Unlimited Ferguson Thread of police state nightmare fuel.

[von]

I dunno, before that point on page 8, I was legitimately trying.

Who cares?  Once you started posting Murrika, you became irrelevant, and anything you had to say earlier got buried under the crap flowing out the back of you.

Well, what I'm saying is that, it would be (in my opinion anyway) best to split it from that point, because anywhere after that point, the thread becomes undeniably "von hates niggers" rather than "ferguson". From what I can see, everything before that point is just "detestable opinion" rather than pure, pointless shit.

Again, I'm considering site quality. Everything before page 8 is topic-related. Most of everything thereafter is von's a racist-related. I simply find it in bad taste to the lurkers who may give a fuck about ferguson more than they give a fuck about me.

[hooplala]

Rare self insight... Is this some sort of turning point? Or are we two posts away from an Unlimited Von thread?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I dunno, before that point on page 8, I was legitimately trying.

Who cares?  Once you started posting Murrika, you became irrelevant, and anything you had to say earlier got buried under the crap flowing out the back of you.

Well, what I'm saying is that, it would be (in my opinion anyway) best to split it from that point, because anywhere after that point, the thread becomes undeniably "von hates niggers" rather than "ferguson". From what I can see, everything before that point is just "detestable opinion" rather than pure, pointless shit.

I think your behavior has been very educational concerning Ferguson, and why that manner of thing can still happen. 

Again, I'm considering site quality. Everything before page 8 is topic-related. Most of everything thereafter is von's a racist-related. I simply find it in bad taste to the lurkers who may give a fuck about ferguson more than they give a fuck about me.

What lurkers?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

von, this isn't about "nobody likes von".  Hell, nobody much likes me on this board, either.

It's about your 1950s approach to social issues.  It's not edgy, it's frankly disgusting. 

[von]

Thats a logical sounding deflection, but as i look through things more and more, i see it everywhere.
if someone pisses off PD's core users somehow, its mysticwick, totse, or the monster-of-the-week troll from last month "obviously" using an alt.

Nope.  In this case, it's just you.  Screeching about "faggots" and "niggers", defending the klan, and basically being an all-American, if you know what I mean.  And I think you do.

I agree. I agree 100%. I am a shithead, and that was my point: it was assumed that I was someone else imitating a shithead just for the sake of annoying people.

As for defending the klan...I wasn't. My point was that the NBPP is just as bad as them. But screw it at this point...

So why would you expect the opinion of a shithead to be taken seriously?

And saying "The OTHER side is just as bad as the people I am describing" IS a defense, as can be demonstrated by any debate between democratic & republican partisans.

>So why would you expect the opinion of a shithead to be taken seriously?


Because content > publisher. If it were otherwise, ad hominim wouldn't be considered a logical fallacy. Hell, Palladin Press has published both the Principia Discordia and the works of Ragnar Bensson. Are palladin press books worth reading or not based on this fact?

>And saying "The OTHER side is just as bad as the people I am describing" IS a defense, as can be demonstrated by any debate between democratic & republican partisans.

Which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my posts concerning the klan and NBPP...I posted "neutral" sourced material on both (if the SPLC is biased, its certainly not biased in my favour) in order to show that the klan isn't what it was back during the civil rights era...

[von]

Rare self insight... Is this some sort of turning point? Or are we two posts away from an Unlimited Von thread?

Go through my post history; "self insight" is something I come to after every big argument I'm in here.

Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. I come here with a broken thesis, knowing this board is diametrically opposed to my normal sources of information so that I can meet antithesis and form a synthesis somewhere in all of the shit slinging. Why do you think I'm so persistent here? Don't most assholes simply ragequit before this point?

>What lurkers?


Go check the forum stats at any given time of day. There are (from what I've seen) normally around 10x "guests" viewing the forums than there are registered users. I would assume these to be unregistered individuals interested in discordianism, yet who can't be assed to register.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because content > publisher.

Not in every day communications.  If you make yourself odious, people will simply turn off.

Which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my posts concerning the klan and NBPP...I posted "neutral" sourced material on both (if the SPLC is biased, its certainly not biased in my favour) in order to show that the klan isn't what it was back during the civil rights era...

I'd believe that, except for the fact that you are a demonstrated racist.

[von]

Because content > publisher.

Not in every day communications.  If you make yourself odious, people will simply turn off.

Which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my posts concerning the klan and NBPP...I posted "neutral" sourced material on both (if the SPLC is biased, its certainly not biased in my favour) in order to show that the klan isn't what it was back during the civil rights era...

I'd believe that, except for the fact that you are a demonstrated racist.

This is where we'll have severe disconnect in communications styles then.

>everyday communications

For me, an everyday communication (online anyway) is one wherein which I am not tied down by identity to the point that I have to care what I said 5 seconds before. I can even argue against my previous position if I come to later insight that disproves it.
For me, the idea of "you have been determined a racist, thus your entire opinion of race-related issues is discounted" is senseless and counterproductive...
because identity becomes an issue in debate, it becomes difficult to actually progress an argument.
For instance, after reviewing (I think it was junkenstein's) mention of rotton bouroughs, I came to conclusions that "fuck, this could be more than I think", thus, I looked into cointelpro...

Now then, knowing the general facts about the KKK and the NBPP and how the state infiltrates ANY race baiting or revolutionary group -- it's obvious that they were infiltrated orgs in my mind, so I decided to post the notion that, since these two orgs were going to be in ferguson.

But I got called on it...not because I implied that potentially infiltrated groups were in the barrel now, but because I implied that a black group could be problematic -- something I feel was motivated by the fact that "von" is a racist who obviously hates black groups and is thus slandering them.

So it turned into an ego-defense battle rather than a "why is this wrong" battle...and then it decayed into shitposting.

