U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

It's a false dilemma fallacy. "Either you love me or you hate me" replace the word 'me' with black people.

It's also conveniently a catch-22. YT can't win, no matter what.

You kneel? You're displaying and re-enacting a symbolic act of white power by 'overstanding' a POC worthy of reparations! How dare they? Re-enacting the killing of that poor black guy, brazenly - in front of the media...

You kneel? Surely you're kneeling to your superiors, an admission of guilt and a symbol of your white privilege being displayed as white guilt and inferiority. Curtsy to your kangs, tiny white girl. Even your mother agrees that you're privileged! Bow, evil police man. You too, Uncle Tom. Fucking race traitor!

It's how spin works, ideally in your favour, either way.

"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get outta the game." ICBATG

Does anybody remember when double binds were considered a fundamental abuse --- psychological torture/manipulation, brainwashing, and at one point the cause of schizophrenia? Pepperridge Farms remembers.

 

[2lolis1cup]

I'm going to powerlvl a bit here. These assholes decided to protest 5 min from my fucking house. Traffic was god awful 20 min before I saw them coming. I now realize it was people getting the fuck away from them or join them. I was about to cross a busy intersection when I noticed a shit load of cops. I thought huh that's weird I wonder if there is an accident. I then see fucking flags and a mass of people moving into the intersection I was coming up too. I 100% noped the fuck out of there. I was literally making a Uturn in the street driving the wrong way. I knew it would take hours to clear out so I got the fuck out of there.

https://www.facebook.com/WRTV6/videos/2638852399777770

They are protesting about some felonious nigger that got in a police chase and shot at the cops about 10 miles from the "protest" location. I hope they all get gassed and beaten by the police.

 

[NoReturn]

I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.

OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)

You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"

I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."

That's wrong.

Killing a single person? That's wrong.

The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.

THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.

You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.

See how poisonous this shit is?

Holy fucking shit, dude. I had to take an ethics course too but it was simple stuff like "Don't do psychological experiments on people who don't know they're test subjects."

 

[KingCoelacanth]

Is it that people get more conservative or is it that the world itself changes? I was considered a leftie in the 2000's but now lefties would say I'm a bigoted right wing klanswoman despite my worldview barely changing. It's so strange.

Hilary Clinton's political views in 1996 where pretty much what Trump's were in 2016, if not more conservative.

 

[Fliddaroonie]

This is autistic as fuck, but I've been developing a theory that our switching from analogue to digital may have contributed to this somehow, like on a subconscious level. There's no nuance in anything anymore. Everything has to be one or the other. It wasn't like that 10 years ago. There's "nuance" in analogue media, but not digital. Go ahead, rate me autistic.

I wouldn't say that at all, though I'm curious about how the switch in tech made it happen

I thought it was more down to being coddled, spoiled little cunts, who can't handle losing, not getting a job or a college place, or getting everything they want


I'm of the opinion that this is just participation trophy cultire and the little shitspawn cunts steeped in it reaching adulthood, and realising, nope, the world isn't gonna garble your bollocks because saying no will bust your feefees. Mummy and Daddy fucked up and didn't teach that over the little things so they're chimping out hard now they realise that nope, the world is not their playset and nobody gives a fuck about them except their twatter and instaham "friends"

 

[God of Nothing]

I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.

OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)

You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"

I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."

That's wrong.

Killing a single person? That's wrong.

The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.

THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.

You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.

See how poisonous this shit is?

I'll say what I said in my college ethics class: Kant is a cunt.

That class actually made me less of an ethical person because it was filled with stupid shit like eco-feminism. Also, a professor that unironically thought the means of production should belong to the workers. Really, that class opened my eyes and made me stop being a liberal.

 

[LUNEKO]

"You can't win, you can't break even, you can't even get outta the game." ICBATG

Does anybody remember when double binds were considered a fundamental abuse --- psychological torture/manipulation, brainwashing, and at one point the cause of schizophrenia? Pepperridge Farms remembers.

i wish i could rate a post with both feels and winner, everyone just conveniently forgot that double binds are just shitty manipulation tactics used by cults, but i guess thats fine because now all left institutions are cults

 

[All Cops Are Based]

It's not weird. It makes perfect sense. All of these people grew up with Harry Potter, and were brainwashed by it. Ten years later, they're adults and practicing witchcraft.

Wiccans are the leftie horseshoe theory parallel of neo-nazis who are obsessed with sunwheels and Varg Vikernes. Christianity's been on its way out here for a long time, so there a lot of people with an identity/faith void who are trying to fill it with something by "reclaiming" paganism. (Modern intepretations of paganism anyway, which is all we have.)

It's all so phony.
I'd say I have more respect for Christians for at least being authentic, but even Christianity becomes fake when you mix it this 2010s style political radicalism (17 year old deus vult tradcaths/'orthodox christians' with agnostic parents).

 

[Boobie Bomb]

Fuck is this garbage!

 

[2021Murder]

Nobody really talks about this at all for some reason but liberals are increasingly turning to witchcraft at an alarming rate. Woke, SJW women mostly. I expect a new age resurgence in the coming years "intersecting" with liberalism.

If you're on a dating website you can see that most of the women into astrology are super woke.

women into witchcraft and astrology are single, its essentially an r9k-esque ideology for relationship-cels. the craft came out in 1996, and the Simpsons episode where Lisa becomes a witch came out in 2009, its been a thing for awhile. I know i saw a lot of 30+ year olds into it on myspace. back when myspace was the place to be.

 

[InsolentGaylord]

Hilary Clinton's political views in 1996 where pretty much what Trump's were in 2016, if not more conservative.

She however is a democrat and likely just pandered to SJWs for votes, which is why she's suddenly super liberal.

