User Profile

Forum Activity by Crow T. Robot

Janson Jinnistan
Crow T. RobotWanting evidence that Putin colluded with Trump/not believing the CIA at their word is defending Putin and possibly giving a tell that they're a Russian operative. And you seem bewildered with your "What's a homophobe?" act. You're a troll. It's embarrassing to watch someone in over their head.

I wish you were more clever.

I suppose real homophobes are perfectly fine with a guy who outlawed homosexuality influencing an election to get an administration in office with stated gay-discrimination proposals. ?Maybe I'm wrong.

This is a technique used by alt righters like Paul Joseph Watson/Sargon of Akkad/Mike Cernovich etc. "The real homophobes are foreigners that I don't like! Certainly, *I* can't be guilty of homophobia." If the only problems you have with Trump are conspiracy theories you make up, then that's cool, though.
May 3, 2017 3:30 AM
Janson Jinnistan
Crow T. RobotLike I said, you don't care and are reacting to images and language with ignorance

Maybe I could try to be more presumptuous like yourself.


Crow T. Robotin this case without the benefit of seeing how violent homophobia is perpetuated by mocking gay people's sexuality. It's a formative process for alt-righters and people who pretend to care about the problems Trump creates.

In this case, Colbert is not demeaning homosexuals or their sex acts. ?He is demeaning two men who, if you pretend to care about the problems they create, have pursued actual policies (rather than jokes) that have harmed and concretely demeaned the lives of homosexuals.

I think that it's very telling that your first post was far more concerned with defending Putin than homosexuals, but I'm not going to engage in imagining what you care about or what images and language you react to.

Wanting evidence that Putin colluded with Trump/not believing the CIA at their word is defending Putin and possibly giving a tell that they're a Russian operative. And you seem bewildered with your "What's a homophobe?" act. At least you have Rooby coming to your defense of using jokes that dehumanize gay people. You're a troll. It's embarrassing to watch someone in over their head.
May 3, 2017 3:16 AM
Rooby Roo
Crow T. Robot
Janson JinnistanI'm still a little confused as to how Colbert's joke reflects a sentiment for killing homosexuals. ?Is he Chechen all of a sudden?


Like I said, you don't care and are reacting to images and language with ignorance, in this case without the benefit of seeing how violent homophobia is perpetuated by mocking gay people's sexuality. It's a formative process for alt-righters and people who pretend to care about the problems Trump creates.

Colbert didn't mock homosexuality. He mocked a man who is very likely someone who has personal issues closely tied to homophobia, but doesn't even realize it.

By using a homophobic joke that we only recognize as funny since jokes dehumanizing gays are so widespread that we understand that kind of joke is used to mock people as weak and somehow lesser. The ugly part of it isn't that it's against Trump; it's that it's like seeing gay people being discriminated against and attacked and saying, "I want to use those ideas against a target I think deserves it."
May 3, 2017 2:43 AM
Janson JinnistanI'm still a little confused as to how Colbert's joke reflects a sentiment for killing homosexuals. ?Is he Chechen all of a sudden?


Like I said, you don't care and are reacting to images and language with ignorance, in this case without the benefit of seeing how violent homophobia is perpetuated by mocking gay people's sexuality. It's a formative process for alt-righters and people who pretend to care about the problems Trump creates.
May 3, 2017 2:25 AM
Lawyer's going to cost you about tree fiddy
Mar 26, 2017 7:18 AM
MeowThe AP reports that Manafort was secretly paid millions by a Russian oligarch to advance Putin's interests. But of course he barely had anything to do with the campaign he ran for months so this is all going to be blown out of proportion. Oh hey, remember this? Well maybe the campaign really did realize all this was sketchy and that's why Manafort was... uh... still sticking around.

So, he was a lobbyist. Like how we have them in each party from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and how Obama's administration (with Hillary) were trying to create better relations with Russia.

The search for a scapegoat the Democrats can use to shield their vacuous, lobbyist filled party continues. And don't get me wrong-an investigation should happen to show whether Russia colluded with Trump during the election. But the hysteria over Russia and blatant reverence for the CIA, who's job is disinformation, especially about foreign governments, is ridiculous.
Mar 24, 2017 8:30 PM
NimChimpskyReadable!

