I’ll address the rest of your bullshit tomorrow (interesting you stop answering in the thread I subscribe to, and carry on lying about me in a different one), but I would think it is worth telling you at this point that I am a man. Penis and all.
Those who are curious can check out a couple of relevant posts from the other thread. Suffice it to say that villa’s claims of fact should be treated as fiction unless proven otherwise, and he’s roughly as out of his mind as Margin but even more prone to inchoate rage (if you can believe it). The blinding fury he was consumed by when I asked for a link should go to show what I’m talking about.
That he sees some sort of nefarious intent here is unsurprising given his rage-fueled insanity. Here we see some disturbing paranoia, like his strange implication that I somehow know or care what threads he’s subscribed to (or that I think that I can hide comments about him, by name, and on the front page, when a three second vanity search would let him find them). Just as he goes crazy with a proper dose of inchoate rage and isn’t sane enough to realize that Margin was the one who brought up him and his insane dishonesty in the first place, and I was simply responding.
As I said in the other thread, he seems both rage-filled and out of his mind that I worry that he will hurt himself or, much more likely, someone else. If other people are curious, I will be happy to discuss his many acts of ragesanity and dishonesty, with them. But I believe it is improper to push a dangerous lunatic over the edge, and I’m not going to directly respond to him and be the the straw that finally pushes him over the edge into a full-blown postal rampage.
The reality is that I am not “supporting” Finn in his war of attrition against posters who are obsessively criticizing what they see as his obsessively annoying posting style.
Those critics can hardly be pleased when folks like spoke and Commissar jump in with their two cents to help Finn make his point about opponents being bigots and/or loons.
Much as he protests about entering threads such as these with “dread” since some nasty-minded person will accuse him of bigotry, spoke seems irresistibly drawn to them to courageously make his views known. (In other recent threads he has courageously defended the honor of the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, made the aforementioned “Jewish supremacist” accusation against DSeid, expressed outrage about board ostracism of bigotry (on the grounds that ethnic hatred will be forced “underground”) and warned that we must not dismiss the possibility of a Secret Jewish Cabal within American government traitorously working for Israel. Indeed, spoke is the Elmer Fudd of conspiracy theories, warning that we must be vewy vewy careful about secret enemies harboring worrisome ethnicity).
This posting history (whether one views it as bigoted claptrap or evidence of Courageous Outspokenness) must nevertheless be embarassing to Finn’s critics, who probably wish spoke, Commissar and similar “supporters” would just STFU.
You really don’t get it, do you? I’ve explained it to you multiple times. If you want it explained again, ask nicely and I will do it.
Well, first, I don’t do vanity searches. But yet again, you have missed the point. What I found interesting is that you refuse to address your lies in the thread you made them, yet then turn and repeat them elsewhere. And notice, I said it was interesting. Your paranoia (isn’t fun diagnosing people with alleged mental illnesses online!) converts that into “some sort of nefarious intent.”
So in other words, you are too much of a coward to answer the questions repeatedly posed to you, and to defend your lies. Your comments are the classic ones of an internet bully, a trait you demonstrate repeatedly in whatever thread you are in. Sometimes what you say is accurate, yet the way you present it causes more harm to whatever position than you can possibly realize. Other times, however, it is demonstrably wrong. Such as your “legal definition” of rape, that was utterly inaccurate. And when called on it’s inaccuracy, you maintained, first, that it was the correct legal definition (even quoting a New York law that demonstrated your mistake). Second you attempted to obfuscate, claiming I was talking about the “rape by deception” section, when I never objected to that section. Then, third, despite both of us acknowledging we were discussing a legal definition, instead of simply admitting your mistake, you cried that you shouldn’t have to “lawyerproof” things, even in a discussion of the legal definition of a crime.
You cannot bluster your way out of this. You were flat out wrong. Had you not been trying to put yourself out as having legal knowledge on rape, we wouldn’t be in this position. You can rant as much as you want, alleging insanity on the part of those you disagree with. But it won’t alter your mistake. A real man would acknowledge it and move on. But you are so wrapped up with the idea that you cannot make a mistake that you seem utterly unable to do that. Instead the person who demonstrated your mistake is allegedly insane. And, according to you, in danger of going “over the edge into a full-blown postal rampage.”
So man up, and see if you can address the actual issues of your errors without throwing allegations of insanity around. Unless, of course, you are qualified to diagnose such diseases. Over the internet.
You’re full of shit. You claimed that it was my position that we “investigate all Muslims”. I called bullshit on your claim and asked you to provide a cite—even one. Your response to that is above: not cite at all. So, you were unable to provide even one instance of me saying that all Muslims should be investigated. But rather than admit you were wrong, you resort to the “you have basically said” nonsense, which, to the non-dumb, shows that your claim was full of shit.
