Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Hey Hey You You I don't like your [chat] Thread

13940414244

Posts

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ is right on this one. Furthermore, the moderates are part of the same disease and share the blame. In their seemingly benign non-involvement or even condemnation of the radical wing of their ideology, they are still giving cover for fundamentalists and are the base of their recruitment. They are enablers and the entire ship has to be brought down together.

    I think the cover thing is right, but I don't know about "base of their recruitment".

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SarksusSarksus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Now we have to lock this thread. Fuck damnit.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    I couldn't knowingly tolerate a homophobe

    Pony you're bizarre.

    Yeah....

    "He's a nice guy. We can't hang out Wednesday nights, though, because he has to attend his Klan meeting."

    "He's a nice guy. The other night he beat up a gay guy simply because the guy was gay. But, you know, great guy other than that."

    "He's a nice guy. He voted for Ron Paul, though."

    SRSLY, Pony?!

    I'd have a problem with any of those.

    But only the middle one would actively cause me to reject a person and completely be intolerant towards them.

    The other two? I could tolerate someone like that, so long as they understand why they can't ever speak of such things around me and that I won't tolerate them espousing such ideas in my presence.

    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    how do you openly hate jews in this day and age

    what the fuck is that even about

    Israel?

    I wish I could rimshot this. It feels like it needs it.

    But it's true.

    Not really. Hate the government of Israel, not jewish people.

    I was never making a comment on what should or should not be, simply pointing out how.

    --

    Pony would love my last supervisor's Jew in Oven Jokes and Lazy Black Person jokes and stance that poor people should die and that slavery is okay if it is the Roman type.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    My brother is actually a massive racist. It's not a side of him that is seen very often, but he is generally beaten down with extreme prejudice by the rest of my family whenever anyone does.

    In some ways I think that's healthier than nobody calling him on it.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Classical religious music is pretty awesome.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • stiliststilist Registered User
    edited September 2009
    japan wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Mostly I remembered that BSD was involved somehow, and the two parts have significantly different philosophical approaches.
    Seeing nerds have a raging argument about whether the GPL or BSD licence is the more "free" is the funniest thing.
    Both, depending on what you mean.

    GPL is freedom for the user, BSD is freedom for the developer. Everything further is which you feel is more important.

    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • PasserbyePasserbye The Woman Who Is Not Short at The Moonlite All-Nite Diner; a glass box full of bad food and good people.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    japan wrote: »
    My brother is actually a massive racist. It's not a side of him that is seen very often, but he is generally beaten down with extreme prejudice by the rest of my family whenever anyone does.

    In some ways I think that's healthier than nobody calling him on it.

    My father hates all muslims, he considers them all dangerous about to blow people up people. It's a topic I don't touch, if he wasn't my father I wouldn't talk with him.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    japan wrote: »
    My brother is actually a massive racist. It's not a side of him that is seen very often, but he is generally beaten down with extreme prejudice by the rest of my family whenever anyone does.

    In some ways I think that's healthier than nobody calling him on it.

    I guess I'm pretty big on hating hippies and protesters.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Greeper wrote: »
    I like to think of the Bible as written in two separate parts: The one part which has a bunch of stuff about forgiveness and love

    and the other part which is all rules and 'do not divorce' and shit.

    I like to think that they only added the second part so that the conservative disciples would vote for it.

    There are several separate parts. But they absolutely are not divided on those lines.

    There is the obvious distinction between the Tanakh or Old Testament and the new for example. Oddly enough, the textual history of the Old is far better than the new. There does not exist any portion of the NT which has not gone through at least one translation wheras the OT was preserved remarkably well in a range of dialects. This means there is no part of the NT that has not been homoginized and harmized via the translations process.

    Even in the NT you have a pretty clear distinction between the 4 gospels (and John is a bit of an outlier) and sort-of-maybe Acts vs. the letters of Paul that might be genuine (the only bits dating prior to The War) vs. the half or so letters of paul inserted in the 2nd century vs the other letters and epsitles vs Revelations (which is exceedinly dubious).

