• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

700 Excellent


About MalletFace

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 01/21/98

Personal Information

  • Species
    Fascist Dictator

Recent Profile Visitors

838 profile views
  1. The only unified belief or value of antifascists is resisting fascists and nazis. If that echo chamber is something people ought not be pushed into, I'm not sure why people get so defensive about how much their countries contributed to beating the shit out of nazis in World War 2. We made those nazis dig graves for the dead of the Holocaust, and the only rest they got was lying in those selfsame graves. Now we let the new ones carry tiki torches through Charlottesville wearing polo shirts and MAGA hats. This is because violence is a good political strategy. All successful groups in history have employed it. I'm pretty sure it is what stopped the nazis and fascists in Italy in Germany, as a matter of fact. It almost stopped them when the parties first formed in Germany and Italy, but those countries preferred helping the nazis and fascists crush the antifascists to helping the antifascists crush the nazis and fascists. Put that statement into context for you. Liberals suck. Luckily enough, people actually on the left have been doing this kind of thing for a long time and know not to listen to liberals. Because violent mobs never solve anything, like when they got rights for some of the lower classes in Rome. Or when they overthrew the French monarchy and instituted democracy. Or when they pushed for constitutionalism in England. Or when they helped push the Thirteen Colonies away from the monarchy. Or when they forced the Tsar to abdicate and formed the provisional government. Or when they provided leverage for the Civil Rights movement in the United State. They sometimes fail, though, like when those Jewish people in whatever Polish city did the whole violent mob thing and got shut down by the law, as they should have been. Put that statement into context for you. They were aware of them when they were being put up, but considering they were put up during periods when confederate-sympathizers were winning, they couldn't do much about the whole mess. Listen: It would not be okay to hit even Hitler unless it was legal. Everybody knows the law is the ultimate source of morality. This is why gay people stayed in concentration camps after the war; they broke the law. Is that really hard to understand? Honestly, that people don't know this probably has something to do with how we educate about fascism and nazism in early 20th century Europe. Like we're taught that the nazis and fascists were brutal meanies that forced their way into government, but they were actually supported by moderates - and even by what would be modern liberals - who preferred the nazis and fascists to the left. Antifascists tried to beat the crap out of the SA in Germany. Antifascists tried to kick the teeth in of blackshirts in Italy. They might have, too, if it had not been for the meddling government and their stupid arms. We. Have. To. Compromise. Instead of either genocide or a tolerant society, let's create legal, cultural, and societal systems that put those that are not straight, cis, white men at a disadvantage but say that the system is fair and moral in the end. We'll write off the many people hurt by these systems as the natural costs of a just system. To be fair, you guys did wait until the Germans had fucked over half of Europe and let the Italians do whatever the fuck they wanted in Ethiopia and Albania. Plus there was the whole Japan annexing swathes of land in China without much retribution, but I guess that really doesn't count as part of the World War because it was only millions more Chinese people dying than English speakers from the Commonwealth and U.S. combined. Even if you don't agree with them, your actions can still lend support to them. Hindenburg and Hugenberg didn't support nazis, but they did a lot for them. Emanuele III didn't support the fascists, but he did a lot for them. It was really sad that the Americans killed all those guards in Dachau when they found out that the people calling for genocide were actually committing genocide once they got power. It is almost ironic that those dogs, frothing at the mouth to spill the blood of genocidal maniacs, screamed "Let's get those nazi dogs!" Do you really think anybody that wants to do this or can do this deserves to be kept from doing this in any way possible? I thought not. That would just be savage, not civilized. We should honestly restrain ourselves from keeping whtie supremacists out of power and instead let them use any legal means they like to get power as long as they super promise not to genocide.
  2. Welp. I'm at my university, and boy do I feel out of place among all the straight, super-christian, white girls in education.
  3. This: I love that, despite all the alt-right dudes and liberals saying those people aren't nazis and evoking Godwin's Law as a way to shut down the comparison, Godwin readily encourages people to point out what they are: modern nazis.
