Warren Lynch Shitpost General - TRUE and HONEST (former) John Flynt for Congress campaign worker

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Yes. Including the phrase "I'm a progressive." Hillary Clinton is clearly not the same kind of a "progressive" as Bernie Sanders is. But a lot of politicians love that word now, including, in Massachusetts anyway, a lot of Republicans. To be clear, I'm a "Bernie Sanders-wing progressive", aka "progressive populist democratic socialist".

Oh hey, isn't it so grating when a group takes a word and wholly distorts it from its original meaning in order to advance their own cynical aims? Anyway tell me more about how Antifa is primarily comprised of little old Jewish ladies.
 
Wait, so I'm reading this right... you have to be the right kind of progressive for Warrens support. But if you aren't and say you are a progressive, he will support you?

I want to progress killing commies, in horrible ways, end welfare and send the niggers back... When are you going to work for my election? I pay better than John will. Like a lot, plus you can hit up my beer fridge on the daily.
 
The term is sarcastic. It isn't against "justice" itself. It is a mockery of the concept that these idiots actually are for "justice."
.
Then it kinda failed. I know what kind of idiots you are talking about on Tumblr or whatever, but still, the framing makes it sound like you love social INjustice. Which would be kind of ridiculous in itself.
Depends where you go though obviously.

Oh hey, isn't it so grating when a group takes a word and wholly distorts it from its original meaning in order to advance their own cynical aims?
Not really. This is 2018. Words get redefined by popular usage, for good or bad, and that's the world we live in. You do it yourself.

I want to progress killing commies, in horrible ways, end welfare and send the n*****s back...
You may want to work on your pitch there, bud! Even Brianna has a better one than that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really. This is 2018. Words get redefined by popular usage, for good or bad, and that's the world we live in. You do it yourself.

Ever since language began, words have been changing meaning because popular usage differed from established meaning. This is not a phenomenon unique to 2018.

By any chance, did you flunk out of high school?
 
@W person cow, if you don't mind, I want your take on the following:

1. I strongly support the legalization of anything and everything so long as it can be used lawfully and it's legalization has far less long term harm than its criminalization. That includes most firearms and any drug like marijuana where the penalties are frankly causing more problems than they solves.

2. I strongly support legal immigration but abhor illegal immigration based on matters of economy and principle. The latter is because I believe a nation that cares nothing for it's own integrity is surrendering it's very identity and security, and the former because mass amounts of unchecked illegal immigrants produce a drain on the economy, and I believe immigrants should only be legally able to requisition the resources of a nation state.

3. I strongly support national defense and law and order, but I also believe both the military and police need strong oversight to prevent abuses. Otherwise, I view the existence of both as a public good so long as they do not limit any activity that is legal.

4. Censorship of expression, no matter how glorious or vile, should never be prohibited unless it provably incites crime. That means I don't care if someone is a believer in ANTIFA or Nazism, they can hold whatever beliefs they wish so long as don't commit a crime in the process, otherwise their rights to believe what they see fit deserve protection no matter what, with the added caveat any expression of said beliefs does not incite crime. That also means neither Nazis nor ANTIFA should visit violence on each other or anyone else, for any reasons save legally provable cases of self defense.

5. The right of personal conscience is sovereign, and no person should be forced to surrender any legal right to refuse to do anything like not render service to certain customers in private establishments based on moral principles, though that comes with the caveat they must show clear cause consistent with the principles they hold that passes muster with the law.

6. The law should be blind and deaf to anything save the crimes committed and the offense proscribed by law for said crimes. Race, creed, sex, or any other qualifier should NEVER allow any party to receive more or less punishment than another. By the same token, no advantage should be offered in the workforce, military, politics, socially, or any other field in which any party might wish to advance which prejudices anyone unfairly. Any limitations on employment, honors, or advancement should be based on merit and qualifications alone.

7. Racism and bigotry are wrong, and it doesn't matter against what or whom. Blacks deserve equal treatment as Whites, and Whites should not be prejudiced by Blacks, for example. Gender should never be dividing line of prejudice in any field save anything one sex can not obviously do as established by proven scientific fact (men cannot give birth, for example).

8. Finally, I personally tire of the us vs. them divide between any group, because when you get down to it, we're all mortals on the same mortal coil, and while our beliefs may differ, I'd rather we all try to find some form of accommodation or at least refrain from causing each other harm.

That all said, I'd like your takes.
 
