Well Teia, we've asked several times for the proof that this thing was spread over years, specifically against Christine. Instead, the goalposts were moved by you and the admins of this site, much as they were when you were made a mod of Water Cooler Talk in 2012. I bit my first ban because of you, your constant SJW bull, the attitude you had of calling anyone who disagreed with you a bigot but never addressing their counterarguments. No, to you it was always, "You're a damn bigot go away". It's no wonder a lot of the oldschool people I remember are no longer here.
I remember the crap you guys pulled when you were called out, how you threatened to raid peoples' accounts and take what was in their inboxes in an attempt to silence critics. I remember how you all circled the wagons and banned anyone who spoke against you. Five years, and you still haven't matured, which is to be expected form someone with the, quite honestly, mentality of a teenager.
The goalposts were always moved by you. "We can't prove that there was systemic harassment over years by Jeremy against Christine, but we can provide these screenshots of Jeremy being an edgelord and an ********. Asking for proof, though? That's a banning."
Never change, Sally. Never change.
-
- Spectre_06
- Registered User
-
Member for 9 years and 4 days
Last active Fri, Mar, 27 2020 14:25:10
- 0 Followers
- 20 Total Posts
- 13 Thanks
Also, she made several comments about this thing, and one tweet--apparently since deleted, I'm asking some people if they happened to screencap it--said that Patreon support was appreciated. Out of the blue, mind you, not responding to people saying they were supporting her Patreon. Of course, now that her Twitter is protected, I can't see it to confirm things, but there you go.
Coming into any discussion, if you set the rules, "This happened, don't deny it" but refuse to provide the necessary proof that this has happened, then it's not a discussion at all, it's an echo chamber. I was told to watch The Professor's video, so I did. It doesn't answer my question.
My question was very, very simple: where is the proof? The claim is made that Jeremy personally led a targeted, prolonged campaign of harassment against Christine. I decided to do a bit of digging, and aside from a handful of tweets spread over months, which give his opinion that I could understand in the context he provided (mainly, that socially-awkward people will flock to protect someone who is moderately attractive), and a single video and one stream in which she was mentioned, I cannot find it. I simply can't. I cannot seem to find this much vaunted evidence that everyone says exists. Or doesn't exist. Because it was apparently...deleted? Why is it that people in this day and age can master the art of social media, but don't understand screencaps and archive.is? Why is it that we have to "listen and believe" when this comes up, but when pushed for the evidence to support the claim the people asking for the evidence are suddenly the bad guys? I come from a "trust, but verify" mindset, in everything I do, because sometimes people can lie, and other times people pass on what is going on, which is hearsay.
The Professor makes a good case for Jeremy being an edgelord and an ass. Guess what? That's not proof of him leading a crusade (No no...what do the American pig-dogs call it? Right, peacekeeping!) against a single individual. In my postings on Reddit, my blog postings, and videos on my YouTube channel I've gone after Studio Wildcard for performing shoddily, and providing a subpar product despite the hype they provided. SidAlpha has gone after Alex Mauer and Andrew Watt recently in the wake of spurious claims. We have been more focused on our respective targets than he has on Christine, and yet it wouldn't be harassment.
More to the point, if Jeremy is held accountable for people doing their own thing and attacking people, when he did not instigate any attacks (making a video does not indicate responsibility for creating a hate mob), does this mean that if he provides actual evidence of targeted harassment against himself by followers of Fournier, Christine, and even The Professor? Will you then launch a thread like this against them, or will it be a, "That's completely different"?
Make no mistake: I do not, in any way, condone targeted harassment campaigns by anyone. However, you have to provide the evidence to support your accusations, something I don't believe has been done in this. As such, taking a preponderance of the evidence, Jeremy is an ******** sometimes, but that doesn't make him the Hitler of targeted harassment.
And for the record, Jeremy makes an interesting case for her having started this because her Patreon numbers were shrinking (related graph: https://imgur.com/a/tkFqk). I'm not saying it's true, but it's interesting from an evidentiary standpoint.