  4. But their views are violent in themselves and consistently result in violence. One thing I hate is that some people don't realize this. Racism is violence. Homophobia is violence, Sexism is violence. Authoritarianism is violence. Antisemitism is violence. Fundamentalism is violence. Even without any ability to turn them into policy, allowing these views to become cultural values and norms leads to violence. Many of these things are already set within the cultures of the U.S., and it shows. This is why LGBT youth are over-represented among homeless youth. This is why reported hate crimes may be increasing and why so many hate crimes go unreported. This is why the share of arsons and bombings of churches where the attendees are largely Black hasn't really changed in decades - though both unintentional and intentional fires are decreasing in total. The thing is that law enforcement has not and usually does not deal with the violence of white supremacists in a reasonable way. There is a reason the counter-protesters also tended to be protesting the police at the event too. "Against White Supremacy / screw the klan, the confederacy & the cops" There exists a historical precedent for the police allying themselves with white supremacists and directing violence against those that oppose them. It happened when the police sided with nativists, nationalists, and powerful, white businessmen during the labor movement and killed workers. It happened when the police sided with white supremacists and attempted to bomb Dr. King, his family, and his supporters. It happened, as most U.S. citizens know, when they sided with the racists and turned to dogs and water. There really isn't evidence that this is just history, though. Without considering the fact that the police tend to kill and injure so many people - of which nonwhite individuals are over-represented, and in a number greater than the total amount of similar violent crime in my state in that year - there's a lot to suggest that police and white supremacists and other white extremists overlap quite a bit in interests and goals. The FBI has actually warned about this, and one report from them actually hints at law enforcement being a desirable place for them to be where their presence will be under-reported. While U.S. law does actually favor the side openly calling for genocide in this case, you can see law enforcement subverting law and giving an edge to the white supremacists in Charlottesville. You can see it when the police watched counter-protesters get beaten and moved to arrest those same counter-protesters for gathering illegally. You can see it when the police defended more parking lots than they did people from white supremacists. You can see it when the police directed more effort towards confronting counter-protesters than they did the nazis shouting that they were about to go start a brawl with counter-protesters, which they did. You can even see it when the police claimed that the man that plowed through the crowd of people was acting out of fear of violence from the counter-protesters - a claim they've started to back out of now that the evidence contradicting this is so great and circulated. I said it earlier this week; I hate when people misunderstand the nazis and fascists throughout history in what they are and how they happened. The early Nazi part was made of young men on the fringe. The founder was one of the oldest of the early members, and he was 35. Hitler had only just turned 30 when he joined. They were only old men from 1939 forward because that was literally twenty years after they started. They even literally fantasized about a civil war with the federal government, which many of these edgy white supremacists in the U.S. do to this day. While people understood and respected that they had a presence, they were largely seen as fringe right up until they seized power saved the country after the death of Hindenburg and the Reichstag fire. There's a reason Hindenberg's government made efforts to show the nazis being surrounded by moderates whenever they made official appearances before their final power-grab. "These loons don't control our government!" Could we get some evidence that this kind of thing happens as opposed to exactly the opposite? Here's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's website if you want a start. That last website I gave isn't the best source but I thought it would be character building and a fun Sunday thing to do if you looked yourself.
  5. Yep. Just satire. The marching by torchlight at night was totally satire of the nazis aimed at sending a message to nazis because... reasons. The shouting "blood and soil" while marching was a big joke making fun of Nazis to send a message to... somebody. The beating counter-protestors and "marching to battle" against antifa was totally just looking to get a few laughs out of the victims. It isn't like these alt-right people have really been white nationalists and their sympathizers this whole time. They're just joking. All the people that have been saying for years that these people and groups like them are have just been trying to kill the joke. Liberals and liberal organizations like the ACLU know it is all just a big show for everyone. That's why they pushed so that this kind of thing can happen! Centrists are so great! So funny and convincing, all of it! It isn't like this is an actual arm of white supremacy that has festered in the United States for centuries and consistently appears in reaction to progress!
  6. I just watched the videos of the counter-protesters at the statue in Charlottesville getting the shit beat out of them and then arrested and of the car plowing into the marching counter-protesters, and I hate every single fuck involved with the original march and gathering from the organizers to the local police. While all those people are shit, there is, though, a place in Hell for the driver of that car, and that selfsame place waits for every person that said the driver plowed through those people because they were scared and getting attacked, especially the cops that pushed it. People are putting up video showing him blazing past intersections and down an empty street straight into the counter-protesters. I might have special feelings for that kind of thing because I'm terrified of cars, but that was one of the most violent and terrifying actions by a single person I've ever seen on video. I hate all of it.
