Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Varysblackfyre321

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday February 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Sitting on my ass and watching dumb videos on YT.

Previous Fields

  • Name

Recent Profile Visitors

3,306 profile views
  1. Varysblackfyre321

    International Thread 3

    It does seem to be heading there sadly. I sincerely do hope that the Bolivians beat back the right. They’ve ousted their dictators before. But it doesn’t appear to be something that will go anymore peacefully than the last times.. Áñez has already said the MAS party from participating in future elections. Normally the Judicial system would keep a proclamation from any president in check, but she and her supporters clearly have the military and police on her side. I do not see this ending peacefully. I see no good reason should the fascists prevail—and indeed there’s a strong chance they will—they will do anything but try to destroy any trace of their political opposition through total extermination.
  2. Varysblackfyre321

    International Thread 3

    I said ”when Bolivians are fleeing” Not that they’re doing it now. I strongly suspect they will be forced to, however. It
  3. To the bolded so? Most government officials or politicians, who would be in positions of Power swear to protect the Constitution as well. There has been many countries with constitutions that have turned dictatorial with largely the aid of the country’s military. I'm guessing you realize most of them also members of their military to serve the Constitution as well. And, sure there may be some who would find the moral muster to object public and even defect. The vast majority(like I'm talking 99.999%) most likely wouldn't and do what good soldiers do and follow orders. You might want to look up the Milgram experiment, when researchers tested whether or not the average person would disobey an order if it came from an authority figure if the order involved inflicting great harm on a another human being. It turns out the typical is agreeable to authority to the point where they’d torture and possibly kill someone because a loud commanding voice told them to keep hurting someone. Like 70% of people went along with the voice said. When researchers placed the subject in a group setting where the group said to continue with the torture, 90% went along with the view said. And these were just average people. People in the military have proven exceptionally good at following orders. By all reason they should be expected to be more compliant in face of horrific orders if they gave orders by a figure, they’ve been trained to obey and grown accustomed to obeying. And, look up at how many illegal military actions the executive branch has committed within the last century alone and see how many defections came about. It's virtually nonexistent barring some incredibly rare incidents. Again I literally said this shouldn't be done. Which is why we need to upgrade the law to make doing a background check a requirement for anyone wishing to sell a firearm to someone else. Yes. And that's wrong. The reason why it's not illegal is almost entirely due to Republican stonewalling any attempt at any gun-control measure because of gun manufacturers and the NRA would cease giving them financial and political support. And? Like, even if we concede that you don't have a smartphone to at least google the person you want to sell a weapon that could quickly kill dozens, is you being able to fill your pockets with a little more cash the quickest possible way the pressing issue here? I honestly don't think so. I think it's making sure the person selling a weapon is doing everything he or she could reasonably expect to do as a responsible gun owner to verify if a potential buyer should be allowed to own a gun. It’s not the most convenient for stores to have to check a person’s ID to check to see if they're of age to drink or smoke. We still expect them to do so. There is effectively no armed resistance against actual government oppression. Meh, you said you thought the majority of them would defect and join the side of whatever resistance supposedly fighting against The government tyranny. That is what I’d call heroic. And Russian soldiers have families living in Russia, Turkish soldiers have families living in Turkey, and North Korean Soldiers have families living in Korea. It's not just as simple as ”some people are just bad” many of these soldiers are no less or more noble than the ordinary citizen. They don't gleefully cackle and expunge on how they're supporting an authoritarian regime because of all the misery it causes. They don't see themselves endangering their family--tyrants never say they're tyrannical they always frame they always tell their soldiers whatever they’re doing is necessary to maintain the or acquire peace, that the soldiers loved ones so enjoy. What you don't think that's essentially right of every military on earth? Do you think when Putin took control of Russia, or when Erogan took control of Turkey, or really whenever any autocratic person or group, took over any minimally Democratic country, that the soldiers who made up the military where some single bachelors with no family? The majority of soldiers in China are no less noble than the US’ they are no less human than the US’ most have loved ones Who they cherish. And most would freely say they never considered fighting against the government even if there was no consequence for saying they have. No, I just think you've bought into some America’s propaganda about it’s guns and it's military. agreed, which is why most groups most critical of the police, advocate for increased constraints, surveillance, and oversight of the police. A simplistic and counterproductive position. I didn't say I get rid of all guns, but given America’s state, the best defense to preserve America’s democracy would be through be voting because they do matter. Not as much as what would be ideal, but still. I made a point of Saying most concerned. The majority of those most concerned about keeping their guns, freely giveaway any protection for ordinary citizens.
  4. Varysblackfyre321

