Infractions Log

ElJeffe · March 2009

ElJeffe wrote: »

Post: You Down With GOP? (Yeah, You Know Me)
User: Obs
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

Assassination? What the hell is wrong with you?

Original Post:

Someone needs to ASSASSINATE Rush Limbaugh.

Right fucking now.

Echo · March 2009

Post: Team Fortress 2: A year and a half later: Dustbowl is still the best map
User: anoffday
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

You're not helping.

Original Post:

busfahrer wrote: »

Since this thread is quite fast-moving, I think it's OK to ask my question again, since it didn't really get much attention the last time:

Would it be possible for me to buy the game (Orange box) physically here in Germany and then use the key to download the US version from Steam?

Sorry, I don't have an answer for you. But I just wanted to say don't even bother. This thread is pretty much worthless if you have any kind of question. It just gets lost in a sea of ridiculousness. Why do you think it was deleted and taken away for awhile?

Tube · May 2009

Lightrider has been jailed and will never know why

ElJeffe · June 2009

ElJeffe wrote: »

Post: Dating: The only real incentive is Good Food
User: Element Brian
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

Your thread would be better without the passive-aggressive flame bait in the middle.

Original Post:

This is not an H/A thread. I know the difference.

So after my several failed ventures into the world of Dating. I'm curious D&D.

Whats it like for you?

Do you usually take it slow, wait awhile before even having "the talk."

What about kissing, making out? (or for some of you, not me, out and out sex). Do you feel there is a good time to wait to do that stuff based on when you met the person, or does it vary on a case to case basis?

Do you tend to run into the same problems..or hear the same things often? (Maybe the girls on the forum can explain why they are all pathological liars.)

Spoiler:

Just kidding

Spoiler:

Not really

Personally, I seem to keep running into the same situation. Meet girl, we share some sort of mutual atraction. We talk, I keep thinking to myself, don't kiss her, don't kiss her, if you kiss her to early, you'll ruin it. And then I usually end up kissing her, we make out way too early and I have now ruined it.

Rinse and repeat.

So what about you suckers, what have you done that works, or didn't work. Maybe what are your do's and don'ts. This isn't a how to hook up thread, I know how to hook up. Its not difficult. I wan't a discussion on what you've learned/experienced from dating. Maybe a few horror stories. (Though I'm sure we all have enough of those). Maybe you married jerks can sit here and gloat in our faces, whatever. GO!

Elki · July 2009

User: SQUIRREL!
Infraction: Alternate Account
Points: 8

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

It's just been revoked!

Elki · July 2009

Post: American Healthcare: Terminal Freedoms
User: wwtMask
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Off-topic.

Original Post:

KingLampshade wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Suriko wrote: »

Tell me you could not halve that and not remain a military superpower. That's a huge amount of money that could be poured into, you know, not killing people. Like healthcare, for example.

And for all that, the only superiority that the US enjoys is in the skies. Anything that doesnt fly, and the US has the same problems that the rest of the world has, like the troop transports not being properly armored etc.

I have seen charts like this posted way too many times by liberals who evidently have no clue on what it takes to maintain, not to mention modernize such a large force. Wanna guess how much a Chinese or Russian soldier gets paid in comparison to our own? Same case for many factory workers, engineers, and everybody else involved. Some of our funding also goes to various military aid programs for other countries as well. Not only that but it is quite the Chinese aren't reporting some expenses, despite how they have been increasing their budget over the years.

Regarding the efficiently of the USMC, consider that their force has many connections with the Navy, their mechanized infantry capabilities are quite limited compared to those of the Army, and the fact they do have programs like the V-22 and EFV which politicians have been trying to kill now for the past 15 years.

We cannot be expected to achieve aerial superiority with minimal losses against future foes with advanced SAM systems (S-400) and high-end Russian fighters (Su-30MK, Su-35BM, Mig-35) without aircraft like the F-22 and F-35. We cannot replace our relatively large fleet of F-15s and F-16s, with the limited funding for production allocated by congress given to the F-22, and probably the F-35 once those enter mass production. There are numerous programs in the concept and development phases that need funding, and relatively new areas like "cyber warfare" that we need to invest in. The procurement holiday taken during the Clinton years had it's negative effects, and so would similar cuts.

