Driver who hit pedestrians near mosque shouted 'I want to kill all Muslims', eyewitness says

ranma-official

independent.co.uk

Driver who hit pedestrians near mosque shouted 'I want to kill all Muslims', eyewitness says

Witnesses to the suspected Finsbury Park terrorist attack claim a man shouted “I'm going to kill all Muslims” after a van ploughed into people near the area's mosque.

higher-order

Why do these idiots always target random, innocent Muslims? Meanwhile people like Anjem Choudary walked free for decades.

unstumpabledeplorable

“Innocent Muslims”

edmund-bjork

Yes the people murdered were completely innocent, I disagree with Islam and I wish to see immigration from Muslim population limited, stopped or reversed into to prevent radicalism, societal fracturing and the crime that follows influxes of young Islamic male population into our nations but they were not responsible for the deaths created by extremist Muslims. I do not want to see more innocent lives lost

unstumpabledeplorable

The time for civil discussion with Muslims is over. War is upon us. Pick a side.

natural-order

Stop being so autistic. It doesn’t help at all.

unstumpabledeplorable

Keep burying your head in the fucking sand, that’s helpful. There’s a war on. Or hadn’t you noticed? Vigilantes are forming, because the government and police have failed. This is just the start.

ranma-official

I’d be careful about claiming we’re at war. Mostly because we’re objectively not, but more importantly because war isn't a free for all. War has rules.

And these rules forbid in no ambiguous terms the targeting of noncombatants.

So I suggest you condemn this terrorist’s actions.

testblogdontupvote

You’re saying that as if trumpists wouldn’t be the ones raping and burning entire villages during a land operation.

On a different note, I appreciate the irony of:

I wish to see immigration from Muslim population limited, stopped or reversed into
I do not want to see more innocent lives lost

“I don’t want people to die, so I wanna send refugees straight into the hands of genocidal warlords.” A+ logic!

Source: higher-order

More you might like

fierceawakening

pinkonionfairy:
“ lethal-cuddles:
“ cultapprop:
“ staff:
“ Safe Mode is here, Tumblr.
More control over what you see and what you don’t. What’s Safe Mode?
Safe Mode filters sensitive content in your dashboard and your search results.
Who’s it...

Source: staff

fierceawakening

kateordie

I realize I drew the Bi Pride Flag two different ways but… well, that joke writes itself.

This is a story about a little thing, and some big things. I have lots more on Patreon! I love you. Happy Pride.

fierceawakening

As long as we’re talking about stereotypes:

“Bi women are fine, but ‘bicurious girls’ are really straight and will BETRAY YOOOOOU” prevented me from dating women for YEARS because I felt like I had to be certain I was in lasting love to kiss a girl.

Which is a catch-22 because how can you know whether or not you actually like kissing girls if you can’t kiss a girl unless you’re in forever love?

testblogdontupvote

It’s also a ridiculous double standard, because no one can be certain about what will happen with a particular relationship even with a person of their definitely preferred gender. A megagay lesbian can also go “sorry, I just don’t have chemistry with you”.

Source: kateordie

“Come at me, bro”

“Come at me, oniichan”

shitpost

Is there a reason, aside from the middle class bubble, why people are specifically obsessed with free speech on college campuses, of all places?

lizardbuzz

Anonymous asked:

if karl marx was real he could beat you up, effortlessly. karl marx could rip your little twig body asunder

edwad answered:

i have like half a foot on him and know all of his weaknesses

edwad

wait, “if karl marx was real”…. is he… made up?

kafkamilktea

cryptid

hushed-obscenities

reblog if you believe

testblogdontupvote

Well maybe Marx was Engels’ tulpa!

Source: edwad

tchtchtchtchtch

When I was updating my OkCupid profile a few months ago, one of my new answers to “what are you really good at” was “being kind and charitable to people I disagree with”.

A few weeks later, after a particularly bad Facebook fight, I added “usually” to that claim.

A few weeks ago, I changed “usually” to “sometimes”.

Now I’m thinking of taking it out entirely.

Some of this may just be coming to see myself more clearly, having more occasions to see my weaknesses and sore spots and berserk buttons. But I think some of it is a genuine change? I have found myself getting really upset and kind of panicky over Internet conflicts recently in a way which I’m not sure I would have experienced a few months ago. I think it may even be that a particular interaction was so stressful that I now get stressed more easily over this kind of thing.

It’s good for me to realize this, so that I can take advantage of normal Internet-stress-management tools like unfollowing people and staying out of arguments. In the last couple of months I have unfollowed-without-unfriending three people on Facebook whose posts make me stressed, and it feels like an extreme step because I never had to do it before. (I still sometimes go through some of their posts when I think I can handle it, because sometimes their posts have useful ideas, they just also make me mad.) I still haven’t blocked anyone and I hope I never have to.