    International Thread 3

    The news just keeps getting so much better for Bolivia: In Bolivia, at least 23 people have died amid escalating violence since President Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president, resigned at the demand of the military last week. Growing unrest https://www.democracynow.org/2019/11/18/bolivia_cochabamba_massacre_anti_indigenous_violence Really glad this racist monster took control of basically illegally took control of the country. Sarcasm. Honestly, the fact that the vast majority not of the people who cried it’d be heartless for the US not to stage a coup a Venezuela in response to Maduro's supposed oppression are either silent or praising this fascist really does demonstrate glaring hypocrisy. When Bolivians are fleeing by the millions to escape, persecution for their ethnicity and religion most of the response to the tragedy would be...to announce this new dictator is more pro-US and that's good for the world...because It of reasons. Also, I wonder big a win the ultra-conservatives will give themselves when new, and ”fair” Elections are called. Will it be a 97% vote in their favor to showcase an image of overwhelming support to the facist they'd prop up. Or will they try to appear more realistic just go with say 60 percent.
  5. First I want to say I don't think you're racist. But I do you're taking too much comfort in certain things and have bought into a lot of the propaganda in concern with American-exceptionalinalism. I understand you recognize some it’s faults. But still. To your statement actually only 28 states actually have laws that punish adults for leaving their firearms out in place where they could get it and kill themselves or others. Also, no, if you're not responsible enough to properly secure or at least make an adequate attempt to secure a tool meant for killing, I see no reason for why you not to be prosecuted when your own carelessness cost human life. The vast majority probably will do what soldiers do and follow orders. It's not as if American soldiers are somehow intrinsically nobler than any other military organization on earth or history. They're not. They’ve proven they're not time and time again when they a lot of them as a group given orders to do horrific and for matter illegal things. Please look up some of the massacres. That happened in Vietnam. Look up the My Lai Massacre in particular. Over a hundred soldiers went along with orders to brutally executes hundreds of unarmed civilian; many of them children. It's very likely there won't be much in the way of defections if the government decided to do away with any pretense of respecting the Democratic process. US Military are just human beings like you or me and most of them have been conditioned to follow orders. Bureaucrats and janitors with guns holding up most dictatorships worldwide. It’s largely thanks to the compliance from the military. Mercenary groups, and the government’s supporters do often play an important role, sure, but military support is still crucial. It’d be nice if the vast majority of military service members we're especially more heroic than the soldiers found in other countries. That their moral courage would lead a significant portion or even a substantial majority, to break away based in defiance to the direct superiors they've been trained to obey. That they're special. They're not. I believe the second most Americans realize this, stop venerating them as heroes just for being in the US Military the more we’ll be able to defend ourselves. Which is voting, boycott, and other modes of protests, PR campaigning should be utilized. I think you would agree those things have been more crucial to garnering many of the social rights in past centuries in America than an armed resistance against the government. Honestly, if most of the people most concerned/paranoid about keeping their guns, put a fraction of that concern towards fighting against any government attempts to cut individuals ability to appeal, towards making the type of bullying tactics of the police illegal, etc., this nation’s people would probably be much more protected. Yes, you do. It's not rocket science. It just takes time. It's not overly convenient. I agree. Speed bumps around my neighborhood aren't really ideal for me too. But they are necessary to help avoid someone getting hurt or being killing. If a person doesn't want to be bothered to check to see if a potential buyer is allowed to own a firearm then they probably should not sell it. Honestly, even if they weren't legally required to do it(which they should be), if they still they aren't proving themselves to be a ”responsible” gun owner and probably should have never gotten it in the first place. With no consequence for selling a gun to a guy whbig a task for any responsible gun owner to do of weeks of googling and researching is not too big a task for any responsible gun owner to do. It probably will. Most private individuals probably don't want to go to prison for the rest of their life if the buyer they sold to was a convicted violent felon. If you were a law-abiding citizen assuming you don't have serious history of mental illness, this really wouldn't be a hurdle to get through. Anymore the speed bumps in your neighborhood are.