Amazingly, you then go on to relay what my position actually is, and that is merely to use Muslimness as one filter, the first filter. Which conflicts with your original claim.
Now, why don’t you just admit that what you said regarding my position was wrong? You seem to prefer to string out your mistake, compounding it. And revealing yourself to be a dishonest poster.
::shrug::
And as per usual, Jackmannii resorts to smears and innuendo. Again he shows himself to be from the Lydon Johnson school of debate. (“Call him a pig-fucker and make him deny it.”)
When you’re opponents are correct, smear them and put them on the defensive, thus distracting from the topic at hand. You’re getting pretty good at being a Mini-Finn, Jack. And I notice you don’t link the threads you’re referencing. Of course, if you did there would be the risk that someone might read what I actually wrote.
Liar.
What I did was correct factually inaccurate statements about Nathan Bedford Forrest. If you want to twist that as “defending his honor” that’s your thing. What it actually was was fighting ignorance. (You know, what we’re supposed to be doing around here.)
But I get it: Forrest is EEEvil, and it’s OK to make up shit about evil people. Spreading ignorance in the service of the greater good, I guess.
I have no love for the Klan. Hell, one of my ancestors took a beating for opposing the Klan. But I’m sure you will erase that from your memory as soon as you read it, because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
:rolleyes: Context. In a discussion about this article by Joel Stein, I suggested that there might be a good-old-boy network at work in the executive suites of Hollywood, and that the numbers suggested by Stein’s article could put the studios at risk of an employment discrimination suit. (Which of course makes me an anti-Semite.) Anyway, DSeid repeatedly referred to Jewish dominance in multiple fields of endeavor in such a way that I thought he was suggesting some innate Jewish superiority. I mistook his meaning and I apologized for the remark. Which should have been the end of it. But you have appointed yourself scorekeeper, so…
Liar.
Nowhere have I said we should worry about anyone’s ethnicity. You are just flat-out lying now.
Congratulations though. Your innuendo served its intended purpose: to make me defend myself and thus distract from Finn’s (and your) idiocy.
Way to go, Mini-Finn! Now, please, wipe Finn’s shit off your nose. Talk about distracting smears!
Misogyny, Israel, Islam, crime statistics. I dare someone to keep this thing going for another ten pages by pointing out how much mental illness stigma is running through this thread.
As usual, Spoke is lying. The actual context was already provided, by me. With links and quotes. Spoke tried to dodge the issue by calling his own quoted words “lies” and babbling about autism.
What actually was that DSeid said that due to certain cultural factors, Jews have relatively higher success in limited fields. Spoke responded that that was “Jewish Supremacism” (a phrase that just happens to be the one David Duke writes about all the time) and “bigotry”. Later, he went on to claim that a statement about cultural effects that cause relatively higher success in limited fields, was a “bigoted” claim that Jews are innately superior in absolutely all fields. And that attitude would be “bigoted”, but he’d be kind enough to take DSeid at his word that it wasn’t what he meant. :rolleyes:
He never did explain how such a mistake occurred. Just one of those things you expect while hunting for Jewish Supremacism, I guess.
Again, readers should take note of the fact that I’ve actually cited and quoted what really happened. DSeid talked about certain cultural factors that enabled relative success in limited fields. Spoke then accused of claiming “innate superiority” that applied to absolutely every field, and alleged that DSeid was a “Jewish Supremacist”
Of course, he’s still blaming DSeid for this… curious… error.
This would be more convincing if it wasn’t, literally, the entire substance of Spoke’s racist accusations. We don’t know that Jews in American government are engaged in treachery, but let’s investigate them and make them deny it! We don’t know that the Jews who work in Hollywood are forming a cabal to hurt gentiles and keep them out of positions of leadership, but let’s investigate and make them deny it!
More to the point, Spoke’s trying to divert attention away from the fact that he’s not being accused of being a racist as a smear tactic, but his own statements are being pointed to and analyzed. His actual Johnsonesque tactic, on the other hand, is to point to the simple presence of Jews somewhere and Just Ask Questions about possible Jewish Treachery.
As usual, being called on his own behavior is something Spoke can not tolerate, so he has to try to change the subject with bullshit about how horribly put upon he is.
People should notice that despite citing and quoting Spoke’s comment, and their context, he claimed that I was “lying” about his words. Never did explain what I hadn’t told the truth about, though. Go figure, eh?
