it's totally worthy of taking time to make that clear.

If the mods disagree, they're welcome to tell me so.

Had I produced the evidence that others like Imari were demanding, it is unlikely that it would have been accepted.

Yes, well you made that decision for all of us, didn't you?

Is that because the evidence was unconvincing? Because it didn't exist? Because earlier you said that you didn't even bother looking. You do have a lot of back and forth between some of your posts. Are you going to tell us that this was all a joke again?

Like I said, I wouldn't be totally surprised if Milo was suppressing free speech. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that in general he doesn't, like his Q&A sessions after his speeches. Let's roll on your evidence of him suppressing people. You show us, and let us decide for ourselves whether or not we accept it.

 

[Tornado]

I did. Or at least I thought I had. I walked away, and came back when the discussion had moved on. When I was asked about it with a smart-arsed comment, I tried to post a tactful message to explain that I was dropping the subject and got accused of lying because somebody jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Man, the moderation staff must privately censor you almost every time a discussion in this forum doesn't go your way.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can this potentially go all the way to the SCOTUS?

I don't know.

From the sounds of things, the Trump administration applied to have the court order immediately dismissed and the travel ban reintroduced. The courts rejected that application, but it wasn't an outright rejection of their case - rather, it was a decision to maintain the order at least until such time as the full appeal can be heard. They have until Monday to put forward their arguments. After that, it remains to be seen what happens.

 

[Danoff]

Have you ever read Arthur Conan Doyle's "Silver Blaze"?

Sherlock Holmes investigates the killing of a prize-winning race horse. He deduces that the killer is someone close to the horse because the dog guarding the stables didn't bark; therefore, the killer must have been someone that the dog was familiar with and so had to be someone close to the horse. The deduction is proven right, but it's based on a logical fallacy - Holmes cites the lack of evidence as evidence in and of itself.

You have just done the same thing. You're suggesting that because I haven't condemned the protesters, I condone them. But that's not the case at all. I haven't said anything about them specifically one way or the other. If you want to take me to task over that, then that's very ambitious of you. If you want to argue "you haven't condemned them, then you must condone them", I can simply counter with "I haven't condoned them, so I must confemn them", which is predicated on the same logical fallacy that you have committed.

The only difference is that I know that you won't find any evidence of my condoning them because I haven't condoned them.

Ok great. I didn't argue that you condone it. I'm appalled that you keep passing up blatant opportunities to condemn it.

 

[Valkyr1313]

This is when I decided I had a problem with Milo. He had a speaking event at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, and during that time he outed and repeatedly mis gendered a trans student attending the school. He put a picture of her up on the screen, used multiple slurs against her and joked about how he would still be attracted to her. The student had withdrawn from the school just prior to this, but was there as a silent protest to his actions and speech

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harasses-transgender-student-stage-milwaukee/


https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/trans-student-harassed-by-milo-yiannopoulos-speaks-out


Yes, I get it, not terribly unbiased sources, however they had the best info, so they're what I used

This isn't to say that I am in favor or against the protests of him speaking. I get why they did it, I'm not in favor of their method of protesting(k, more rioting tbh) but I will never claim to be a fan of the man

 

[Com Fox]

I mean, he disagreed that he was a proper transgender since according to his opinion, he doesn't make any effort to transition. I can understand the jokes being a little too far but I don't see why misgendering someone is just being a dick, when you don't think he's a proper trans. To him, he's still a male.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I mean, he disagreed that he was a proper transgender since according to his opinion, he doesn't make any effort to transition. I can understand the jokes being a little too far but I don't see why misgendering someone is just being a dick, when you don't think he's a proper trans. To him, he's still a male.

Well if it causes distress (and I'm sure Milo knew it would), then it's being a dick. Simple as that. The jokes add to it.

It's not Milo's place to judge who's a real trans person anyway.

 

[Com Fox]

Well if it causes distress (and I'm sure Milo knew it would), then it's being a dick. Simple as that. The jokes add to it.

It's not Milo's place to judge who's a real trans person anyway.

The distress comes to the receiver though. Not everyone responds the same way to the same things. Milo knowing it would cause distress might be true, like I said, the jokes I think were a bit too far.

As for his place while I do agree with you on that. I don't think he should be forced to gender someone "correctly" if he doesn't agree with it.

 

[Encyclopedia]

As for his place while I do agree with you on that. I don't think he should be forced to gender someone "correctly" if he doesn't agree with it.

My point is that he's not a professional that can judge what's real gender dysphoria or not. Sure he can continue to gender people incorrectly if he wants to. But that does make him a dick.

 

[Com Fox]

My point is that he's not a professional that can judge what's real gender dysphoria or not. Sure he can continue to gender people incorrectly if he wants to. But that does make him a dick.

I wouldn't say someones opinion that goes against someone else makes him a dick. The jokes, maybe but a general opinion and going by that opinion, I don't think so.

Though I feel like this conversation is more suited for the Transgender thread

 

[mustafur]

Nah he clearly is a dick, but free speech wise he is entitled to be one.

 

[Com Fox]

Nah he clearly is a dick, but free speech wise he is entitled to be one.

I won't deny he is, I think he even embraces it (as his tour is called "the dangerous faggot tour"), and I do think those jokes are a bit dickish. I just don't think misgendering based on your opinion alone isn't exactly being a dick, however that's a topic for the trans thread. Though you're right that he has a right to be a dick, I think that's why he is a die-hard "daddy" Trump supporter.

 

[Valkyr1313]

I mean, he disagreed that he was a proper transgender since according to his opinion, he doesn't make any effort to transition. I can understand the jokes being a little too far but I don't see why misgendering someone is just being a dick, when you don't think he's a proper trans. To him, he's still a male.

I mean, SHE was transitioning and was making the effort, so Milo was wrong there. Second, you're right there is a difference between misgendering someone, which can still cause problems for them, and publicly outing them, putting up an old picture of them, calling them names and insulting them. Third, you are still trans and your gender even without medically transitioning, so even if she hadn't been in the process, Milo still would have been in the wrong to misgender her and out her