College, really. I mean, it pops up during politics, but when it comes down to dealing with reality it doesn't show up much. The male-female BS and most times racism don't play much of a part in typical society, despite what people like to claim.
Beyond that, many of these groups are defunct. Sure, The Troubles haven't completely abated, but we're a long cry form the '70s and '80s, when the PIRA would bomb places, such as a hotal where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was staying. And even then we widely called the PIRA a terrorist organization. The problem is as you said, many of these "lone wolf" style attacks are upstaged by the coordinated attacks of groups like ISIS and Hamas. And every time we have a Dylan Roof, it usually ends there. There's no cell continuing their attacks, there's no one following up.
The reason this guy was taken alive is twofold: first off, you had a hostage situation, where he had people they believed he could kill if they attempted a rescue while he was alert. Busting in a door, tossing in a flashbang or four and killing him is nigh impossible in the first couple of hours of a hostage crisis, and that's pretty much standard no matter where you live. Hell, in Paris no one expected GIGN to storm the Bataclan when they did, and had the terrorists not begun executing hostages it probably would have dragged on for quite some time, with hostage negotiation and other groups--notably, GSG-9 and 22nd SAS, as well as the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team--being flown out to support them. If you look at some of the better-known hostage situations, storming the location almost never happens until a significant amount of time goes by (Munich 1972, Prince's Gate 1985, etc.). As others have said, the other thing is that he gave up. He came out peacefully, and it's not possible, with national news watching, to pop the guy in the face after he's done so.
Not three months ago, I was taking my friend's grandmother to the hospital for some x-rays. There happened to be a BLM protest on the way, and there was traffic. At one point as we were passing through the protestors began to crowd around some of the cars, the one I was in included. I had my weapon on my lap, and when they looked in they backed off. 'm not sure it's because they were afraid I'd shoot for no reason or what-have-you, but they backed off.
Do I believe that the movement is inherently racist? Tough call. I know that this springs up on the heels of police killing black males, generally portrayed as unarmed, and little angels. Really, Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and Freddy Gray are the ones that spring to mind, though Eric Garner as well. In three instances (one of which I don't agree with), it was decided that the actions of the officers (or in George Zimmerman's case the civilian) had acted lawfully and not gone beyond what was necessary. And yet the black community still rioted, still protested. They wanted "justice", which in their eyes meant punishing a person who had committed no crime, and who had done nothing wrong. This was all fought in the court of public opinion, and damned be the judicial system. It honestly reminded me of the lynchings we'd hear about in the South up until the 70s, really: forget the judicial process, let's have our own brand of justice! Maybe they wouldn't have killed Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman, but there is a certain group that would do so within those communities, and they incite the same people in the movement to violence.
I'd make comparisons to how people label the entirety of the TEA Party as racist because of the actions of a few, but I feel like that would fall on deaf ears.
Probably the biggest fact that is ignored is that research has put the number of extremists in the past few years at 15% on the low end, with 25% being the high end—and also regarded as being the most likely. Twenty-five percent of even 1-billion is still 250,000,000, almost two-thirds the population of the United States. We know that there are more than one-billion Muslims in the world, too. So even accepting that it is a minority that is committing these atrocities, that is still a very significant number of terrorists running around there.
Next, we will never catch them all that come into this country. We may catch a majority, but they only need to commit one act to score a victory. Accept this. No matter how vigilant you are, no matter what your background in combat operations or counterterrorism, you will not stop it from happening every time. Look at Israel: they are the greatest in the world at infiltrating terrorist cells and stopping attacks, and yet they still happen. That’s because many are lone wolf-style attacks, where there’s no cell to operate in. We’ve seen that these attacks can be done quickly and timetables shifted to accommodate new developments: Paris showed us this, after all.