  7. How through their portrayal as the ultimate, alien evil in some places, the ideologies of fascism ad nazism take on the qualities of whatever an individual sees as the ultimate, alien evil. Because of this, huge groups of people aren't able to articulate or understand what fascism and nazism are and will inadvertently align with fascist and nazi doctrine - doctrines which are surprisingly commonplace. In too many places, comparing things like The Doctrine of Fascism to local ideas, values, and ideologies lines up too closely. The rejection of peace as possible, which necessitates perpetual military buildup? Check. The notion that the ultimate act of patriotism is to serve one's nation in war? Check. The notion that pacifism is cowardly and a moral wrong? Check. The notion that patriotism through service to the state and "the people/the nation" is a requirement to be a good individual? Check The rejection of a universal right to well-being and the necessity of justice, equality, and freedom for all individuals? Check. The notion that involuntary hierarchies based on individual achievement - earned or unearned - are a necessity for society? Check. The rejection of sociology and anthropology and any other sciences that reveal contradictions or dangers in the present hierarchy as unfounded nonsense? Check. I also hate how the euphemisms for a lot of this stuff are changing and deceiving a lot of people. Like, "Cultural Marxism" - outside of the original context - is just the new way to say "Judeo-Bolshevism," "Jewish Marxism," "Cultural Bolshevism," and "Judeo-Marxism." Get rid of it. And can we also get rid of "SJW" as an insult? I hate it. I would actually rather just go back to when George Wallace and the like just said "left-winger" or "communist/communist sympathizer." At least that is more honest to the position of the speaker.
  8. Directly from Title 17: The only thing registration exists to do is provide evidence of copyright ownership at the discretion of a court or extension of that ownership. To call it formal is misleading because it in no way formalizes your rights, and the evidence it offers can be countered if copyright ownership in contradiction to registration is proven. Your rights only exist in and from the original, fixed work: Those last two parts are why sections in a site's ToS like this are important. If a site does not do this, there has been no transfer of ownership, responsibility, or rights. Possession of a user's copyrighted work can even act as evidence of copyright infringement if the user's rights in the absence of an agreement like this, and somebody can claim quite a bit. In a digital medium, original ownership of copyright is often easy to prove, and if the user is limited in their access to the work, or another individual, group, or formal organization continues to host their work without having consent of the copyright owner or having obtained copyright ownership, they can't do any of the following without being quite likely to be infringing on the original owner's rights: There's stuff to do with things like fair use, but in general, if a site does not get any ownership of my works and I go "Take my works down," failing to take my works down is easily infringing on my exclusive rights to reproduction/display. This is what the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA are for, but they have to be carefully followed along with the entirety of the rest of the law. From any background I can find, it looks like he's trying to claim the site and staff cannot be protected through the safe harbor provisions in every way he can because he would only have to prove a few. For example, this looks like a claim that the staff has received financial benefit from violation of his copyright and cannot be protected under the DMCA: On another note, I don't remember what the site's ToS were before this, but it would not surprise me if the site's hosting of his work and his lack of access to remove it violated his rights before the ToS change. It is really easy to do, and that is why big sites hire expensive lawyers to transfer all of an individual's rights to the site as often as they can. That doesn't mean I don't think he's an idiot - he is - but it is entirely within his rights to make that kind of complaint, especially if his rights were violated. If the site's ToS before were shitty or lacking, it would be real easy for him to prove his rights were infringed, so this could actually be serious for the site if he goes after a lawyer. If the staff violated elements of the DMCA, they could also be in the line of fire if the old ToS were crap and they didn't act to remove his works. I don't remember the old ToS, though, because I'm not a crazy fuck that wants to lash out at people if they do the tiniest bit of accidental and unintentional violation of my intellectual property rights. I don't expect this to go anywhere because I think he just wants attention, but depending on the old ToS and conduct of staff, he could have had his rights infringed. Edit: As a note, I have no clue what a site's ToS would have to look like to cause a legitimate transfer of rights; I've never had the need to look at court cases related to that.