I hear you talking, but all I'm getting is "slurp slurp slurp on the Military Industrial complex's cock". If we stopped developing weapons for our military and just maintained what we have right now, we'd still be the baddest army on the planet thirty years from now. Conservatives like you have the stupidest priorities. You hate welfare for poor people but trip over yourselves to give it to defense contractors. You're such frightened pussies that you have to hide behind a military armed to the gills with shit that we don't need to fight and defend ourselves. You know the people we're fighting in the "war on terror"? They're getting by on the smallest fraction of a percent of what we spend on bullets alone, and because we're outfitted for "future war" bullshit scenarios, they continue to be effective even as we push into their territory. And don't give me that crap about personnel costs, not with all the money we're wasting on R&D for planes that aren't even filling a niche that an older plane doesn't already fill perfectly well.

But no, you think it's preferable to throw away money into the black hole that is defense contracting just so we can say that we have the newest shiny toys and puff our chests out. There are several good reasons I'll never join the conservative side; the slavery to the military industrial complex and disdain for anything that actually helps people instead of killing them are chief among them.

Post: American Healthcare: Terminal Freedoms
User: KingLampshade
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Off-topic.

Original Post:

wwtMask wrote: »

I hear you talking, but all I'm getting is "slurp slurp slurp on the Military Industrial complex's cock". If we stopped developing weapons for our military and just maintained what we have right now, we'd still be the baddest army on the planet thirty years from now. Conservatives like you have the stupidest priorities. You hate welfare for poor people but trip over yourselves to give it to defense contractors. You're such frightened pussies that you have to hide behind a military armed to the gills with shit that we don't need to fight and defend ourselves. You know the people we're fighting in the "war on terror"? They're getting by on the smallest fraction of a percent of what we spend on bullets alone, and because we're outfitted for "future war" bullshit scenarios, they continue to be effective even as we push into their territory. And don't give me that crap about personnel costs, not with all the money we're wasting on R&D for planes that aren't even filling a niche that an older plane doesn't already fill perfectly well.

But no, you think it's preferable to throw away money into the black hole that is defense contracting just so we can say that we have the newest shiny toys and puff our chests out. There are several good reasons I'll never join the conservative side; the slavery to the military industrial complex and disdain for anything that actually helps people instead of killing them are chief among them.

This coming from a guy who has been sucking on Obama and co.'s dick since day one? A ton changes in 30 years, and we would not be the baddest military on Earth, if we ceased all development and production of new equipment, given China's relatively rapid pace of modernization. Conservatives have the stupid priorities? Excuse me but it is you dumbass liberals who put bullshit like banning smoking and allowing flaming homosexuals in the military before supplying them with the equipment they need! There is no reason scumbags who can work, but don't and live off the system deserves any welfare. But you unrealistic liberal morons would rather bitch and whine about the "evil defense industry" and demand the military budget be slashed, while just tossing money at everything other than national defense. It amazes me you fools with cars covered in bumper stickers like "wouldn't it be great if the Air Force had to hold a bake sale for a new bomber" think you are in any position to determine what aircraft can fill what role for how long. But in case you didn't know let me inform you that the F-16 was never intended to serve for more than 30 years, and modernized F-15s are inferior to new Russian Flankers in several areas, not to mention structural problems part of the A-D model fleet ran into.

COIN operations, especially COIN operations in heavily urbanized areas require different equipment and tactics, and the military has done a good job at adjusting to the situation in Iraq. There are many demonstrations of this, even if it took longer than it should have in some cases. In fact much high tech equipment ranging from UAVs to acoustic sensors to position snipers have been useful. If we fought with the same gear they did, our losses would be much higher. Yet we can't jeopardize our capability to fight conventional wars at the same time. Those MRAPs do little good at anything other than patrolling roads with IED and most RPG threats for example. And theoretically, new designs can incorporate features making them very suitable for conventional, COIN, and "hybrid wars".

I wouldn't expect somebody who has bought into seemingly everything from all the factions of the far-left to consider becoming a conservative or even a moderate. Please continue doing your best to ensure this nation becomes a shadow of it's former self. I mean if landlocked Switzerland can do it, why can't a much larger country with plenty of enemies and competitors have virtually no military capability? Right? Seriously, have the best of luck handing the world to China.

So?

Those consequences pale in comparison to the benefits of what we could be using the money to maintain.

Bullshit, the government is just as inefficient if not more so in the areas you would dump the money that should be going for new equipment.

Thanatos · July 2009

So, the moral of this particular story is that ignoring a mod has consequences.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: Belketre
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

I would swear I was pretty specific about not turning this into a D&D thread.