See, Spoke understands and condemns bigotry. Why, one of his ancestors, once, “took a beating”. Now let’s see about those loyalty tests for Jews in the US government and let’s sue the Jews in Hollywood to see if, maybe, they’re doing something wrong.
As usual, Spoke is lying. What he actually suggested was that there was a group of Jews secretly acting on a plan to keep gentiles out and promote Jews to the highest levels of power. That is, a cabal. He steadfastly used the word phrase “network”, instead, because he thinks that using code words is pretty clever. He also was shown to be wrong about just about everything.
-He claimed that we had firm information about the number of Jews in upper management positions. But when challenged to actually provide figures for that, he couldn’t. He also couldn’t explain how large, publicly traded corporations somehow had their boards of directors subverted in order to appoint executives in accord with the cabal’s wishes. Jewish treachery is just that powerful.
-He claimed that it was clear that a Jewish cabal had taken over Hollywood, and we could tell because we could use the UK’s film industry as a ‘control’ group’ to show whether or not there really was a cabal at work in the US. When it was revealed to him, however, that Jews were also over-represented in the UK, he quickly dropped that line of discussion and forgot all about it.
-He claimed that we should file a lawsuit against the Jews of Hollywood (suggesting no actual, specific corporations to sue, just “Hollywood” to find out the actions of “Jews”), and provided a cite showing that his claims that over-representation of an ethnic group was prima facia evidence of discrimination. Except his own cite showed that if someone did take his advice and engage in a fishing-expedition-by-lawsuit, their claims would be taken as frivolous and they’d have to pay the legal fees of the defendants.
None of this, of course, made a dent on Spoke. And this, coupled with his JAQing Off about possible Jewish Treachery in the US government is why people stated that he’s an anti-Semite spinning anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Not as he lies, that it was simply that some numbers suggested in an article “suggested” an lawsuit.
Spoke is, of course, lying again. He’s claimed, for example, that Jewish members of the US government need to be subjected to loyalty tests because they might be engaged in treachery. He has repeatedly ignored gentiles in the US government, even when they hold the same exact political positions. In fact, when a gentile holds a certain position that a Jew holds, in Spoke’s racist imagination, that means that the gentiles has probably been unduly influenced by the Jew’s treacherous whisperings.
[
Flat lie. Cite?
Flat lie. Cite?
Flat lie. Cite?
Flat lie. Cite?
Flat lie. Cite?
So we can add compulsive lying to your list of symptoms. You really should seek help.
(Actually, I imagine that’s the way FinnAgain really remembers the threads in question. Which only demonstrates the profundity of his delusions. Paging Uncle Leo.)
Wow. Spoke can’t even admit let alone defend his racist ramblings… I wonder why? Ah well, when I’m not on an iPhone client I may gather up links to show that, yet again, Spoke is lying to claim others are lying. Along those same lines, please fake note of the fact that, as cited, spoke has called even direct, linked quotes to his own words, “lies”. So, hrm… as spoke is a cowardly little racist, I think that I’ll wait for him to show how the earlier direct quotes of his own words, that linked back to his own words verbatim, were “lies”. At least before I go out and do more work because he uses nonsense about imaginary “lies” when he wants to deny his own words.
He’s actually pulled this same nonsense before, maybe I can track that cite down too… Last time he denied that he wanted loyalty tests for Jews (and only Jews) in the US government, a direct quote was provided showing him doing just that. But that doesn’t stop Spoke, brave crusader against Jewish Supremacism that he is.
I wonder, if I get around to providing those cites (assuming that this isn’t just another bit of Spoke’s bullshit and he feels like showing how direct quotes of his own words were “lies”) to show that he’s (again) lying in order to allege lies, will he apologize? Maybe take stock of his disease and stop being a racist? Or more of the same?
“You Jews… I see you working in the government and Hollywood, like you think you’re full American citizens or something. Now, I don’t have any evidence that you’re engaged in ethnic-based treachery, but we have to be very very cawefuwl, and we have to Just Ask Quesions. Now, deny my unfounded assertions.”
“Dude, you do realize that’s stupid, irrational and mirrors classical anti-Semiic tropes?”
“Smearing me! You’re smearing me! You’re using a baseless accusation just to make me deny it! That’s so wrong!!!”
So in other words you’re not going to provide cites, you’re just going to double down and lie harder?
Funny how facts become “lies” when they show you’re a filthy racist. Surely, coincidental.
Suck it up, bitch. Jews will continue to live and work freely in America, in both the private sector and government. We won’t be subjected to loyalty probes if we want to work in the government, and we won’t be sued because we’re successful in an industry. You are an impotent bitch.
So then that’s a “yes.” You’re just gonna double down and lie harder because you know you can’t cite the statements you are attributing to me.
