VOAT Containment Megathread of Trash People for Trash People

[Let's Cyber]

Hey, you're allowed to like whatever you want. Just understand he wouldn't have much appeal outside of his established base and the "humor" in that clip comes from seeing someone stick it to the "SJWs", not from jokes or his delivery.   

[benjipwns]

Milo and Hoff Sommers were the ones being heckled and interrupted earlier and they responded funnier than the comedian who went off on a rant insulting people and sat down angry.

His sidekick on Louder with Crowder is funnier than he is. And he's absolutely terrible at taking criticism. He used to be on Red Eye, back when the then not so famous Amy Schumer also was, and she'd constantly get him upset.

[daemon]

Hey, you're allowed to like whatever you want. Just understand he wouldn't have much appeal outside of his established base and the "humor" in that clip comes from seeing someone stick it to the "SJWs", not from jokes or his delivery.

That established base is called target audience. I didn't know Crowder until that video.


I personally believe his delivery is good for the most part, aside from a few body language tibdits. Calling trigglypuff wild boar and then grabbing his own flabbiness saying he's got a fat pass is improvisation, and many actual standup comedy artists really can flop without a solid script. But that's my opinion of course.

[benjipwns]

lol here's exactly the episode I most remember:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv1tRbHWIds#t=6m54s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFRve9vYfd8

Greg's a way better conservative to hold up for also doing comedy. Also any kind of commentary. Or a table.

[etiolate]

Crowder wasn't doing comedy there. He got Amy to get upset and prove his point that abstinence is a taboo. He just wants to poke the anti-Christian bear in any way. Also, his hairdo there is awful.

BUT THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT

What is important is that we found out benji's trigger word is Stephen Crowder.

[benjipwns]

[seagrams hotsauce]

You have embarrassingly low standards for humor etoilet

[etiolate]

I thought it would be Milo or Karen Straughn that would drive you all nuts, but it's fucking tame ass Stephen Crowder.

[benjipwns]

proper "right-wing" comedy funded by The Blaze r.i.p. in peace

spoiler (click to show/hide)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[close]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[close]

[seagrams hotsauce]

If your definition of driving me nuts is not making me laugh, then yeah, that dude drives me craaaazy

[benjipwns]

still a top favorite sketch ever for reasons i can't understand

[El Babua]

Alex Jones is the best conservative comedian

His act is leagues above the pissy cac shit daemon stans for

[clothedmacuser]

I think "Sub-human" is the new "die on a hill."

[etiolate]

If your definition of driving me nuts is not making me laugh, then yeah, that dude drives me craaaazy

Apparently that is your crazy. Sometimes laughing at a Crowder show clip isn't worth a comment, let alone several.

[El Babua]

The delivery, the voice, the message

[clothedmacuser]

We still trying to say that having a view of transgendered people as being subhuman is "disagreeable"?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaah.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226678706&postcount=259

dis·a·gree·a·ble
ˌdisəˈɡrēəb(ə)l/
adjective
not pleasant or enjoyable.
"another disagreeable thought came to him"
synonyms:   unpleasant, displeasing, nasty, offensive, off-putting, obnoxious, objectionable, horrible, horrid, dreadful, frightful, abominable, odious, repugnant, repulsive, repellent, revolting, disgusting, foul, vile, nauseating, sickening, unpalatable

 

[Jansen]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325595

 

[etiolate]

The delivery, the voice, the message

Alex Jones reads erotica needs to happen.

[zomgee]

Politics thread is that way

[Oblivion]

Can't believe so many are jizzing over that mobile Mario game.

Whatever happened to standards?

[benjipwns]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325417

Was Fallout 4 truly a worse Bethesda game, or did the industry leave Bethesda behind?

Had Fallout 4 come out just after Skyrim, would we hate it so much? Is it any more flawed than the existing Bethesda hits? Or did games improve and clean house in certain ways that Bethesda wasn't prepared for, and thus our modern tastes just couldn't even pretend to be interested in the stagnant design and tech at Bethesda?

The answer is both. Boy does Fallout 4 suck. Skyrim is aging but damn is that remaster a blast and selling beautifully because the game is so good in terms of high freedom and customization. Skyrim is one of the best received games of all time and it deserved it.