Original Post:

This friend of the OP is a paedophile, plain and simple. 28 year old guys who date 16 year old girls are disgusting and deserve to go to prison. If I was her father, he'd have already appeared on a missing persons register.

I dont understand why you'd want to help anybody who molests children. Turns my stomach, honestly.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: blizzard224
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

I would swear I was pretty specific about not turning this into a D&D thread.

Original Post:

Belketre wrote: »

His friend is a child molester. I dont care how you justify it, he is attempting to fuck a child.
I don't care how old she looks.

"Hey, that girl in the pram is surely 18. Looks old enough to me...."

As for how much it's going to fuck him over, he should have thought about that before molesting a child. He will get less than he deserves if he stays out of prison.

God, the world isn't black and white man, as has been mentioned in this thread; in Denmark, he would have been breaking no laws - I'm not saying that is a better or worse solution, just saying that it's not god's undebatable law that anybody a moment under 18 is the equivalent of a toddler. I don't think that the two should be able to continue their relationship, actually, I think 16 is probably too young to be developing mature ideas about the different kinds of relationships that exist, and she probably just is in it for a little fun.

On the other hand, I think the guy is probably a little mentally damaged, or maybe just a little clueless. A lot of women his own age are fascinating creatures and he should be exploring his relationships with them. As I said, he probably just needs a little counselling to help him realise this, not to be thrown into the deep end.

Either way, this is H/A, and not really the place for this debate. I'm just trying to say to OP, you don't have to listen to the people in this thread, and you shouldn't feel bad for trying to help a friend in this situation. He's probably not the child-molesting, katana-murder-spreeing criminal that he's being painted as in this thread, rather just a confused dude going through a life-crisis or something. If you think otherwise, then it's your decision to make to leave him hanging or not.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: Wiley
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

It's almost like I said "if all you have to say is 'get a lawyer,' don't post" or something.

Original Post:

The only thing I can think to reiterate is that your friend needs to make sure he gets the best lawyer he can afford. With a situation like this he doesn't want to go to someone who doesn't have some experience with cases like his.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: Burden of Proof
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

Original Post:

16 is the age of consent in my state.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: MC Mystery
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

Original Post:

16 is the age of consent in most states.

Post: My friend's in deep legal doo-doo...
User: Esh
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Message to User:

I was pretty specific about not turning this into a D&D thread.

Original Post:

Belketre wrote: »

His friend is a child molester. I dont care how you justify it, he is attempting to fuck a child.
I don't care how old she looks.

"Hey, that girl in the pram is surely 18. Looks old enough to me...."

As for how much it's going to fuck him over, he should have thought about that before molesting a child. He will get less than he deserves if he stays out of prison.

Where do you weird ass lurkers keep popping out of? I keep seeing more and more low post people popping out of the seams.

While the guy is surely an idiot, and is breaking the law, he is not a "child molester". Let's save that term for the kiddie diddlers. He's someone who should've thought long and hard about dating a teenager, but made the wrong decision in the wrong state.

Elki · July 2009

That guy is a creep with no taste at all. 16? Disgusting! I am all for laws against those who freely associate with teenagers. ugh.

User: OhGodWhy
Infraction: Serious offense
Points: 3

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Alt accounts are not allowed, HF-kun.

Your original account is permanently banned, and now you have only this one. And stop it with the PMs.

Elki · October 2009

Post: The Best [CHAT] Ever
User: Fluffy, Our Beloved Flopsy Bunny Friend
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Don't make annoying quote-trees. If you read the rules thread you'd see that the limit is 5.

Original Post:

Spoiler:

Post: The Best [CHAT] Ever
User: AJAlkaline40
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Don't make annoying quote-trees. If you read the rules thread you'd see that the limit is 5.

Original Post:

Spoiler:

Post: [Philosophy on]: Define your Fucking Terms
User: _J_
Infraction: Serious offense
Points: 3

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

How about you start behaving like an adult?

Original Post:

hippofant wrote: »

my idea of subjective truth descends from my understanding of how people commonly use the word truth.

I have an idea. How about instead of basing your idea of subjective truth on something which does not have a god damned thing to do with the idea of subjective truth you get a fucking philosophical dictionary and look up "subjective truth", memorize the definition, and then shut the god damned fuck up.