Ever since language began, words have been changing meaning because popular usage differed from established meaning. This is not a phenomenon unique to 2018.
Exactly. the only people who get mad about words changing meaning are either in 19th century France or just ridiculous. Or both.

@W person cow, if you don't mind, I want your take on the following:
1. I strongly support the legalization of anything and everything so long as it can be used lawfully and it's legalization has far less long term harm than its criminalization. That includes most firearms and any drug like marijuana where the penalties are frankly causing more problems than they solves.
I definitely think cannabis should be legal, it's way less harmful than say, alcohol. And people find medicinal, recreational, or therapeutic uses for it. I think generally that other drugs should be legal too. Not sure about every specific case, but in general I agree with this.
Guns, IDK, it's a wedge issue and I can see different sides of it.
2. I strongly support legal immigration but abhor illegal immigration based on matters of economy and principle. The latter is because I believe a nation that cares nothing for it's own integrity is surrendering it's very identity and security, and the former because mass amounts of unchecked illegal immigrants produce a drain on the economy, and I believe immigrants should only be legally able to requisition the resources of a nation state.
I pretty much agree with this. Treating *asylum seekers* like criminals, especially taking their kids away, is the main thing I have a problem with.
3. I strongly support national defense and law and order, but I also believe both the military and police need strong oversight to prevent abuses. Otherwise, I view the existence of both as a public good so long as they do not limit any activity that is legal.
Yeah I agree with that. But I think we have a long way to go before approaching anything that even resembles decent oversight, let alone strong oversight. I think electing the right DAs is important towards this.

4. Censorship of expression, no matter how glorious or vile, should never be prohibited unless it provably incites crime. That means I don't care if someone is a believer in ANTIFA or Nazism, they can hold whatever beliefs they wish so long as don't commit a crime in the process, otherwise their rights to believe what they see fit deserve protection no matter what, with the added caveat any expression of said beliefs does not incite crime. That also means neither Nazis nor ANTIFA should visit violence on each other or anyone else, for any reasons save legally provable cases of self defense.
I agree about free speech. Anybody should be able to say what they want, although that includes other people criticizing them back.
Disagree on the total pacifism. Although I'm mostly peaceful, I ain't *all* peaceful, and I hope Richard Spencer gets punched everywhere he goes. Entitled hateful little shit.

5. The right of personal conscience is sovereign, and no person should be forced to surrender any legal right to refuse to do anything like not render service to certain customers in private establishments based on moral principles, though that comes with the caveat they must show clear cause consistent with the principles they hold that passes muster with the law.
Sounds like a confusing run-on sentence. Is what you are saying basically "I shouldn't have to bake a gay wedding cake, and I should be able to kick Sarah Sanders out of a restaurant too"? I might agree with this, maybe. But I do like gay wedding cakes.

6. The law should be blind and deaf to anything save the crimes committed and the offense proscribed by law for said crimes. Race, creed, sex, or any other qualifier should NEVER allow any party to receive more or less punishment than another. By the same token, no advantage should be offered in the workforce, military, politics, socially, or any other field in which any party might wish to advance which prejudices anyone unfairly. Any limitations on employment, honors, or advancement should be based on merit and qualifications alone.
I mean that would be nice, but that ain't Planet Earth you're talking about IMHO.

7. Racism and bigotry are wrong, and it doesn't matter against what or whom. Blacks deserve equal treatment as Whites, and Whites should not be prejudiced by Blacks, for example. Gender should never be dividing line of prejudice in any field save anything one sex can not obviously do as established by proven scientific fact (men cannot give birth, for example).
I would say that racism and bigotry were ignorant, but that we all have ignorant blind spots. And that yes prejudice against an oppressor class is ignorant, but I wouldn't say it was equivalent to prejudice against a minority. It's a difference in the power relationship. A joke against the powerful is generally funnier than one against the powerless. And better manners, etc.
8. Finally, I personally tire of the us vs. them divide between any group, because when you get down to it, we're all mortals on the same mortal coil, and while our beliefs may differ, I'd rather we all try to find some form of accommodation or at least refrain from causing each other harm.
That all said, I'd like your takes.
Yup, probably agree with that one too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. the only people who get mad about words changing meaning are either in 19th century France or just ridiculous. Or both.


I definitely think cannabis should be legal, it's way less harmful than say, alcohol. And people find medicinal, recreational, or therapeutic uses for it. I think generally that other drugs should be legal too. Not sure about every specific case, but in general I agree with this.
Guns, IDK, it's a wedge issue and I can see different sides of it.