You know what, let me lean toward thinking Fallout 4 just sucks. The world has no iconic landmarks like the other Fallout games (sorry Boston GAF) and that dialogue was horrendous. And yes, the PBR made the game look like 3D printing. I honestly regret playing Fallout 4 despite some occasional redeeming atmosphere in some of the forests. It just doesn't have the cultural charm that the last gen Fallout games had at all, and the world feels so bland.

It seems Bethesda is aware we think the dialogue system was bullshit and that it's huge bullshit one of the most money-making studios in gaming history is clearly not investing it in getting away from Gamebryo, so here's to whatever their next project is that they've confirmed won't be Elder Scrolls or Fallout for a change.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226649947&postcount=13

Bethesda game games have run their course. They just aren't impressive anymore.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226650473&postcount=46

Their reluctance to meet the standards of their peers despite their tremendous success and growth is why Fallout 4 is bad.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226651473&postcount=91

It's tragically clear that Fallout 4 is a contender for Worst Technology on Display in a AAA game. It is also narratively light and full of tedious new mechanical issues. There's been a lot of good open world games post-Skyrim (and you can actually thank Skyrim in part for that trend).

what strange framing for a conversation and people going along with it as if it's not

[benjipwns]

oh god, poligaf can be so disgusting: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226683207&postcount=15093

[bluemax]

I don't know why they're even bothering to release BOTW after The Witcher 3 came out.

I'll be impressed if BotW is even half as good an open world game as FFXV, trying to judge it against the Witcher 3 is just unfair.

[benjipwns]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226685831&postcount=407

I don't respect you. I despise you. The fascists will kill us as soon as they get the chance and you are helping them. Open a history book and learn about the way people like you enabled horrible crimes back in the 30's.

[etiolate]

send that kid to soviet russia

[railGUN]

The irony is palpable.

[benjipwns]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=226651073&postcount=101

I'd like to think there are no lives reading through this thread and going on to neofag or whatever equivalent to spout their hatred because they literally have no lives worth living. It makes up for the fact that they are trying to take ours aways.

[daemon]

Alex Jones is the best conservative comedian

His act is leagues above the pissy cac shit daemon stans for

[Himu]

i wonder what that guys position on guns is. probably thinks there's a fascist threat but is anti-gun. thinking about it, having distrust in government and fascists but being anti-gun is pretty illogical. Especially since one of the first things fascists take are guns away from the populace.

[VomKriege]

The GAF Strategy Think Tank is brainstorming :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1325609

yeah..

i wonder, how could you beat Russia in a real, all-out war? they have countless nukes.. you can't win against them, all they have to do is threaten to level out Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallinn and a few other European cities and then you'd either have to be crazy and suicidal enough to call their bluff, or just give up and let them win the war.

while i don't seriously believe Putin would drop nukes on several European cities, i think he could threaten to do it, if Russia was in a really bad shape and was fighting several unwinnable conventional wars at the same time. if they were truly backed into a corner, they might start showing clear signs that their nuke arsenal isn't just for show..

Invading a NATO state means world war.

If this pops off and they get aggressive in the Balkans, the only thing we can do is pray it only leads to conventional warfare and nobody pushes the big red button.

Sweden is not in NATO.
Also he probably meant "Baltic" there, I guess ?

I just...don't understand what Russia hopes to gain here
Like what is the motivation other than dick waving? Seizing economic hubs to boost Russia's GDP? Does Sweden have oil? What do they want?

Nowhere in the OP or the article is Russia saying they are considering a conventional attack on Sweden.

I mean, come January 20, tanks are free to start rolling.

 

Remember, Russia once invaded Finland which, even though they "won", was a bit embarrassing for them (and inspired much of Valkyria Chronicles).

[Tasty]

i wonder what that guys position on guns is. probably thinks there's a fascist threat but is anti-gun. thinking about it, having distrust in government and fascists but being anti-gun is pretty illogical. Especially since one of the first things fascists take are guns away from the populace.

I'm something of a pacifist and have resolved to never hold a gun in my life if I can help it.