    But you will find within those in the same voice and hand the rules and sometimes the love. Paul was the one who wanted to bring the religion to the world and preached a brotherhood of all mankind. Yet he was also exceedingly homophobic. Jesus, in the same gospel, had both the sermon on the mount and the ranting against divorce.

    You cannot separate one view from the other in the text. If you want to invent your own religion by cutting out the bits and pieces you like that's your perogotive of course. And a popular choice indeed. But at least be honest with yourself about what you are doing there. What you are choosing to believe has nothing to do with a fiery faith-healer from Nazerith. Or with the older roots in the Rider on the Clouds, YHWH of the mountain.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    stilist wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Mostly I remembered that BSD was involved somehow, and the two parts have significantly different philosophical approaches.
    Seeing nerds have a raging argument about whether the GPL or BSD licence is the more "free" is the funniest thing.
    Both, depending on what you mean.

    GPL is freedom for the user, BSD is freedom for the developer. Everything further is which you feel is more important.

    I know that. It doesn't stop them arguing over which philosophy is superior. This is why it's so funny.

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    stilist wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Isn’t OS X’s only BSD overlap that it’s based in Mach?
    That's actually where they don't overlap

    XNU (OS'x Kernel) is based on Mach 3.0 with the networking stack, VFS layer, POSIX API interface, and some other bits from FreeBSD implemented on top of the Mach primitives.

    Mac OS X itself, apart from the kernel, also uses FreeBSD's userland, and Apple employs a number of major FreeBSD contributors
    huh

    Glad I posed that as a question, then.

    if you're curious, this guy has a hell of a lot of interesting info on the low-level bits of OS X
    http://www.kernelthread.com/

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.

    Except if he maintains a belief of tolerance "Pro-choice rather than Pro-Life" presumably maintaining that belief would manifest a desire to enact a Pro-choice policy.

    If I am pro-choice and you are pro-life and I do not try to change your mind in what sense am I pro-choice?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Greeper wrote: »
    Greeper wrote: »
    J, ever girl I ever had a crush on voted Republican.

    What I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter.

    EDIT: Also I have terrible tastes in women.

    It does matter. When people go beyond their personal beliefs and try and inflict that way of life upon others via the government it matters.

    You are basically saying people should never vote.

    Look, people are allowed to vote, for whatever, and you can judge them for it, if you like, but the way to combat that is to vote against the things they vote for, not bring them over to your house and systematically destroy their belief system with logic.

    I am saying it is right, and just, to judge and argue with at every oppertunity any person who votes in such a way as foster the ruin of other peoples lives.

  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Greeper wrote: »
    I like to think of the Bible as written in two separate parts: The one part which has a bunch of stuff about forgiveness and love

    and the other part which is all rules and 'do not divorce' and shit.

    I like to think that they only added the second part so that the conservative disciples would vote for it.

    There are several separate parts. But they absolutely are not divided on those lines.

    There is the obvious distinction between the Tanakh or Old Testament and the new for example. Oddly enough, the textual history of the Old is far better than the new. There does not exist any portion of the NT which has not gone through at least one translation wheras the OT was preserved remarkably well in a range of dialects. This means there is no part of the NT that has not been homoginized and harmized via the translations process.

    Even in the NT you have a pretty clear distinction between the 4 gospels (and John is a bit of an outlier) and sort-of-maybe Acts vs. the letters of Paul that might be genuine (the only bits dating prior to The War) vs. the half or so letters of paul inserted in the 2nd century vs the other letters and epsitles vs Revelations (which is exceedinly dubious).

    But you will find within those in the same voice and hand the rules and sometimes the love. Paul was the one who wanted to bring the religion to the world and preached a brotherhood of all mankind. Yet he was also exceedingly homophobic. Jesus, in the same gospel, had both the sermon on the mount and the ranting against divorce.