Here you go:

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy wrote:

Theories that various kinds of judgements are, respectively, objective, i.e. pertain to objects, or subjective, i.e. pertain to subjects (people). (1) 'Fish have fins' is an objective claim: its truth or falsity is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about the matter. (2) 'Raw fish is delicious' is a subjective claim: its truth or falsity is not thus independent, and indeed arguably it is neither true nor false, even though taste can be sophisticated, discriminating, insensitive, etc. The statement (3) 'Most Japanese find raw fish delicious (while most Britons do not)' is an objective truth or falsehood aboutsubjects. it is therefore perhaps surprising that one theiry labelled 'subjectivism' about morality, aesthetics, etc. is the view that evaluative claims within these fields are of kind (3), while another theory asserts they are of kind (2).

It is counter-productive to use a different term, 'relativism', to mean the same as 'subjectivism'. If by 'relativism' we mean the theory that what is valuable (or even true) depends on chaging circumstances, the it does not entail subjectivism.

Post: Obama wins the Nobel Prize
User: Evander
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Shut the hell up, Evander.

Original Post:

Kipling217 wrote: »

Evander wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

Evander wrote: »

Definitely too soon. I like Obama, but he hasn't really done anything yet. His global popularity has more to do with him symbolically than it has to do with his actual actions.

Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.

Then again you are not the most objective person when it comes to Arafat, or palestinians in general.

If Sharon got a peace prize, I'd have brought that up as proof too.

and while my hatred for Arafat is no secret, when have I come down against palestinians, in general? If you actually bothered to read my posts, I am a STAUNCH supporter of a two state solution involving a sovereign Palestine.

Seriously, though, if you want to call me subjective, tell me what Arafat ever did to promote peace.

Signed a Peace treaty with Israel outlining the begining of a two state solution.

Wich failed because Rabin got killed and replaced by Netanyahu. We then got 5 years of the Israelies not holding up their end of the bargain, empowering Hamas and weakening Arafat. Then we got the hatchet job that was Camp David, for wich Arafat unfairly got the blame.

Really, Arafat just sat there for five years twiddling his thumbs helplessly?

I'm sorry. I've never claimed that Israel is completely innocent myself, and to try to paint that carpet-bagging Egyptian terrorist as the victim is SO incredibly bullshit that I really don't know what to say. Arafat REFUSED to negotiate at all at Camp David.

I'm dropping this after this post, because I don't what to really derail this thread, but seriously, Arafat did a WHOLE lot of harm in his life as a terrorist, so the idea that him just signing a piece of paper, and then giving him a peace prize without even waiting to see if he holds up his end? That's as crazy as giving Kissenger one, or as crazy as giving Sharon one would have been.

Dyscord wrote: »

I was just reading about Rabin the other day, having not really been familiar with that story before, and it's pretty nuts how close we might have been to real progress. I think it was Friendman who had a column about it?

I'd be lying if I said that Rabin's assassination didn't play a role in my distrust ofthe ultra-orthodox. I don't blame them all for it, but I also don't trust them to obey societal rules. The Haredim attacking archeological sites doesn't help as well, of course.

Post: Obama wins the Nobel Prize
User: Kipling217
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Off-topic.

Original Post:

Evander wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

Evander wrote: »

Kipling217 wrote: »

Evander wrote: »

Definitely too soon. I like Obama, but he hasn't really done anything yet. His global popularity has more to do with him symbolically than it has to do with his actual actions.

Also, Arafat got a peace prize, so they are kind of incredibly meaningless.

Then again you are not the most objective person when it comes to Arafat, or palestinians in general.

If Sharon got a peace prize, I'd have brought that up as proof too.

and while my hatred for Arafat is no secret, when have I come down against palestinians, in general? If you actually bothered to read my posts, I am a STAUNCH supporter of a two state solution involving a sovereign Palestine.

Seriously, though, if you want to call me subjective, tell me what Arafat ever did to promote peace.

Signed a Peace treaty with Israel outlining the begining of a two state solution.

Wich failed because Rabin got killed and replaced by Netanyahu. We then got 5 years of the Israelies not holding up their end of the bargain, empowering Hamas and weakening Arafat. Then we got the hatchet job that was Camp David, for wich Arafat unfairly got the blame.

Really, Arafat just sat there for five years twiddling his thumbs helplessly?

I'm sorry. I've never claimed that Israel is completely innocent myself, and to try to paint that carpet-bagging Egyptian terrorist as the victim is SO incredibly bullshit that I really don't know what to say. Arafat REFUSED to negotiate at all at Camp David.

I'm dropping this after this post, because I don't what to really derail this thread, but seriously, Arafat did a WHOLE lot of harm in his life as a terrorist, so the idea that him just signing a piece of paper, and then giving him a peace prize without even waiting to see if he holds up his end? That's as crazy as giving Kissenger one, or as crazy as giving Sharon one would have been.