[Himu]

well that's you, but this guy writes "the fascists will kill us" and is probably anti-gun. I wonder what his gun stance is. If he truly thinks the fascists will kill us all, he would probably have a gun or two. If he doesn't, then he A. actually believes that and is hoping someone else fights for him, B. thinks he can beat fascists with his words and love, or C. is full of shit and trolling.

[Himu]

In general, I'm curious how the anti-gun stance of liberals changes. They claim there's an existential threat but are anti-gun so they have no means for protection. But they place trust in the very government institutions that they criticize as not being reliable, as opposed to arming themselves, for protection. Curious to see how gun stances change at GAF. How many will continue to have wool over their eyes and how many will have their eyes opened and buy a gun like yours truly?

[Steve Contra]

Protection from what exactly? Real question, what do you think owning a gun is going to protect you from Government wise?

[Great Rumbler]

I'm a white guy living in white cac gun country, but I don't own a gun and don't want to own a gun. Probably not gonna change.

[Himu]

Protection from what exactly? Real question, what do you think owning a gun is going to protect you from Government wise?

If he thinks the "fascists" will come kill them like he said, he wouldn't trust the government, period. That's my argument, and that includes all sectors of government including police. If he finds the Trump government to be as much of an existential threat as he says, he will have bought himself a gun, much like myself.

That massive contradiction, I'm curious to see how it evolves on gaf. How genuine are they?

I'm a white guy living in white cac gun country, but I don't own a gun and don't want to own a gun. Probably not gonna change.

You're white; he's black. You don't face an existential threat unless you're lgbt, disabled, or a woman. If only I weren't banned I would ask him plainly.

[Atramental]

[Himu]

Really hoping to see how liberals fight back against the anti-gun democratic party in response to the election. People going from anti-gun to pro-gun after the election? I know I'm not the only one.

[Tasty]

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy nut himu, no offense.

[Himu]

How so?

You know what? It's obvious he doesn't have a gun. He wouldn't be in that mind set of "fascists will kill us" if he did because he'd have power to defend  against them and would be secure in his safety. Whoever "they" are. So it's probably C.

[Steve Contra]

You can think fascists are coming to kill you and have no hope that owning a personal firearm is going to do you any good.  It's not contradictory.

[Great Rumbler]

I just really don't see how the other 50% or so of America arming themselves is really going to fix any of the problems we have right now.

[headwalk]

fight a life or death post apocalyptic struggle with your neighbours or just move to some country where you'd have a better quality of life anyway and spend your days wanking and eating stroopwafels.

[Himu]

I just really don't see how the other 50% or so of America arming themselves is really going to fix any of the problems we have right now.

Maybe, but it seems stupid to me.

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Unrelated...

'm not even talking about just GAF. I'm talking in general. College campuses, churches, workplaces, forums, comment sections, anywhere people gather, there are insidious assholes who use our tactic of encouraging inclusiveness to secure a spot for themselves at the table, ensuring that we don't use their tactics of exclusion against them. They cling to some imaginary moral highground wherein they can continue finger wagging at anybody who dares to call out the sheer stupidity and hypocrisy of asking for tolerance of intolerance.

These people are virulent, poisonous, infectious, and they need to be excised immediately. A man like Milo is a parasite who only exists to spread disease, and anyone playing host to him is a fucking idiot and should be treated as a leper.

You know what? I've gotta say that this argument is poor, in hind sight. I say hind sight because I would have agreed with it a short time ago.

Let Milo speak. And then grill him alive. Hiding from things you disagree with it just aids a more divided political environment. Listen to what he says, then dismantle it. Listening to what he says doesn't mean you're giving it credibility. It's pretty clear the whole "let's close our eyes and ears" thing doesn't work. These people have been emboldened and ignoring them won't make them go away. The problem with having not letting Milo speak is that it runs on a presumption that we are right without being challenged. Of course, Breitbart and their ilk are trash, but if we truly believed in how we feel, we would debate it. Malcolm X and MLK argued for their POV's regularly on television. The idea that you can't argue with Milo makes it feel like our arguments are philosophically weak and will not stand to scrutiny. It is weakness defined.