On the other hand I’ve always had trouble with the notion of people disapproving of anything about me, that’s not really anything new and it causes other problems in my life as well.

Still, this is making me believe more strongly in the importance of being kind and charitable in discourse, because not doing so burns useful resources and may have longer-term effects than I had thought. (I do still think that sometimes given a person’s mental state a tradeoff is between saying a thing super angrily and not saying it at all, and the former is sometimes worthwhile, and disallowing anger has the effect of excluding valuable perspectives (and this is how people closer to the person I had the biggest clash with describe what was going on, so I have trouble even faulting them for this, even though from my perspective what they were doing was exclusively harmful). But it’s a pretty big tradeoff. I think sometimes the answer should be “the person says the thing angrily, their point is taken but other people in the conversation reinforce the conversational norms”.)

testblogdontupvote

I do still think that sometimes given a person’s mental state a tradeoff is between saying a thing super angrily and not saying it at all, and the former is sometimes worthwhile, and disallowing anger has the effect of excluding valuable perspectives (and this is how people closer to the person I had the biggest clash with describe what was going on, so I have trouble even faulting them for this, even though from my perspective what they were doing was exclusively harmful)

It’s worth pointing out that in practice, groups tend to have vastly different politically biased levels of tolerance to such behavior. Mainstream social justice would let even literal calls for genocide slip as “obviously they don’t mean it, and if you’re hurt by an oppressed person suggesting all oppressors like you should be killed you’re the problem”, while calling all but the most careful criticism of left-wing activism complete shitlordery. Rationalists, as whole, appear to be tolerant of rape apologism, segregation advocacy, and various neoreaction shit, saying “well, of course we disagree, but you must be able to handle disagreement and treat ideas charitably, or you’re the main problem with the world”, but somehow even moderately strongly worded feminism causes panic (e.g. https://testblogdontupvote.tumblr.com/post/159236078308/if-slatestarscratchpad-applied-the-same-standard)

This rather reminds me of http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/, where people would lecture you on the virtues of compassion, tolerance, and listening to valuable perspectives even when they’re presented by people in massive pain, and therefore speaking angrily, but in practice they only apply these virtues to angry people with whom they broadly agree. And it sucks big time to be on the receiving end of it, because people lecturing you from their high horses about compassion can really easily make you seem like the villain to both others and even yourself, whereas credibly demonstrating that they only pretend (perhaps even to themselves) to be charitable and compassionate while actually just harboring more radical versions of their own beliefs, and going apeshit over actual disagreements requires an immense amount of statistical work, that can still always be called biased and subjective.

lizardbuzz

The fact that colonialism is so central to science-fiction, and that science-fiction is so central to our own pop culture, suggests that the colonial experience remains more tightly bound up with our political life and public culture than we sometimes like to think.

The Atlantic discusses the link between science fiction and colonialism.
(via ceeturnalia)

From Brazil, it’s only a brief hop to 1984, which, as I’ve pointed out here at The Atlantic, can also read as a reverse colonial parable. Rather than seeing the novel as a riff on Hitler and Stalin’s brand of totalitarianism, as it’s usually interpreted, you can instead think about it as inspired by the repressive state in which Orwell served—British-controlled Burma.
Even the Terminator films fit pretty easily into a colonial narrative. At first, they may seem far afield from geographic conquest; the plot, after all, hinges on time-traveling robots, not invading aliens. But Rieder points out that for Wells, the War of the Worlds was a battle not only across space, but across time. Wells’s Martians, with their giant craniums and atrophied bodies, were meant to be a warning of our own evolutionary future, just as the Tasmanians were generally viewed by Westerners as preserved, primitive living remnants of the evolutionary past. Thus, the computers in Terminator can be seen as not-fully-evolved colonial servants, who eventually evolve into more-advanced colonial masters.

I call http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory on this.

Source: millionsmillions

pervocracy

bogleech

“Antifa” is the new “SJW” getting thrown around by the right wing to describe anything vaguely liberal or even just too moderate for their tastes

If you describe everything you hate as anti-fascist then aren’t you basically admitting you’re pro-fascist

pervocracy

Also there’s a lot of right-wing scaremongering about “the ANTIFA organization,” as if that’s a thing. Hard to know how much of this is people who actually believe that, and how much is people who want others to start believing it.

testblogdontupvote

Unlike “SJWs”, “antifa” has at least one very concrete meaning: left-wing skinheads.

Source: bogleech