As stupid as giving De Klerk/Mandela a peace prize? Because in 1994 those guys had done jack shit. You know apart from starting a peace prosses after decades of fighting, just like Arafat/Rabin. And one guys terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Like I said your not the most objective person when it comes to Arafat, so don't claim your are presenting the truth in this matter. For Camp David I would suggest you read Ehud Barack's account of what happend, its not very flattering to either himself or Clinton

Elki · October 2009

Post: [weaboo] What's That? Perfect! That sounds horrible! Tell me more!
User: AngelHedgie
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

No what the thread is for.

Original Post:

Spoiler:

What. The. Fuck. Japan. (And Apple, too.)

Elki · October 2009

Post: Bomb the Moon, win the Nobel Peace Prize
User: Sheep
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Grow up.

Original Post:

Also, Sheep, I notice you've kind of stopped responding. Facts get in the way of your narrative?

Fact. Obama received the same prize that Arafat received.

Fact. Not even the DNC felt that Obama deserved the Peace Prize.

Fact. Obama himself said he doesn't deserve it.

Fact. You and the tools like you are gonna bend over backwards to make sure that your figurehead gets the praises you think he deserves. The fact that you're pretty quick to lump anyone who thinks he doesn't deserve it means they're standard GOP tells me you're more about ideology than rationality. The additional fact that some of you tools thing "environmentalism" is a qualifier in a category that involves things as serious as nuclear war supports that.

Don't let little ole me stop you all from your hero worship.

Sheep, dude. Don't be that guy. It's not "getting away with it" if he's initiating and funding projects to more than offset the carbon footprint from the power he's using.

So, what you're saying is that I can tell everyone ELSE to cut back on their use of energy while I make a flagrant use of it, and it's okay because I have money to throw around?

Elki · October 2009

Post: Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?
User: Henroid
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

That is an incredibly unhelpful edit.

Original Post:

They don't have the right to bark it at people, which I also included in my post. If a black family is sitting at a restaurant, people don't have the right to go up to them and disturb them to express the opinion that black people are somehow bad people.

The fact of the matter is, freedom of speech has a time and place.

Edit - And since you're one of those people who have a hard-on for the government as a whole being oppressive enough to ZOMGSILENCE PEOPLE, explain Fox news. You can't. Because you're an idiot and wrong.

Elki · October 2009

Post: Bomb the Moon, win the Nobel Peace Prize
User: widowson
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Well, next time read the damn thread before jumping in it.

Original Post:

themightypuck wrote: »

widowson wrote: »

Passerbye wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

What do you mean by waiting more than two weeks? And aside from lifetime achievement awards, like Mandella or Schweitzer, the Prize is used as a political means to impact/celebrate things presently ongoing. It's pretty much always either one or the other. And it really isn't all that often the lifetime achievement version when you look at it.

He was nominated two weeks after being inaugurated, before he'd done anything. That doesn't strike you as a little bit premature?

Wow. This.

Really. You're going to go there. In case you aren't being sarcastic here, this has come up in the thread multiple times.

Um. I'm not being sarcastic. I haven't read the entire thread and just saw this post.

There are over 700 posts over 30 pages. 8-)

Elki · October 2009

Post: Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?
User: Rent
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

This is not that thread. Don't cross the threads.

Original Post:

Modern Man wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

I don't have the patience to argue about something that isn't really the focus of the thread, let alone with a pessimistic airhead.

It seems like insults are the only thing you have the patience, and intellectual capacity, for.

Modern Man wrote: »

Timothy Leary Come Check Out This Theory wrote: »

Atlanta and Chicago may have higher crime rates, but that's got something to do with the fact that certain types don't go to backwards hick towns without getting run off or brutalized.

If you're talking about minorities, no, that's not the case. Rural America, especially in the South, has plenty of black people living in hick towns alongside white people. You'll see a lot more black people sitting at diner counters next to white people in Alabama than you'll see black people sitting next to white people in restaurants in Manhattan.

Modern Man wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

One of the Chicago daily freebie papers is actually tracking all the murders for 2009, and placing them on Google maps. They pretty much 100% coincide with the divisions between the "good" parts of town and the "bad". The South Side is completely lit up, while Lincoln Park has zero.