[daemon]

You can think fascists are coming to kill you and have no hope that owning a personal firearm is going to do you any good.  It's not contradictory.

Then it's like believing in/accepting global warming but still constantly buy electronics, use cars that consume fossil energies and pretty much not recycle everything you can. Because since as an individual you can't do anything, you might as well not contribute.

Let Milo speak. And then grill him alive. Hiding from things you disagree with it just aids a more divided political environment. Listen to what he says, then dismantle it. Listening to what he says doesn't mean you're giving it credibility. It's pretty clear the whole "let's close our eyes and ears" thing doesn't work. These people have been emboldened and ignoring them won't make them go away. The problem with having not letting Milo speak is that it runs on a presumption that we are right without being challenged. Of course, Breitbart and their ilk are trash, but if we truly believed in how we feel, we would debate it. Malcolm X and MLK argued for their POV's regularly on television. The idea that you can't argue with Milo makes it feel like our arguments are philosophically weak and will not stand to scrutiny. It is weakness defined.

Correct, because otherwise you see these lightweights trying to contest him, and obviously getting owned.



I personally like Milo's mannerisms and the way he portrays a characters, but I can see he's obviously full of shit lol.

[Himu]

You can think fascists are coming to kill you and have no hope that owning a personal firearm is going to do you any good.  It's not contradictory.

Then it's like believing in/accepting global warming but still constantly buy electronics, use cars that consume fossil energies and pretty much not recycle everything you can. Because since as an individual you can't do anything, you might as well not contribute.

Britain and Europe are increasing a surveillance state. But guns are bad and people shouldn't be allowed to have guns. Let's continue to place our trust in government while they continue a surveillance state but they're the only ones who should be allowed to have guns. It's stupidity.

In some ironical twist, this election's aftermath has made me more patriotic. Unlike in Europe, I have the freedom to buy a gun.

[Himu]

Correct, because otherwise you see these lightweights trying to contest him, and obviously getting owned.



I personally like Milo's mannerisms and the way he portrays a characters, but I can see he's obviously full of shit lol.

Good point.

[Tasty]

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Nah. No citizen or militia is going to take on the US military complex and walk away. That's not how you're going to affect change in this country, and if you think it is, feel free to start shooting up police stations and see what the consequences are. (NOTE: Tasty Meat does not condone doing this.)

I'm glad you have more peace of mind with a gun Himu but it's not even close to the solution for a surveillance state.

[Steve Contra]

You can think fascists are coming to kill you and have no hope that owning a personal firearm is going to do you any good.  It's not contradictory.

Then it's like believing in/accepting global warming but still constantly buy electronics, use cars that consume fossil energies and pretty much not recycle everything you can. Because since as an individual you can't do anything, you might as well not contribute.

I don't believe any of that is a real solution either, just as I don't believe the vast military and police state of the United States is going to care much if Himu has a gun.

[daemon]

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Nah. No citizen or militia is going to take on the US military complex and walk away. That's not how you're going to affect change in this country, and if you think it is, feel free to start shooting up police stations and see what the consequences are. (NOTE: Tasty Meat does not condone doing this.)

I'm glad you have more peace of mind with a gun Himu but it's not even close to the solution for a surveillance state.

But if the citizens don't have guns, they can't even resist from the inside. If the military was to take over the civillian population, the civillians wouldn't be able to even pose a threat. If half the population has guns, they can expect a fight in every corner. They'd have to turn the entire US inside out for a civillian takeover to be possible. In other words, a conflict without a happy ending.

[etiolate]

Milo retreats back into being a troll to escape some stuff. On the other hand, he can debate rather well. The problem is all the debates come down to "you're a racist, defend yourself!" which is pretty easy for him to do. He also gets to play off the fact that the accusers are often poorly informed.

He's giving speeches about War on Christmas and how the left hurts blacks. You could challenge him on stuff like that, but instead it's the really low level emotional stuff they come in with.

[Tasty]

You can think fascists are coming to kill you and have no hope that owning a personal firearm is going to do you any good.  It's not contradictory.

Then it's like believing in/accepting global warming but still constantly buy electronics, use cars that consume fossil energies and pretty much not recycle everything you can. Because since as an individual you can't do anything, you might as well not contribute.