I pretty much agree with this. Treating *asylum seekers* like criminals, especially taking their kids away, is the main thing I have a problem with.

Yeah I agree with that. But I think we have a long way to go before approaching anything that even resembles decent oversight, let alone strong oversight. I think electing the right DAs is important towards this.


I agree about free speech. Anybody should be able to say what they want, although that includes other people criticizing them back.
Disagree on the total pacifism. Although I'm mostly peaceful, I ain't *all* peaceful, and I hope Richard Spencer gets punched everywhere he goes. Entitled hateful little shit.


Sounds like a confusing run-on sentence. Is what you are saying basically "I shouldn't have to bake a gay wedding cake, and I should be able to kick Sarah Sanders out of a restaurant too"? I might agree with this, maybe. But I do like gay wedding cakes.


I mean that would be nice, but that ain't Planet Earth you're talking about IMHO.


I would say that racism and bigotry were ignorant, but that we all have ignorant blind spots. And that yes prejudice against an oppressor class is ignorant, but I wouldn't say it was equivalent to prejudice against a minority. It's a difference in the power relationship. A joke against the powerful is generally funnier than one against the powerless. And better manners, etc.

Yup, probably agree with that one too.

Thank you answering my questions, and I'll clarify a few points.

1. Asylum Seekers, if they are provably fleeing legit terrible circumstances, would be killed if they were ever returned to their point of origin, or have every intention on repaying asylum with productive citizenship, by all means, they deserve all the mercy and solicitude they can get.

2. Concur on free speech being a two way street, though I've always been a firm follower of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes view that "the right to swing your fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins". I know that an ideal that reality has yet to meet, but I believe it's worth striving for.

3. As for personal conscience, I support the right of a Christian baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, they should not have to compromise their religious convictions for something they don't believe in. I draw the line at simply refusing service to someone simply for being gay though, especially if you have no legitimate reason why your morals and the business transaction in question should be in conflict.

For example, a drug store should not refuse a gay person buying a Mountain Dew and some breath mints simply because they are bigoted to gay people, because there is no moral reason where the business at hand would cause the merchant in question to have a moral conflict, whereas the bakers would be providing service as endorsement of something they believe immoral under their faith.

4. I see we mostly concur on the racism issue, but ideally (yes, I admit it's an ideal, not reality sadly), just because one race is crap to another doesn't either side should keep fueling the flames of hatred. Eye for an Eye leads to a world of blind people if that just keeps going IMO.

Otherwise, yeah, I have a lot of beliefs that are sadly more ideal than reality at present, which I lament, but I at least try to personally support.
 
Last edited:
You may want to work on your pitch there, bud! Even Brianna has a better one than that!
You can shit post pretty well sometimes Warren :drink: That's also what's enjoyable with reading your posts... you may also be serious and either way it's a giggle.

Hope you had a good 4th. For someone who lives the wacky life what did you do for it?

Let me ask you something, since you see some groups as enemies (we all do) what's up with the left over all and progressives throwing out the concept of know your enemy? Why aren't you reading Rockwell's speeches, Hoppe's books etc? If you want to stop Nazi's shouldn't you have Mein Kampf on your desk ?
 
While you may not care about Wu's lack of relevant education and experience in areas which she claims to be an expert, does it bother you that she ignores or blocks potential constituents who request such information? Does Wu field such questions in person? Does inquiring about her educational background make us GamerGators?

Misgendering may be shitty, but don't voters have a right to know that someone campaigning heavily on lived experience as a woman has, in actuality, little to none? Especially when that someone already has a penchant for lying by omission?

Did either Wu ever offer you a Powerade?

Have you ever cosplayed as Sideshow Bob?

Avatars are for losers who take this board seriously.

Take this, you violent pinko.

kiwitrolls.png
 
Last edited:
You can shit post pretty well sometimes Warren :drink: That's also what's enjoyable with reading your posts... you may also be serious and either way it's a giggle.
Hope you had a good 4th. For someone who lives the wacky life what did you do for it?
I was helping set up lemonade and snacks for the Antifa Civil War lol.

If you want to stop Nazi's shouldn't you have Mein Kampf on your desk ?
Luckily we have superheroes in Malden, so there is no need for reading and other silly activities.

Does various stuff bother you?
I would have to remember it to be bothered by it.