Liar.
Jackass.
Nut.
Not that your “you are sayIng factual things about the racist stuff I said, you’re crazy! I loathe and am terrified of Jews and you object, you are such a jackass!” routine isn’t funny and all, but your racist apologia pattern is well known by now. I’ve been thinking of naming it, somethin like The Fallacy of Malice Aforethought. It’s actually a really common racist gambit where you do something like describe a Jewish cabal hurting gentiles in order to advance Jewish interests, but you think you’re clever because you don’t use the word “cabal.” Or like folks who say blacks are dumber, more prone to crime and drug use and can’t form stable families, but they didn’t say the word “inferior”.
Just like those tactics, the Fallacy of Malice Aforethought is like when someone alleges that a killing was committed with malice aforethought but thinks that they’re very clever (too clever to be found out, actually) when they deny that they’ve accused anybody of Murder One.
Aside from your hypocritical Johnsonesque smears against Jews, JAQing Off and calling facts “lies”, the fallacy of Malice Aforethought is literally all you have. You are just an impoten racist, growling at Jews over the internet. It must drive you wild that we’re still allowed to serve our country in politics or be successful in business without bent sued in legal fishing expeditions.
You’ve got nothing.
But maybe I will provide your quotes showing that you are not only impotent in your racism, but you’re such a coward that you try to hide it on an anonymous message board. If I get a bit bored I’ll proved a cite of your previous denial of your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and demand for loyalty probes of Jews (and only Jews) in government, and your Fallacy of Malice Aforethought ‘rebuttal’. I’ll probabl cite the rest too, just to see a little bitch like you squirm and try to deny your own words. I expect many variations on “Seinfeld! There was something like that on Seinfeld!!! You’re paranoid, now let’s investigate Jews in government for treachery.”
Just like, as already cited, I showed that you paranoia and hatred of Jews working in Hollywood was an accusation of a cabal (or a spontaneous Jewish conspiracy against gentiles), but you were just too must of a cowardly little racist to drop your Malice Aforethought ‘defense’.
Ah, damn you iPhone autocorrect. Anyways, when I can get some time on my laptop I’ll probably show all the many and varied ways that you’re a tiny little racist idiot. Just hold tight Spoke. Bide your time by investigating the loyalty of Jews in the government, if you can’t wait.
Stop weaseling. Cite the statements you have ascribed to me.
Anyways, until I possibly muster up the give-a-damn and steal the laptop from my wife for a bit of cutting and pasting, folks can already see some cited and quoted examples of Spoke’s racist Jew-obsession, above.
Readers will note, already quoted and cited by me and pretty much ignored by good ol spooky, that he still hasn’t actually explained just how he read a claim of cultural factors granting a relative advantage in a select few fields as “innate superiority” in “everything” that evinced Jewish “bigotry” and “Jewish Supremacism”. (Not David Duke’s term, Not David Duke’s term, Not David Duke’s term) Readers will note that, even now, Spoke is still blaming others for his curious error.
Truthfully I may leave off providing cites for him simply to taunt him. But if anybody else is interested I may round 'em up.
Well that’s an interesting way of spinning your inability to back up your lies.
Silly rabbit. I called you out on editing out the part where I provided a cite. By such editing, your intent was to make it seem to the casual reader as if I had not provided any form of back up. While, of course, I provided a cite to one of the most discussed and reviewed studies of acquaintance rape. Something which, whether you agree with its findings or not, you really should be aware of if you seek to know anything about the subject.
Once again you are fibbing here. My objection was, as I have stated multiple times, to the first part of your ‘legal’ definition. Force alone is not sufficient for rape. The part of your post about threats/deceit was accurate. But it is simply incorrect that you then posted two states where your definition was the legal one. You didn’t. You posted to two states, where, as I told you, force and absence of consent are both required elements for the crime of rape (or sexual assault of that gradation). Force on its own isn’t sufficient, the proof of that being New Jersey, where the level of force sufficient to meet that element is defined as the level of force necessary to achieve penetration. So, as I have told you multiple times, your definition of rape makes every act of sexual intercourse in New Jersey to be rape. Not even Andrea Dworkin would go that far (that’s a joke before you seek to go too far with it).
Once I demonstrated this to you, your response was to accuse me of overlawyering. Which, when we are discussing, you know, legal definitions, really isn’t that bad a thing, is it?
Your honesty, of course, can be seen from this quote:
(emphasis added)
Of course you know I provided a cite. But in your frenzy to make internet diagnoses of mental health conditions, you chose to ignore that. And yet again seek to make it seem that I hadn’t. That doesn’t show a great degree of honor or integrity.