    You cannot separate one view from the other in the text. If you want to invent your own religion by cutting out the bits and pieces you like that's your perogotive of course. And a popular choice indeed. But at least be honest with yourself about what you are doing there. What you are choosing to believe has nothing to do with a fiery faith-healer from Nazerith. Or with the older roots in the Rider on the Clouds, YHWH of the mountain.

    Wow you know a lot about religion.

    That's so interesting! I didn't know most of that!

    lolol_zps7df95a14.png
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    I'm very laid back and tolerant.

    Tolerance of intolerant people is quite odd.

    Presumably if you think that a woman has a right to choose and someone else thinks a woman does not have a right to choose...not sure how a friendship would work in that situation.

    We don't talk about it?

    It's really that simple.

    If a person's viewpoints on a subject infuriate you and it's impossible for you to have a meaningful discussion on the subject, the best bet is to just not talk about it.

    If they act on those views, certainly that should be opposed and you should totally get all up on their asses about it.

    But, for example, I know people who are anti-abortion and I'm still capable of being civil and friendly with them despite the fact that I think their views are terrible.

    So long as they aren't like, actively showing up at anti-abortion protests and financially supporting the Right to Life movement or something.

    I judge people by their actions, not their professed beliefs. And even with their actions, those are judged by their actual value and importance.

    Obviously, while libertarians have terrible viewpoints and I oppose libertarianism, a guy who votes Ron Paul doesn't have a huge impact on the world so even though he is acting on his beliefs, it's not really on a level that I care about.

  • stiliststilist Registered User
    edited September 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Isn’t OS X’s only BSD overlap that it’s based in Mach?
    That's actually where they don't overlap

    XNU (OS'x Kernel) is based on Mach 3.0 with the networking stack, VFS layer, POSIX API interface, and some other bits from FreeBSD implemented on top of the Mach primitives.

    Mac OS X itself, apart from the kernel, also uses FreeBSD's userland, and Apple employs a number of major FreeBSD contributors
    huh

    Glad I posed that as a question, then.

    if you're curious, this guy has a hell of a lot of interesting info on the low-level bits of OS X
    http://www.kernelthread.com/
    I actually read that site from ~’04–’06 (i.e. while he updated it).

    It’s just not knowledge I ever really have a use for, so I’ve forgotten a lot of it.

    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.

    Except if he maintains a belief of tolerance "Pro-choice rather than Pro-Life" presumably maintaining that belief would manifest a desire to enact a Pro-choice policy.

    If I am pro-choice and you are pro-life and I do not try to change your mind in what sense am I pro-choice?

    Because not every interaction with other people is an ideological clash?

  • SenjutsuSenjutsu fiddy too Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    stilist wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Mostly I remembered that BSD was involved somehow, and the two parts have significantly different philosophical approaches.
    Seeing nerds have a raging argument about whether the GPL or BSD licence is the more "free" is the funniest thing.
    Both, depending on what you mean.

    GPL is freedom for the user, BSD is freedom for the developer. Everything further is which you feel is more important.

    Eh, BSD is more freedom for other developers and users, but the GPL gives the author "freedom" in Stallman's mind by giving the author rights to other people's work.

    It's all very silly, as anything Stallman says is.

    But I don't want to turn this into a whole Thing

    Sarksus wrote: »
    I'm gonna get a PhD in incest.
  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Greeper wrote: »
    Greeper wrote: »
    J, ever girl I ever had a crush on voted Republican.

    What I'm saying is that it doesn't really matter.

    EDIT: Also I have terrible tastes in women.

    It does matter. When people go beyond their personal beliefs and try and inflict that way of life upon others via the government it matters.

    You are basically saying people should never vote.

    Look, people are allowed to vote, for whatever, and you can judge them for it, if you like, but the way to combat that is to vote against the things they vote for, not bring them over to your house and systematically destroy their belief system with logic.

    I am saying it is right, and just, to judge and argue with at every oppertunity any person who votes in such a way as foster the ruin of other peoples lives.

    You can do that for sure.

    I'd just get bored, do you know how many people like that there are?

    tonnes.

    lolol_zps7df95a14.png
  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Blargh, several people I'm interested in on OkCupid, but I'm drawing a blank on what to write to them.