 

[KingCoelacanth]

I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.

OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)

You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"

I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."

That's wrong.

Killing a single person? That's wrong.

The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.

THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.

You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.

See how poisonous this shit is?

That doesn't really match up with the "white privilege" ideology, though, which relies on people having inherit guilt for things they did not do.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.

OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)

You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"

I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."

That's wrong.

Killing a single person? That's wrong.

The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.

THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.

You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.

See how poisonous this shit is?

The correct, ethical response is not to to nothing - it's to refuse to shoot the individual or the mercenaries BUT ALSO to tweet about how it's not your fault and actually you're a really, good person and miss me with that hate while the village is slaughtered around and before you.

 

[Allakazam223]

Okay, that clinches it for me. I'm convinced we don't live in a Cyberpunk Dystopia anymore. We're going into Shadowrun now.

Lemme know when I can strip my body down to the bare essentials to still be considered alive, thanks.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

Holy fucking shit, dude. I had to take an ethics course too but it was simple stuff like "Don't do psychological experiments on people who don't know they're test subjects."

Then you didn't get too deep. No Kant and other ivory tower faggots or anything like that?

They start with "Don't perform shit like the Standford Experiment on unknowing, uninformed people" and then get to the Trolley Question, then the Warlord Question, and then further and further. In the end it's "As long as you don't do it, your ENTIRE FUCKING CAUSE is just and cannot be blamed for the actions of a single individual who went against the ethics and morals of the group."

I just gritted my teeth and got my C and walked out.

Of course, the last two times I was in college they made Gender Studies and Women's Studies mandatory and those classes have gone from "Psychologically, women are able to recover faster from psychological trauma if given proper supporting structures but suffer more intense psychological damage" stuff to "WOMEN GOOD MAD BAD REEEEEEE!" shit.

 

[Hitman One]

Is it that people get more conservative or is it that the world itself changes? I was considered a leftie in the 2000's but now lefties would say I'm a bigoted right wing klanswoman despite my worldview barely changing. It's so strange.

It's incomprehensible to them that people can be economically liberal while also being socially conservative or vice-versa. I mean I don't give a shit if two gay people want to get married, I fact I think it's unfair if they can't, but I also think that there's no excuse for setting fire to businesses and looting shops because you can't express yourself like a human being.

There are no shades of grey to these guys because they're not taught to see them.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

I don't know how many of you have had to take a mandatory ethics class in College for your degree or to update/modernize your degree, but Ethics is one of the classes that needs to be fumigated with napalm.

OK, here's a question, posed in EVERY ethics class I've been in. (No, it won't be the trolley. There's a reason this one is one that I abhor)

You are working in a village doing humanitarian relief. A warlord comes by and makes all the people of the village line up in front of you. He selects a single person, it doesn't matter who, and forces them to kneel in front of you. He hands you a gun as he and his men, twelve of them with weapons, watch. He tells you: "Kill him and I'll spare the village. Do not kill him and I will kill the whole village and make you watch then kill you. What is the ethical response?"

I, of course, was all: "How many bullets does the gun have and what's the terrain look like? I might be able to kill enough to let the villagers overpower the rest."

That's wrong.

Killing a single person? That's wrong.

The correct, ETHICAL, answer is to do nothing. That way the blood is not on your hands but only on the hands of the people who did the killing. It's better to let them kill everyone in the village and you, than to take a human life. Their crimes do not reflect on you.

THERE'S where the thinking is coming from. See, it doesn't matter if they're part of the mob that breaks windows, burns down buildings, and kills people. See, that sin the burden of ONLY the people who DIRECTLY did the action. Not you. Your hands, morals, ethics are still clean and pure.

You didn't do anything, they did, and ethically, you can't be held responsible for what they do.

See how poisonous this shit is?

What's their definition of ethical? It's clearly not trying to do what's best for everyone! Do they actually teach people they should follow this code of "ethics" or are they teaching it without promoting it as correct?

I'd have killed the single villager in a heartbeat if I thought the warlord could be trusted.

 

[The golden neckbeard]

This is autistic as fuck, but I've been developing a theory that our switching from analogue to digital may have contributed to this somehow, like on a subconscious level. There's no nuance in anything anymore. Everything has to be one or the other. It wasn't like that 10 years ago. There's "nuance" in analogue media, but not digital. Go ahead, rate me autistic.

Bro I'm smoking a blunt thinkin bout it..and what the fuck

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

Then you didn't get too deep. No Kant and other ivory tower faggots or anything like that?

They start with "Don't perform shit like the Standford Experiment on unknowing, uninformed people" and then get to the Trolley Question, then the Warlord Question, and then further and further. In the end it's "As long as you don't do it, your ENTIRE FUCKING CAUSE is just and cannot be blamed for the actions of a single individual who went against the ethics and morals of the group."

I just gritted my teeth and got my C and walked out.

Of course, the last two times I was in college they made Gender Studies and Women's Studies mandatory and those classes have gone from "Psychologically, women are able to recover faster from psychological trauma if given proper supporting structures but suffer more intense psychological damage" stuff to "WOMEN GOOD MAD BAD REEEEEEE!" shit.

Holy shit, that's not ethics, that's just avoid blame at any cost. Good for avoiding getting torpedoed by HR I guess.

 

[Jet Fuel Johnny]

What's their definition of ethical? It's clearly not trying to do what's best for everyone! Do they actually teach people they should follow this code of "ethics" or are they teaching it without promoting it as correct?

I'd have killed the single villager in a heartbeat if I thought the warlord could be trusted.

Well, their defintion of ethical is basically never accepting blame or responsibility for the world around them.

Strap on Gender Study's "Original Sin" and "Minority Studies" same and you've got where we are now.