The biggest problem is that these guys aren’t the military of a country. They don’t wear uniforms. They hide in civilian populations, and our hands in combat are tied by rules of engagement that don’t work. If the guy just got done shooting three of your comrades then throws down his weapon and surrenders, you are not supposed to kill him. You’re supposed to take him into custody. Tell me who would follow such rules when you just watched your buddies get mowed down by some jihadi wielding an AK. Or a suicide bomber you couldn’t engage, because he wasn’t ACTUALLY pointing a weapon at you (yes, these are ROEs that we had under Obama, and to a lesser extent under Bush a couple of months leading up to Operation Phantom Fury but were then removed). Restricting the combat competence of our troops for political reasons is pointless.
We can all agree that Islam has a problem. But you and I look at this differently, Jay. Islam has been engaging in violent actions in the name of jihad since its founding. Christianity and Islam have a similar beginning: both were persecuted when they began before making violent expansions. Christianity, however, grew out of it beginning in the 1200s, really, even though the last Crusade wasn’t launched until 1455. Even after that, you can make arguments for the Spanish Inquisition, the Schism, all of these issues that have plagued predominantly the Catholic Church—a distinction many Protestants will point to, but is usually ignored as a whole because it doesn’t fit into an agenda. I’m not saying Christianity hasn’t done some stuff that is ****ed up, but I’m also saying that what happened 600 years ago does not have much relevance when talking about what Islam is doing right here, and right now.
You can’t reason with these people. You can’t talk to them. The minute you do, you are giving their ideology credence, and you are validating their claims. The only way to fight this is with violence. We did it in 1941, when we entered the Second World War and fought the Nazis, Italian fascism, and the Imperial Japanese relentlessly. We fought violent ideology with violence, because it was what they understood. It was all they were able to understand. We fought and bled because we had to. This is no different.
I will admit I don’t like Islam. I’ve studied to Qu’ran. I’ve read it in depth because I wanted to know my enemy, much as I have read Mein Kampf. I may not fully understand the religion, but I understand its founding principles, which require conversion or death. That is much different than Christianity and Judaism, which their holy texts do not call for the death of non-believers. The New Testament—which every Christian is supposed to live by—even makes mention that killing non-believers is hateful to God. Go ahead and read the Qu’ran: killing non-believers is quintessential to the survival of Islam. It may have been written at a time when Islam was being persecuted, but consider the fact that there is no way to really update the book, because Muhammad is dead.
The silent majority doesn’t matter, because they don’t do anything about it until its too late. It’s been that way almost every time there’s been a conflict. Nazi Germany, the USSR, communist China, communist Vietnam, Iraq…the list can go on. If people want it to stop, they need to stop making all these websites. They need to stop saying “I stand by the people of Paris.” The effective range of prayers is 0 meters, people. You want to do something about this, you want to show you care? The Peshmerga are kicking ass and taking names against Daesh (ISIS) right now. Shoulder a rifle and go help them out.
We had no warnings of this happening, which is the scariest part. There was no chatter, there was no talk between the terrorists. Very likely this was an attack that had been planned for months, but they moved the timetable up after we killed "Jihadi John" as retaliation for the attack. This happened in France, also, which has been lax in its security matters for a while. Not long ago, GIGN--the French federal police counterterrorism unit--had a large restructuring, and they lost a lot of good men in the furloughs and firings.
When GIGN was forced to raid the Bataclan, the German GSG-9 and KSK were already en route. The French foreign minister had requested "assistance" from the British, and the 22nd SAS was standing-to and ready to deploy. A Marine Corps FAST team was actually IN France at the time and had received orders to prepare to move to Paris, and Marine security guards at the embassy were prepared to help Parisian police with securing the perimeter. France understands their limitations, which not every country does. They made the right plays, and had GIGN not moved when they did, the bloodbath could have been worse.
This is likely the first in a series of attacks that are shaping up. There is talk that Washington, London, and Sydney have been mentioned in chatter between ISIS cells worldwide. More to the point, this is exactly the problem with bringing in so many "refugees" from that part of the world. I know there's going to be cries of racism, or Islamophobia, but the truth is that we know ISIS is infiltrating with the refugees. This is not a case of "these people are running away from the terrorists", this is an issue of inviting the terrorists in, because they don't need to get everyone in, just enough.