    I hate writing first messages.

    DogSig.gif
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    If you were to choreograph a fight sequence to Vivaldi's Spring, what kind of fight would it be?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • PasserbyePasserbye The Woman Who Is Not Short at The Moonlite All-Nite Diner; a glass box full of bad food and good people.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.

    Except if he maintains a belief of tolerance "Pro-choice rather than Pro-Life" presumably maintaining that belief would manifest a desire to enact a Pro-choice policy.

    If I am pro-choice and you are pro-life and I do not try to change your mind in what sense am I pro-choice?

    You can be something without trying to convince others that it's the right way. As Pony said, he'll speak against their views when they come up, but he's not going to start needless trouble if they're not bringing up their different views all the time.

    Not everything is about politics or polarizing, after all. It's possible to sit with someone who thinks differently than you and enjoy a cup of coffee or a game of Super Smash Brothers and not have it lead to a lines-are-drawn argument.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Blargh, several people I'm interested in on OkCupid, but I'm drawing a blank on what to write to them.

    I hate writing first messages.

    "Hey baby, you make me so lovesick that I'm coughing up blood."

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Blargh, several people I'm interested in on OkCupid, but I'm drawing a blank on what to write to them.

    I hate writing first messages.

    Just go: :winky:

    lolol_zps7df95a14.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    But, for example, I know people who are anti-abortion and I'm still capable of being civil and friendly with them despite the fact that I think their views are terrible.

    How?

    If a person is beating their wife and you perceive it and do nothing? You condone their wife beating.

    If a person maintains an anti-abortion stance and you do nothing? You condone their being anti-abortion.

    How can you do that?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    So are you expressing tolerance or apathy?

    I would say that's tolerance. He's still willing to speak against their viewpoints if they're brought up, he's just willing to recognize that a person is more than one of their (usually multiple) viewpoints.

    Except if he maintains a belief of tolerance "Pro-choice rather than Pro-Life" presumably maintaining that belief would manifest a desire to enact a Pro-choice policy.

    If I am pro-choice and you are pro-life and I do not try to change your mind in what sense am I pro-choice?

    J, this might be hard for you to understand, and I get that...

    ...but it's possible for a person to hold a viewpoint or belief and not constantly feel the need to espouse it on people and try to change everyone's minds to what they think.

    It's possible.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Blargh, several people I'm interested in on OkCupid, but I'm drawing a blank on what to write to them.

    I hate writing first messages.

    Ask them what their feelings are on cream-based pasta sauces.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Passerbye wrote: »
    Not everything is about politics or polarizing, after all. It's possible to sit with someone who thinks differently than you and enjoy a cup of coffee or a game of Super Smash Brothers and not have it lead to a lines-are-drawn argument.

    How can one play Smash Brothers with someone who thinks that a rape victim needs to be forced to birth the resulting child?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    If you were to choreograph a fight sequence to Vivaldi's Spring, what kind of fight would it be?

    This is important and relevant.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • stiliststilist Registered User
    edited September 2009
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    stilist wrote: »
    Mostly I remembered that BSD was involved somehow, and the two parts have significantly different philosophical approaches.
    Seeing nerds have a raging argument about whether the GPL or BSD licence is the more "free" is the funniest thing.
    Both, depending on what you mean.

    GPL is freedom for the user, BSD is freedom for the developer. Everything further is which you feel is more important.
    Eh, BSD is more freedom for other developers and users, but the GPL gives the author "freedom" in Stallman's mind by giving the author rights to other people's work.

    It's all very silly, as anything Stallman says is.

    But I don't want to turn this into a whole Thing
    Our differences of opinion are probably because you make money off code, while I lean toward the public domain and ‘open for the future’ stuff.

    I poop things on my site and twitter
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Greeper wrote: »
    Greeper wrote: »
    I like to think of the Bible as written in two separate parts: The one part which has a bunch of stuff about forgiveness and love

    and the other part which is all rules and 'do not divorce' and shit.