Did either Wu ever offer you a Powerade?
Yes but I didn't drink it.
Have you ever cosplayed as Sideshow Bob?
No but I have been called that. Also Carrot Top, Young Einstein and Drop Dead Fred.
 
Warren, please address this. It’s one of the most recent, easiest to follow examples of Brianna’s fake progressive politics.

Another would be her love of drug courts.
https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/835123962266992642

I've seen this mentioned a couple times here and Wu's thread. Drug courts actually ARE a 'progressive' issue in the vein of criminal justice reform so Wu isn't off-base in virtue signalling there.

It's not a special court to punish drug users extra, it's a special court to try and find ways of dealing with offenders aside from throwing them in prison. It often includes treatment or some form of supervised release in lieu of jail. People who get sent to 'drug courts' likely fare much better than those who go through the regular penal system.
 
I've seen this mentioned a couple times here and Wu's thread. Drug courts actually ARE a 'progressive' issue in the vein of criminal justice reform so Wu isn't off-base in virtue signalling there.

It's not a special court to punish drug users extra, it's a special court to try and find ways of dealing with offenders aside from throwing them in prison. It often includes treatment or some form of supervised release in lieu of jail. People who get sent to 'drug courts' likely fare much better than those who go through the regular penal system.

Yes, they’ve long been touted as a progressive alternative to sending users to prison, but drug courts are flawed.

For example:
“Perhaps most harmful though, while drug courts are often sold as a way to reduce the rate of criminal justice involvement among those suffering from drug addiction, research has shown that they actually may increase the time a person spends behind bars – fueling rather than decreasing our the rate of criminal justice involvement. Participants that fail a drug test or miss an appointment are often subject to periods of incarceration as a sanction. While relapse is often considered a part of the recovery process, drug courts continue to penalize it with incarceration and often can eject someone from the program who is not able to abstain from drug use for a period of time deemed appropriate by a judge – who under most circumstances does not have medical training. Unlike health-centered programs, drug courts treat as secondary all other measures of improved health and stability, including reduced drug use and maintenance of relationships and employment.

Those that fail the drug court program – about 40% in Maine – often face a longer sentence than those who did not enter into the program - as in exchange for entrance into the program they lost the opportunity to further negotiate the terms of the plea agreement. “

https://www.aclumaine.org/en/news/why-drug-courts-are-not-answer


Brianna has done no research on drug courts. On Twitter, she talked about a documentary about them making her cry. That’s the extent of her knowledge. She started posting in favor of drug courts after watching that. It’s a pretty shit way to cone up with policy.

Brianna says “drug courts are the answer,” ignoring that they exist. She has never addressed reform.
 
I was helping set up lemonade and snacks for the Antifa Civil War lol.

That's thoughtful. They'll need something that can be consumed through a straw.
antifagoesdown.gif

(thoughts and prayers for that poor old Jewish lady, just trying to fight off a thug with her cane)
 
I am glad that my shitpost thread has morphed into examining the nuances and specifics of issues, examining which ways that drug courts are progressive or not, and the like.
Now let's discuss municipal signage variances!
 
Yes, they’ve long been touted as a progressive alternative to sending users to prison, but drug courts are flawed.

For example:
“Perhaps most harmful though, while drug courts are often sold as a way to reduce the rate of criminal justice involvement among those suffering from drug addiction, research has shown that they actually may increase the time a person spends behind bars – fueling rather than decreasing our the rate of criminal justice involvement. Participants that fail a drug test or miss an appointment are often subject to periods of incarceration as a sanction. While relapse is often considered a part of the recovery process, drug courts continue to penalize it with incarceration and often can eject someone from the program who is not able to abstain from drug use for a period of time deemed appropriate by a judge – who under most circumstances does not have medical training. Unlike health-centered programs, drug courts treat as secondary all other measures of improved health and stability, including reduced drug use and maintenance of relationships and employment.

Those that fail the drug court program – about 40% in Maine – often face a longer sentence than those who did not enter into the program - as in exchange for entrance into the program they lost the opportunity to further negotiate the terms of the plea agreement. “

https://www.aclumaine.org/en/news/why-drug-courts-are-not-answer


Brianna has done no research on drug courts. On Twitter, she talked about a documentary about them making her cry. That’s the extent of her knowledge. She started posting in favor of drug courts after watching that. It’s a pretty shit way to cone up with policy.

Brianna says “drug courts are the answer,” ignoring that they exist. She has never addressed reform.

Sure, but as a talking point, it beats moon rocks yeah?
 
Back
Top Bottom