  9. This kind of thinking can make you miss out on your rights, specifically in the U.S. but in most other nations as well. There is no such thing as formal copyright in most nations. As soon as you fix your unique work in a tangible medium of expression, you become the copyright owner of that work under Title 17. You only lose your copyright if you waive your rights to the work or the time runs out on your copyright under Title 17. Many sites do require you to waive your ownership to the copyright of anything you post on their site, but if they don't, you maintain the copyright. Websites are required to strictly follow copyright law under Title 17 and certain other requirements under other things like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Many, many, many sites have been shut down during and because of investigation because they were complicit in or participating in copyright violations. Please, furries, for the love of all that is good, learn about copyright, what your rights are, what the limits of your rights are, and how to defend your rights. Copyright is almost exactly the same across many borders, even, so it shouldn't be too hard. Don't be on either side of "not knowing what your rights are" ignorance. You aren't god over everything you make, but you also have a huge, huge, huge amount of rights. If you're in the U.S., this page about copyright basics from BYU, this document about copyright basics from the U.S. government, or even Title 17 itself can be endlessly helpful in learning about your rights. Googling your nation plus "copyright law" can probably help a lot elsewhere. If he makes a copyright claim in court, it might be really hard to get him for defamation; he has a legal right to make such complaints and bringing a defamation suit against him would easily infringe on that in many cases. You'd have to ask a lawyer that specializes in that, though, and they'd have to see word for word what went down. Most people don't, and I've found furries on both sides of arguments to be especially culpable in this.
  10. Honestly, I was angry when a little over 100,000 people had their names and home cities used to make the same spam comment to the FCC about Net Neutrality. I am now even more angry because I can't find any common first name, last name, or place free from the comment, which is probably now in the hundreds of thousands of stolen names. This is the comment: Is Tom free from this spam? Nope. Becky? Nope. Robin - Boy Wonder? Of course not. And Fuck the FCC, especially Ajit Pai, for refusing to deal with the spam.
  11. "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." - Atlas Shrugged If the creator of the ideology says and lives by conventionally racist ideals, and their ideology deals in the issue of racism and race, but you suggest their ideology does not tend towards racism, you've missed something for their presentation about their actual ideology. Yes, but she called Native Americans and African Americans animals many times. You're missing that she has a different definition of racism than most reasonable people, especially when considering social scientists. For her, any belief and/or action founded in blood history - unless that history is between two past adults agreeing to share in their future - is racism. Her definition is not only useless and vague, but it also equates family drama with Nazi genocide: "The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be dam­aged by the actions of another)—the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small­-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another)—the parents who search ge­nealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law—the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history—all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly emerging nations.'" - The Virtue of Selfishness Even more, she just views racism as a form of what she calls "collectivism," which itself has a largely useless definition based outside of the reality of the world: "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group" No inconsistency because, as far as she is concerned, she is not racist. She is judging Native Americans based on their achievements as individuals isolated to their place and time, not on their collective history. When one considers scholarly definitions of racism, though, she becomes racist not by suggesting that their individual achievements are inferior, but by failing to recognize and address her affirmation of symbolic, economic, and physical violence conducted against a racialized group that possessed cultures and societies with different traits of some or no overlap with her own dominant one. Again, if she's racist and her ideology says racism is bad, maybe the ideology has a poor definition of racism. Maybe she can be racist and defend it as not being racism. "If you study reliable history, and not liberal, racist newspapers, racism didn’t exist in this country until the liberals brought it up—racism in the sense of self-consciousness and separation about races. Yes, slavery existed as a very evil institution, and there certainly was prejudice against some minorities, including the Negroes after they were liberated. But those prejudices were dying out under the pressure of free economics, because racism, in the prejudicial sense, doesn’t pay. Then, if anyone wants to be a racist, he suffers, the workings of the system is against him." - Interview at West Point You would probably argue that slavery was racist, but her definition absolves it of that. "If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using." - Interview at West Point You would probably argue that forcing Native American peoples off their land simply because they were Native Americans and didn't buy and sell the land was racist, but her definition