I have to delete all the bad formatting RT gives on this. Which wouldn't be a problem if we went to Kateland like I said, Nim. In fact, you seem rather eager to avoid racism amongst gamers, and by staying on this forum you make it harder for people to consume racist gamer news. I think you're racist.
Mar 16, 2017 2:36 AM
Here's an article summarizing the debate, along with a few (of the many) choice quotes from JonTron:

http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2017/03/15/racist-youtuber-jontron-is-even-more-racist-than-people-already-thought-he-was/

-Wealthy blacks...commit more crime than poor whites, that's a fact.
-What is so offensive about white people saying they'd like to preserve their demographic majority??
-It's clear that whites are not allowed to speak up against their demographic um...oblivion.
-[Whites] are not being killed, they're being displaced. You are the same guy who says that Europeans displaced the native Americans but apparently, when other people do it to white Americans, it's okay because fuck white people.
-Why is it when the chinese were trying to colonise tibet, why was that a save tibet situation but when it's white people? I'm using an analogy to try to give a parallel situation so you can see the hypocrisy.
-There is an absolute disproportionate of crime committed to whites by nonwhites. There's no arguing that, that's just FBI statistics. But white people are not allowed to address this because it's called racist by people like you.
-I don't recall Trump ever saying anything explicitly racist.
-Nobody wants to become a minority in their own country. Why is it bad if they (whites) remain a majority??
-Not all Mexicans are going to go on welfare but a lot of them are going to commit crimes. The El Salvadoreans are going to create the MS13 gangs.
-These days the confederate flag has been banned, they're burning american flags in the streets. And I think immigration policies that haven't been the smartest are partially to blame for that.
-We've gotten rid of discrimination in our western countries. If you don't think we've gotten rid of discrimination, you're living in a fantasy land.
-This oppression in America, it doesn't exist.

And here's a legitimately fun video of two guys breaking down all the crazy stuff JonTron said (the quotes above don't even cover 1/4 of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R02k1sQpc2k

And somewhat surprisingly, even JonTron's fans have been turning against him and unsubscribing him in droves. It takes a lot for YouTube gamers to get their fans angry when it comes to displaying racism/sexism.
Mar 16, 2017 2:25 AM
Oh, great.

Nim, listen while you cook some stupid ass meal like quinoa or whatever you'd make. Otherwise, you seem racist.
Mar 15, 2017 8:31 PM
Oops-I meant 1 hour 20 minutes (I listened to all of JonTron's appearance). This is fun: https://youtu.be/6RQA9GZprqM

This has prompted the latest series of rich, YouTube gamer white guys to shriek in hysteria that the media wants to destroy them and doesn't understand their humanity. Their arguments unintentionally are very similar to self-identified white nationalists/supremacists who believe that the media (Jews) hate white men and are attempt to destroy white civilization.
Mar 15, 2017 5:37 PM
Maddow often believes things that are either made up or convenient for her to criticize Republicans and support Democrats, even to the point of basically arguing that policies are ok only when Democrats to them (yes, not directly, but her arguments amount to that). So I doubt this is legit, though I want to see to be sure. And her phrasing of "Trump tax returns" rather than saying "Trump's tax returns" just sounds odd. Could be nothing, or it could mean she only has partial information on his returns.
Mar 15, 2017 12:21 AM
Recommend me Wii games that I can play in relatively short amounts of time and enjoy (no RPGs, as much as I love them).
Mar 9, 2017 6:35 PM
I have limp lip.
Mar 9, 2017 6:32 PM
To be clear-if I had never heard your arguments before, EA, then you should proceed exactly how you have been if you're attempting to convince me. And still, I get your position. You don't want to accept that I've heard your points before, so ok. It would only make sense for you, from your point of view, to try and meet me where I am instead of pretending I'm some other guy who never heard your arguments. I can provisionally adopt it while I assume your point of view and ignore a larger body of information. Think what you do. Even though you can't seem to listen-not agree with me, but just listen-to what I've said because you talk to me like I'm some other guy who hasn't heard your arguments before, I still listen to you and others every bit as intently to understand you. If you think not listening to others is an advantage, go ahead! I don't want to convince you that that's due diligence.
Mar 9, 2017 4:04 AM
Esoteric Allusion
Crow T. RobotYou keep repeating excuses for Hillary I heard from Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow months ago. You realize I'm not a guy who doesn't know what you're saying? I didn't avoid listening to these points because I disagreed. I wanted to listen as much as possible. Get it? Are you aware of that? I'm not saying things to take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton.

I'm explaining to you that you are confusing stories. Feel free to show whee Rachel Maddow explained to the public how Angelo is confusing stories. I'm not sure if you're trying to make me into a Clinton fan or not, but I'm not interested in defending everything about Hillary. I'm interested in pointing out that she lost the election because of how news sources covered her personal server and Wikileaks stories. I don't think those stories are a proxy for every negative Clinton observation that exists.

If you're going to play games because Maddow was arguing the same case you're making but not with me personally, I'm not terribly concerned. I know too well the last few things you're writing here. You're veering into arguing in bad conscience since I've clearly said I've heard your case formulated a number of times by others and have been interested in hearing them, and you act like I'm some other guy who hasn't heard them before, so you'll give it a chance!
Mar 9, 2017 3:46 AM
Oh, no one told me that!