    I like to think that they only added the second part so that the conservative disciples would vote for it.

    There are several separate parts. But they absolutely are not divided on those lines.

    There is the obvious distinction between the Tanakh or Old Testament and the new for example. Oddly enough, the textual history of the Old is far better than the new. There does not exist any portion of the NT which has not gone through at least one translation wheras the OT was preserved remarkably well in a range of dialects. This means there is no part of the NT that has not been homoginized and harmized via the translations process.

    Even in the NT you have a pretty clear distinction between the 4 gospels (and John is a bit of an outlier) and sort-of-maybe Acts vs. the letters of Paul that might be genuine (the only bits dating prior to The War) vs. the half or so letters of paul inserted in the 2nd century vs the other letters and epsitles vs Revelations (which is exceedinly dubious).

    But you will find within those in the same voice and hand the rules and sometimes the love. Paul was the one who wanted to bring the religion to the world and preached a brotherhood of all mankind. Yet he was also exceedingly homophobic. Jesus, in the same gospel, had both the sermon on the mount and the ranting against divorce.

    You cannot separate one view from the other in the text. If you want to invent your own religion by cutting out the bits and pieces you like that's your perogotive of course. And a popular choice indeed. But at least be honest with yourself about what you are doing there. What you are choosing to believe has nothing to do with a fiery faith-healer from Nazerith. Or with the older roots in the Rider on the Clouds, YHWH of the mountain.

    Wow you know a lot about religion.

    That's so interesting! I didn't know most of that!

    Alas, this is about the level of reply I should have expected. But still you dissapoint me Greeper. Perhaps you should be less careless about what you believe if this is the level of thought you put into it.

  • visiblehowlvisiblehowl Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    japan wrote: »
    Blargh, several people I'm interested in on OkCupid, but I'm drawing a blank on what to write to them.

    I hate writing first messages.

    Ask them what their feelings are on cream-based pasta sauces.
    Oh man, I really should, that's a major thing.

    DogSig.gif
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    If a person maintains an anti-abortion stance and you do nothing? You condone their being anti-abortion.

    lolwut

  • PasserbyePasserbye The Woman Who Is Not Short at The Moonlite All-Nite Diner; a glass box full of bad food and good people.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    japan wrote: »
    Because not every interaction with other people is an ideological clash?

  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    But, for example, I know people who are anti-abortion and I'm still capable of being civil and friendly with them despite the fact that I think their views are terrible.

    How?

    If a person is beating their wife and you perceive it and do nothing? You condone their wife beating.

    If a person maintains an anti-abortion stance and you do nothing? You condone their being anti-abortion.

    How can you do that?

    Easily.

    See, I wouldn't do nothing about them beating their wife, I'd call the police or maybe hit them with a rusty tire iron until their blood made funny shapes.

    But I would do nothing about an anti-abortion stance, because I do condone their ability to make that choice.

    Arguing with them will do nothing. I'm not a particularly good argue-guy, so when you argue with someone, it's almost impossible to change their mind... hey wait, why the hell am I arguing with you, then?

    lolol_zps7df95a14.png
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    If you fail to be friends with people because you have different beliefs, you are silly.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    J, this might be hard for you to understand, and I get that...

    ...but it's possible for a person to hold a viewpoint or belief and not constantly feel the need to espouse it on people and try to change everyone's minds to what they think.

    It's possible.

    How?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2009
    Sarksus wrote: »
    how do you openly hate jews in north america in this day and age

    what the fuck is that even about

    Well you know they control our money apparently.

    And some easily persuaded people could be taken in by Mel Gibson's arguments.

    There was a survey a while back that found that fewer people than in the past now believe that the entertainment industry is run by Jews.

    Which is odd, since the CEOs of ABC (Disney included), NBC (including Universal), CBS, Sony Music, Sony Pictures, and all of Sony, the head of the RIAA, etc. are ethnically Jewish, not that I have a problem with it.

This discussion has been closed.