  6. I would say you are--my main point is throughout American History the presence of fire-arms has really never been a deterrent for government tyranny. The group that's mostly in favor of the government, the group that’s mostly armed and most. Having a lot of guns doesn't really much if the populace has a persistent track record of not doing anything in the face of actual tyranny or wilfully supports it. I mean I make pretty clear in my last post that I don't think it’d be a good thing for a America to have an outright ban on guns. You know by saying that I don't think it should happen. Punishing those who are found to have left their gun lying around the house when said gun is used in a suicide or one of their kids get their hands and accidentally kills themselves or another person would probably scare at least a few more responsible gun owners into acting responsibly. I honestly don't know what you mean. Private Citizens could this. Companies routinely do background checks to screen potential employees. I would say also say it's the responsibility of the person attempting to sell something that's really only good thing for killing isn't selling a gun to someone who lets say, shot and paralyzed a child. Meh, I knew that already. I don't mean to sound rude if you genuinely thought I was under the impression that this type of behavior only could happen at gunshot but I just used the old gun show example to demonstrate my point. That it doesn't mean much to legally bar someone from owning a weapon that could kill a high number of people quickly, and not require everyone who wants to sell a gun if the person they're selling to is a convicted rapist, or a guy whose never even got ticket while driving.
  7. This seems to be moving the goal post. ”only law-enforcement will be armed” becomes ”armed forces will reside somewhere.” Also, meh, I think given America’s history should the government turn more authoritarian America’s over abundance of guns has a fairly good chance of not leading to an outcome you'd prefer I.e massive armed revolt to put the government back in check. I mean the alien and sedition acts did not really spark a great enough armed rebellion even though it largely criminalized critiquing the government. Hell, it was utilized in WW1 and WW2 to detain and strip away all rights from citizens whose biggest crime was being a member of a particular ethnic group. And in the face of this tyranny, the armed American public...did nothing. When people were being murdered in the south for daring to help try help Blacks vote, again, most of the armed public did not grab their guns and form militias to stop such atrocity. In Vietnam, when soldiers were found to have murdered unarmed civilians, including loads of children, much of the armed public, just straight rallied in support of the soldiers, and grew outraged people tried punish these government agents well abusing their authority to massacre unarmed civilians There's also, the fact a very big chunk of Republicans are fully onboard on banning offensive rhetoric towards the police and military and the majority are totally on board with flag-burning(which has typically been used as a criticism of US government as a whole when not sanctioned by the government). 36 percent of Republicans would support prohibiting offensive public statements aimed at the police, and the same number would ban such comments aimed at the military. https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/2017/10/10/republicans-are-far-from-consistent-cham/%3famp Also despite the abundance of guns in America, the police are less restrained than let's say England. They’re entire mode of interrogation relies on prolonged isolation, flat-out deception, police officers physically intimidation, in order to wear someone down to the point where they are in a state of mind to confess to whatever accusation being levied against them no matter if they did anything illegal or not. Fun fact one of the cops possibly responsible for this--a man who literally was found to been a racist pos, has on multiple occasions been invited on Fox to rail about anyone saying cops need more more significant restrictions in how they are conduct themselves. Glad to see this government agent who was found to have abused his authority, is seen as a voice to be listened to by anyone by many of the right apparently. Yeah, Japan is not perfect, in a lot of things, but it’s civilian population not being allowed to purchase fire-arms hasn't seemed to have a lead it to have a particularly high crime rate. Fact, it has one of the lowest one's in the world. And it’s not an anomaly. Singapore, Denmark, etc, have very low-crime rates, and instances of gun-related murders are extremely rare. I'm not in favor in outright ban here for all guns. But maybe it’s better for the better that we had more regulation. Like making it illegal to leave your gun around the house when Not using it. Or make it requirement for those who'd transfer ownership of the gun, or sell one to do a background check for the new potential owner. Like, why even make illegal for a felon to buy a gun if he could just go to a gun-show to find a seller who doesn't have any obligation to check if any potential buyer, is allowed to own a gun?