Again, it's amusing to see you can't seem to understand my position and choose not to see it, but I can understand yours. I still try carefully understand yours if only out of curiosity to see where I'm wrong and try to understand the best case possible for positions contrary to mine, which are always subject to revision. I'm ready to be wrong in a moment. The fact that you can't get that, to me, pardons you from challenging my position, which is something I'm always looking for. I get what you're saying. I don't want to believe any one position and have been constantly reassessing my views. If I wanted to, I can take the view that the multitude of other issues which damaged Hillary's campaign didn't exist and that the reporting on her emails stood out as singularly unscrupulous and damaging to her. Done. Then I step back to reality, which isn't nearly as neat and tidy.
Mar 9, 2017 3:42 AM
You keep repeating excuses for Hillary I heard from Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow months ago. You realize I'm not a guy who doesn't know what you're saying? I didn't avoid listening to these points because I disagreed. I wanted to listen as much as possible. Get it? Are you aware of that? I'm not saying things to take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton.
Mar 9, 2017 3:23 AM
Esoteric Allusion
Crow T. Robot
Esoteric AllusionAngelo -

If you surveyed the public and asked them what the bad information about Clinton the wikileaks emails contained, I would bet you less 1 in 5 could name a single example that was true. I'd also be willing to to bet well more than that would submit a false story, like Clinton funneling weapons to ISIS as sec of state if your a Republican or Clinton colluding to fraudulently steal a primary election if you are a Bernie Bro. You seem to be having a hard time separating your personal opinions from what the public thought and why.

All those wikileaks stories did, besides give us risotto prep tips, is provide grist for the media to talk negatively about Clinton and other Democrats a level so superficial it likely translated into, "This email story sounds bad. I heard [insert rumor]."

When Hillary was using her power and connections to collect money from brutal regimes, running bombing campaigns, and fundraising from her private email server while forming policy, she wasn't corrupt; she was just being a nerd. Cool.

The emalis stories has nothing to do with her bellicose foreign policy preferences. We didn't learn she was a Clintonian interventionist from that. Clinton's role in Libya was understood independent of either emails story. You also appear to be conflating stories about Clinton foundation donations with email leaks. Clinton foundation stories were another class of scandal.

Apparently you see everything wrapped up in "emails" because anything she did would have some kind of email associated with it.

The idea that her emails influencing and fundraising had nothing to do with her policies is a lie. By all means, play pretend with the idea that one of the most powerful women in the world having a tool to get policies she wants while lobbying billionaire dictators and avoiding more transparency isn't corrupt. Not to mention the games she played with saying how she didn't email classified information. That wasn't nearly the same scandal Republicans said it was-but it was still reptilian in how deceptive it was.

The only reason we can't say she engaged in quid pro quo is because we can't read her mind. But she knows how to play that game of legally getting favors and influencing. I don't have this selective focus and can fully see that the Republican criticism of her email server was hypocritical and self-serving, and the media's focus was just as shallow as much of their focus on Trump's outrageous comments. But it's kind of neither here nor there unless you can properly put it into context. I've heard your arguments formulated from Democratic leaders, liberal pundits and writers, and ordinary liberals. I've internalized them. If you realized what you sounded like as someone trying to tell me things you may think are new to me when I've heard them many times over, you'd see how foolish you look. Like, "Oh, if I just tell him, he'll agree with me!" It doesn't make sense for you to repeat things I've listened to closely for months now. I think that much would be easier for you to understand if you broadened the sources you get information from. You'd know what it's like to see people repeat arguments when you listen more carefully, and would know better what doesn't make sense about your own positions.

I like being skeptical and listening to sides I don't agree with. You're one of many I hear that hold your positions and seem to miss the before and after that doesn't make your position hold up. I'd be glad to say otherwise if that was the case. So EA, have it your way. I've internalized your arguments (before you ever told them to me). She wasn't corrupt. She was engaged in politics as usual, and the media hyped up a non-scandal because of a 24 hour news cycle and lazy, sensationalist reporting. She would have won if it wasn't for the media seizing on non-stories of her private email server and campaign emails and not giving her more fair treatment. Here's to losing in 2020!
Mar 9, 2017 3:11 AM
Esoteric AllusionAngelo -

If you surveyed the public and asked them what the bad information about Clinton the wikileaks emails contained, I would bet you less 1 in 5 could name a single example that was true. I'd also be willing to to bet well more than that would submit a false story, like Clinton funneling weapons to ISIS as sec of state if your a Republican or Clinton colluding to fraudulently steal a primary election if you are a Bernie Bro. You seem to be having a hard time separating your personal opinions from what the public thought and why.

All those wikileaks stories did, besides give us risotto prep tips, is provide grist for the media to talk negatively about Clinton and other Democrats a level so superficial it likely translated into, "This email story sounds bad. I heard [insert rumor]."

When Hillary was using her power and connections to collect money from brutal regimes, running bombing campaigns, and fundraising from her private email server while forming policy, she wasn't corrupt; she was just being a nerd. Cool.
Mar 9, 2017 2:30 AM