[hooplala]

No, I called you on it because they are not the same, despite what you seem to believe. I barely remembered who you were up until then.

[hooplala]

And to address your point about both groups being infiltrated... even if that is true, so what? The government would have no reason to work against itself, so only one "infiltration" would be utilized.

[von]

No, I called you on it because they are not the same, despite what you seem to believe. I barely remembered who you were up until then.

Seriously on this:

How are the modern klans, who are largely incompetant shitbags who sit around online and occasionally fail at holding a rally, any different than the modern NBPP, which is a nation of islam inspired organisation that does literally the same sort of shit?

Seriously, what makes one better than the other, from a cited source? Because to me, they both look like racist shitheads...

EDIT: on infiltration.

I don't rightly understand why either. It was implied that similar riots had been started by violent cointelpro elements within peaceful protest movements before.

My general assumption would be that the state has a vested interest in demonising the legitimate protest movement by provoking them to violence such that they can be justified in arresting/killing protestors. I mean hell, why does the state put violent cointelpro into any protest movement?

It makes the populace think of them as "nothing but violent apes" and lose sympathy with them, which is happening in a lot of places...

[Cain]

And to address your point about both groups being infiltrated... even if that is true, so what? The government would have no reason to work against itself, so only one "infiltration" would be utilized.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, on the "reason" or "utilization" part.  Government isn't monolithic, depending on who is running what infiltration it's quite likely the left hand does not know, or especially care, what the right is doing.

And utilising both infiltrations could be useful...if, for example, you wanted two groups at each others throats, rather than concentrating on something worse.  I can't see an FBI agent losing much sleep over a KKK-New Black Pather bustup, whoever came off worse.

Or, let's say the local KKK are being run by the local police intelligence unit.  Local police are always closely tied into the power structure.  Maybe a bit of the old ultraviolence and racial tension will improve someone's candidacy.  We already know from this thread that one of the local judges has four relatives in the Ferguson PD.  Get law enforcement, judges and a politician on the same side, and you have a pretty potent mix.  Run on a law and order platform, the courts and police get more funding, the politician has friends in high places and everyone is a winner.

Well, except for black teenagers, but as we've been reminded, they are probably budding criminals anyway, and so clearly aren't worth as much as white citizens.

[hooplala]

Ok, I can see that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because content > publisher.

Not in every day communications.  If you make yourself odious, people will simply turn off.

Which is what I was trying to demonstrate in my posts concerning the klan and NBPP...I posted "neutral" sourced material on both (if the SPLC is biased, its certainly not biased in my favour) in order to show that the klan isn't what it was back during the civil rights era...

I'd believe that, except for the fact that you are a demonstrated racist.

This is where we'll have severe disconnect in communications styles then.

>everyday communications

For me, an everyday communication (online anyway) is one wherein which I am not tied down by identity to the point that I have to care what I said 5 seconds before. I can even argue against my previous position if I come to later insight that disproves it.
For me, the idea of "you have been determined a racist, thus your entire opinion of race-related issues is discounted" is senseless and counterproductive...
because identity becomes an issue in debate, it becomes difficult to actually progress an argument.
For instance, after reviewing (I think it was junkenstein's) mention of rotton bouroughs, I came to conclusions that "fuck, this could be more than I think", thus, I looked into cointelpro...

Now then, knowing the general facts about the KKK and the NBPP and how the state infiltrates ANY race baiting or revolutionary group -- it's obvious that they were infiltrated orgs in my mind, so I decided to post the notion that, since these two orgs were going to be in ferguson.

But I got called on it...not because I implied that potentially infiltrated groups were in the barrel now, but because I implied that a black group could be problematic -- something I feel was motivated by the fact that "von" is a racist who obviously hates black groups and is thus slandering them.

So it turned into an ego-defense battle rather than a "why is this wrong" battle...and then it decayed into shitposting.

If you are not getting your idea across, you are not communicating.  The philosophy you are pursuing is irrelevant to this fact.

And it doesn't matter if you are actually a racist or not.  You did a convincing imitation with a straight face, and that's really all it takes.

[von]

And to address your point about both groups being infiltrated... even if that is true, so what? The government would have no reason to work against itself, so only one "infiltration" would be utilized.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, on the "reason" or "utilization" part.  Government isn't monolithic, depending on who is running what infiltration it's quite likely the left hand does not know, or especially care, what the right is doing.

And utilising both infiltrations could be useful...if, for example, you wanted two groups at each others throats, rather than concentrating on something worse.  I can't see an FBI agent losing much sleep over a KKK-New Black Pather bustup, whoever came off worse.

Or, let's say the local KKK are being run by the local police intelligence unit.  Local police are always closely tied into the power structure.  Maybe a bit of the old ultraviolence and racial tension will improve someone's candidacy.  We already know from this thread that one of the local judges has four relatives in the Ferguson PD.  Get law enforcement, judges and a politician on the same side, and you have a pretty potent mix.  Run on a law and order platform, the courts and police get more funding, the politician has friends in high places and everyone is a winner.

Well, except for black teenagers, but as we've been reminded, they are probably budding criminals anyway, and so clearly aren't worth as much as white citizens.

Couldn't it perhaps be simpler and more direct?

>embed rad-com and NBPP elements into a crowd of protesters who are already hard pressed to seperate themselves from opportunistic criminals
>have the embedded elements promote violence
>have the KKK show up and start "protecting" businesses in the area
>have one group or the other do something outrageous and spark all-out pandemonium
>now you have a media picture of "wild apes killing in the street" to make the public lose sympathy
>you can now freely shoot, brutalise and detain "wild apes" whereas yesterday, it would have been hard to shoot "peaceful racial equality activists"