absolves it of that. Yes, because she has a different definition of racism and collectivism from most people. Racism, for her, cannot impact the individual suffering it any more than it impacts the individual imparting it. It is, for them both, a loss. But most people don't define racism the way she does because she was a horrible historian, logician, and philosopher. She believed in "Indian givers," communism as a "statist ideology," "Arabs" as completely devoid of achievement, the U.S. as the only moral country, democracy as a moral negative, forced sex as not being rape if the person experiencing it wants it, and in the only true moral good being productive achievement. Her works on racism are not taken seriously by those that work in sociology and anthropology any more than the "horseshoe theory" she defends in many of her works is taken seriously by political scientists and academic philosophers. None of her works in any subject but literature are taken seriously by anyone of any merit in their respective fields. She had an ideology, not a philosophy, theory, or even developed hypothesis. Her most famous statements are blatant thefts of the ideas of others at best, and at worst they are popular misunderstandings of much greater thinkers. Rand was simply a trained author that got famous because of her popular opinions and jumped on it. To take anything in her works seriously misses that they are all derivative of a work of fiction created by an author that was the product of her time. She even used a pen name in part because she didn't want people knowing she was trained in nothing but literature. She is no Kant. At best, she is an Orwell, Huxley, or Bradbury. That you hold what I displayed as an accusation of racism and lack of critical observation rather than a proof of racism and lack of critical observation is concerning. Ayn Rand was racist, and her ideology having an unusual definition of racism does not absolve her of it, just as it does not absolve the people who so readily leap to her writings to defend their own racism. As a note, feel free to reply here if you want to, but if I feel the need to reply to that I'll take it to personal messages.
  12. "Blah blah blah reverse racism blah blah blah this isn't what MLK dreamed of blah blah and this isn't what the founding fathers intended!!!" Dude, Dr. King was a hero that called for things like forced desegregation and reparations and the founding fathers were evil people that owned, raped, and tortured other human beings. How does this help you? Where does this come from? Like do you just throw words together?
  13. Ayn Rand and the absurd number of politicians in the U.S. that absolutely adore her and her works and words. I don't even understand it. If you're going to like her ideas, pick somebody who was less blatantly evil. Many people today say the same things and sound perfectly respectable despite sharing the same evil. "What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." Might makes right, but only if you're white. I mean, they didn't even have individual control over the means of production. That can't be civilized. "The defense of minority rights is acclaimed today, virtually by everyone, as a moral principle of a high order. But this principle, which forbids discrimination, is applied by most of the "liberal" intellectuals in a discriminatory manner: it is applied only to racial or religious minorities. It is not applied to that small, defenseless minority which consists of businessmen. Yet every ugly, brutal aspect of injustice toward racial or religious minorities is being practiced toward businessmen." We need to stop with this oppression olympics crap because, as anyone that can use reason would know, Black Muslims being lynched is no less serious than a small, defenseless businessman being forced to serve dirty animals Black individuals. All rights are equal! Like do these people even read or listen to anything she said? For the huge amount of Christian Senators and Representatives who virtually worship her, do they miss how she takes the "religions are for sheeple" neckbeard stance, or do they ignore that stuff because they like the racist and money parts? "Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." "Faith is the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought." Like,,, ???
  14. This fucker, always and forever: A plane. Over a trillion dollars planned. They can't afford to better our infrastructure, our healthcare, our education subsidies, our nature conservation, or our arts funding by even a few million more than normal. But the U.S. government can afford a trillion dollar plane. A trillion is a huge number. It is one million millions. Like, a million Moons side by side is only a fifth of the way to Pluto from the Sun. A trillion Moons side by side is over 40 times the distance from the Sun to the nearest neighboring star. Who is this thing really and truly helping, and why do people have to keep reminding me of it when I already hate it? I don't care what it can do. Twenty-thirty years after we've phased it in the U.S.'ll just end up selling it to somebody who's going to be bombing hospitals and schools and homes like has happened with pretty much every flying piece of crap the U.S. military has gotten tired of keeping to themselves anyway. And there's a little more than a small chance the U.S. will end up doing that with it on its own anyway. Honestly, it is just an expression of a huge number of things about the world with which I am deeply displeased, so I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it
  15. How sometimes I'll think of something to post here, but I'll end up deciding that things will get better and choose not to post it, but I can rarely think of how to make that it will get better idea into a good post for the other thread.