  8. I answered your question. Read what I wrote. You recommended reading a book. You didn’t even cite specific evidence presented in said book. You just name dropped a bloody book. If you think that the book had studies/polls that demonstrated your claim just cite the goddamn studies/polls man. Seriously, if someone asks me for proof of my claim of white-supremacy being a bigger problem amongst republicans than Democrats I would cite polls where most of them(republicans) say it’d be a bad thing if America didn’t have a majority white population. I wouldn’t just say read x book on Republicans being racist. Because that would be really stupid and I probably would give credence to idea that I’m merely a lazy fool. @Werthead requests were reasonable; give some examples of this being the case of Eastern European immigrants. Point out where arethe getos. What actual proof do you have that they’ve generally isolated themselves and are refusing to interact with those outside their venue? If you cannot do any of that you probably you probably shouldn’t have brought issue of gettos up in the first place because it is irrelevant. There was no point to it. Sorry, you seem to have willfully missed my point. You think Britain has a national identity? Fine. I never said it didn't. You want to severely hurt it’s economy and global standing just to severely slow down the rate of immigrants who are mostly English, speaking, secular, Christians with age old defense of just wanting to protect your culture? I’m going to ask what specific parts do you feel are threatened with change. If you cannot provide specifics other than some vague sense the fear of the immigrant population growing, I’m not going to pretend nor do I think anyone should pretend, that there’s not at least a very high probability you’re just espousing basic xenophobia. Honestly, I think you and others like you who moan about this idea of people supporting racist, homophobic, and other bigoted politicians, because others have called them xenophobic or racist just provides a convenient cover for them to exercise their bigotry. Maybe it’s just possible, their concerns are grounded more xenophobia if not straight up racism. The only change you’ve actually cited so far is the foreign-born population increased. You haven’t actually cited changes in communities ability to enjoy communal traditions, social activities, or local ordinances majorly effected by the influx of Eastern Europeans.
  9. Yeah this, cinco de Mayo, etc there’s just a reason for people to get drunk(or drunker), in the day without feeling bad. Ask most of the people what they think of the religious divisions between the Catholics and Protestants, and a good few will probably ask what a Protestant is, and the vast the majority will ask what the hell you’re talking about in general. That quite frankly could be very annoying.
  10. Please he doesn’t explicitly say ruin. He just complains about change. Which people do when they think the change is bad but who cares. And really, how could British people enjoy significant culture aspects of it such as drinking tea, and eating crumpets and doing and being other supposedly British things, with the knowledge that there are a lot of white, Christian, foreigners mostly English speaking immigrants in their country? Totally unfair expectation. You’re failure to see the rationality of their fears as totally reasonable instead of basic xenophobia is why people are turning to ultra-bigoted parties like UKip and need to severely cripple their country’s economy and reduce political standing globally—what other choice do they have? These questions are so unfair to ask. I mean isn’t it enough to just say “I want to protect muh culture,”? No one has ever used that excuse for simply being xenophobic or racist. I’m being sarcastic. More than a few quite sadly. But yeah, they typically don’t see the irony. “No one wants to be a minority in their own country,” so what about the entire ethnic groups that are already a minority in their country? The implication of course is that the country belongs to whites—no matter how long a you or your family have been here, if not you’re not whites, the country doesn’t really belong to you and it would be a travesty if whites weren’t in the majority anymore. Practically genocide for them. Also, yes it’s pretty inevitable most immigrants and the descendants being turning to have more in common with their neighbors than their distant cousins in the country they originally hailed from. There’s an interesting scene from the Sopranos that you’re statement reminded me of: particularly the part after 1:36 The Italian-American mobsters who pride themselves on being Italian have very little understanding of the cultural tensions of their grandfather’s homeland. They are totally flummoxed with the recent Italian immigrant’s issue with Columbus based purely on the region he held from. Because, they are first and foremost Americans.
  11. Varysblackfyre321