Here's a map of murders in DC from 2004-2006. You can see the heavy clustering in Anacostia and a couple of other bad neighborhoods, with almost no other murders in parts of Northwest. Furthermore, the murders tend to heavily involve one demographic- young black men with prior criminal records. We're generally not talking about random killings of respectable citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DChomicides.jpg

Modern Man wrote: »

That really doesn't make sense. If we're talking about the South, there are few rural areas without any black people. Heck, in places like Mississippi, large parts of rural areas are majority-black. There really aren't any parts of the US where a black person would be in danger based on his race if he stopped to fill up his gas tank.

In any event, white on black murder is pretty rare. Black people are in much higher danger of being murdered or assaulted by another black person than they are by a white person.

Modern Man wrote: »

"safe?" Violent crime victiimization rates in rural areas are lower for all demographics. Do you have any evidence that black people in rural areas are at greater risk of interracial crime? White-on-black crime is pretty rare everywhere in this country.

Modern Man wrote: »

Rent wrote: »

Tell me more of this magical mystery world where there's no race violence and nearly Jim Crow-era segregation in the South, and there is rampant and unrelenting closet racism in the North!

This world you clearly live in sounds awesome!

The world I live in is modern America, where race-motivated violence is, statistically-speaking, almost unheard of. According to the FBI. in 2006 there were less than 8,000 hate crimes in the US, or one per 37,500 Americans.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/pressrelease.html

Interracial crime is predominantly black-on-white, though even the large majority of that crime is regular crime, not racially-based. Black people don't have much to worry about when it comes to violence directed at them from white people- the most likely victimizer, by far, of a black person is another black person.

And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.

And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.

And there is simply no racial segregation in the US. Any American can live wherever they want, assuming they can afford it.

Don't worry man, I trust you and your 100% true arguements in favor of how Black People are trying to oppress the Poor White Man. Fucking savages, why can't those backwards bunch of motherfuckers learn how to be enlightened. Whatever though, as a Evil Hypocritical Liberal I realize I'm not as Racially Enlightened as you, Mr. Deep South Is Far More Racially Progressive Guy And Man We Should Just Let Them N**gers Fight It Out, Don't Get Involved Okay?

It's just staggering, the level of internal hypocrisy I have. I mean, I thought reasonably limiting hate speech was a good idea, but I realized we should be far more like the Racial Disneyland South, with their Awesome "Call Minorities Anything You Want, It's Your Right To Openly Hate Others In A Way That Intimidates Your Targets!" Policy! Look how well it works for them! There is simply no racial segregation in the U.S., besides the North because us Dirty Liberal Closet Racists aren't allowed to openly terrorize blacks for being black like in Alabama!

Elki · October 2009

Post: Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?
User: Modern Man
Infraction: Minor Offense
Points: 2

Administrative Note:

Message to User:

Why are you replying to a post I already carded for being off-topic? Did you somehow miss the

(USER WAS INFRACTED FOR THIS POST)

on top of the post?

Original Post:

Rent wrote: »

Don't worry man, I trust you and your 100% true arguements in favor of how Black People are trying to oppress the Poor White Man. Fucking savages, why can't those backwards bunch of motherfuckers learn how to be enlightened. Whatever though, as a Evil Hypocritical Liberal I realize I'm not as Racially Enlightened as you, Mr. Deep South Is Far More Racially Progressive Guy And Man We Should Just Let Them N**gers Fight It Out, Don't Get Involved Okay?

Are you sure you'e posting in the right thread here? This thread is about a free speech law in England, and, more generally, the limitations, if any, on reasonable speech.

It's just staggering, the level of internal hypocrisy I have. I mean, I thought reasonably limiting hate speech was a good idea

Define "reasonably limiting" and "hate speech." In any event, at least in the US, the Constitution would protect pretty much any definition of hate speech. Maybe you don't like that fact, but take it up with the Supreme Court- they're the ones who have ruled that hate speech is perfectly Constitutional.

but I realized we should be far more like the Racial Disneyland South, with their Awesome "Call Minorities Anything You Want, It's Your Right To Openly Hate Others In A Way That Intimidates Your Targets!" Policy!

Do you think free speech is different in the South than it is in the North? Give examples, if you think that's the case.

Look how well it works for them! There is simply no racial segregation in the U.S., besides the North because us Dirty Liberal Closet Racists aren't allowed to openly terrorize blacks for being black like in Alabama!

You're pulling this crap out of your ass. Give examples where threats of violence towards minorities are legal under State and/or Federal law anywhere in the US. You can't, because that is simply not the case.

Penny Arcade

Infractions Log

Posts