    International Thread 3

    Really glad this pretty open fascist is in charge of Bolivia now. it’s finally free again—for bigots to force their interpretation of Christianity in government and onto everyone else, and persecute natives and other undesirable(looking at you gays, atheists) once more. I’m being sarcastic.
  12. From what I understand he’s referring to this old posts from the end of May thread. Took me about it about a minute to find but I’m quite frankly bored enough to do it. “Not sure why you continue to use this 44 year figure so often. You know full well that the EU that Britain joined many years ago bares little resemblance to the one we are leaving now, and will be massively different in the future. Anyway I’ll skip most of your post as it just you not really saying anything and just attempting humour and bad faith arguments. Ill skip to the bit at the end because it’s worth clarifying. Culture and traditions are fluid, that is correct. They change over time. It’s not a coincidence that curry has become a national dish. But at the same time that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a national identity, set of values, history and tradition that most people are proud of. For a lot of Brits it might a lot of things, maybe it’s fish and chips, maybe it’s a Sunday roast, curry, maybe it’s an obsession with talking about the weather, politeness, saying sorry, maybe it’s a football team, maybe it’s a sense of location, family history, their accent, the way they dress, what they do on the weekend. I don’t know, it could be a lot of things. We know one of the most common factors amongst Brexit voters was that they valued their sense of place , their national identity and traditions and we know those things are less valued amongst remain voters. Lots of Brits are not comfortable with the amount of change happening in the country, and there has been a large change. Over ten years the foreign born population of the UK almost doubled. We do have problems with integrating new people and we have plenty of ghettos where communities simply do not mix .That’s not healthy. So yeah, immigration and integration is a form of cultural exchange, with both sides taking bits from each other. You at least need to give the sense that is happening but that is difficult if things happen too quickly, if whole areas change within a few years. You make the issue worse by telling Brits that their culture has no value, that their national identity that they base a lot of their sense of community and worth on means nothing. I don’t believe this is about racism, when polled most people are fine with immigration, they tend to accept immigrants. But there are a lot of people for whom there is a limit to how quickly that change can happen. So getting back to what this is all about. The question is really ‘why are people having to vote for the Brexit party’ . The lazy answer is that they must be racist or there is some underground conspiracy or secret money. But the truth is that the main parties and media didn’t listen to people when they said they were uncomfortable with the rapid change, that they valued stability and tradition. So they went with the parties who listened. It seems a lot of people are still not listening and find it easier to mis characterise people”
  13. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    I found this really funny quite frankly: A small group of self-described “moms” held a news conference in the Kentucky Capitol Wednesday afternoon to make claims of irregularities in last week’s gubernatorial election, all of which were almost immediately proven inaccurate or irrelevant. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article237320779.html
  14. Varysblackfyre321

    U.S. Politics: Attaquer son cul orange!

    It really won’t. Trump could literally shoot a man who wasn’t threatening him or anybody and many of his supporters will proceed to ask “Since when is murdering a guy illegal?”
  15. Please it’s all about protecting culture. What specific parts of the culture? How are they threatened by the immigrants being complained about? Who cares. All you need to know foreigners entering this country makes me feel queasy and angry, and that I don’t want to be called a xenophobe or racist when I can’t articulate why I feel this way. I’m being sarcastic. Also, I have to object to the classification of mere trolls. I’m sure most are very genuine in their quite frankly I think stupid beliefs and think they’re putting forth rational arguments.