I don't believe any of that is a real solution either, just as I don't believe the vast military and police state of the United States is going to care much if Himu has a gun.

Exactly. If everyone in the US stopped "buying electronics and using fossil energies" it still wouldn't make 1/10th the dent that other solutions are. You can be against climate change and still be carbon-wasteful (most people are, in fact!) But we're making better progress than ever on climate change because we went a different route: legislation, technology, rallying, etc.

[Tasty]

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Nah. No citizen or militia is going to take on the US military complex and walk away. That's not how you're going to affect change in this country, and if you think it is, feel free to start shooting up police stations and see what the consequences are. (NOTE: Tasty Meat does not condone doing this.)

I'm glad you have more peace of mind with a gun Himu but it's not even close to the solution for a surveillance state.

But if the citizens don't have guns, they can't even resist from the inside. If the military was to take over the civillian population, the civillians wouldn't be able to even pose a threat. If half the population has guns, they can expect a fight in every corner. They'd have to turn the entire US inside out for a civillian takeover to be possible. In other words, a conflict without a happy ending.

You're coming off like a Jade Helmer here.

[Himu]

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Nah. No citizen or militia is going to take on the US military complex and walk away. That's not how you're going to affect change in this country, and if you think it is, feel free to start shooting up police stations and see what the consequences are. (NOTE: Tasty Meat does not condone doing this.)

I'm glad you have more peace of mind with a gun Himu but it's not even close to the solution for a surveillance state.

But if the citizens don't have guns, they can't even resist from the inside. If the military was to take over the civillian population, the civillians wouldn't be able to even pose a threat. If half the population has guns, they can expect a fight in every corner. They'd have to turn the entire US inside out for a civillian takeover to be possible. In other words, a conflict without a happy ending.

One of the bigger contradictions is that in the post-election haze you've got more minorities like myself buying guns to defend ourselves and then you've got liberals trying to argue against buying guns and gaining an equalizer, while at the same time arguing for our protection. They want us protected but don't want us to have a means to protect ourselves, a right that conservatives have tried to take away and limit for centuries.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Will be interesting going forward and truly encapsulates how liberals are on the wrong side of the gun issue.

[Steve Contra]

Liberals fearing a more militarized police but thinking only police or military should be able to bear arms definitely *is* contradictory though, and ties into that argument.

Nah. No citizen or militia is going to take on the US military complex and walk away. That's not how you're going to affect change in this country, and if you think it is, feel free to start shooting up police stations and see what the consequences are. (NOTE: Tasty Meat does not condone doing this.)

I'm glad you have more peace of mind with a gun Himu but it's not even close to the solution for a surveillance state.

But if the citizens don't have guns, they can't even resist from the inside. If the military was to take over the civillian population, the civillians wouldn't be able to even pose a threat. If half the population has guns, they can expect a fight in every corner. They'd have to turn the entire US inside out for a civillian takeover to be possible. In other words, a conflict without a happy ending.

You're coming off like a Jade Helmer here.

Basically what people think of the second amendment

[Himu]

Another contradiction is how liberals value the bill of rights and amendments such as the 15th amendment or the 1st amendment which are under attack from Republicans and recently Donald Trump, but for some reason don't value and belittle the second. I read at a gun shop the other weekend "the second amendment protects all others" and it seems to have the right of it.

[etiolate]

I wonder what kind of stuff the private military contractors can get their hands on in a true fascism scenario.

[Tasty]

One of the bigger contradictions is that in the post-election haze you've got more minorities like myself buying guns to defend ourselves and then you've got liberals trying to argue against buying guns and gaining an equalizer, while at the same time arguing for our protection. They want us protected but don't want us to have a means to protect ourselves, a right that conservatives have tried to take away and limit for centuries.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Will be interesting going forward and truly encapsulates how liberals are on the wrong side of the gun issue.

It's an ends vs. means issue. Liberalism isn't directly compatible with widespread gun availability because of the larger societal effects. I believe if there are more guns on the street, the overall effect is that we (as a society) are not safer. You're seeing contradictions where there aren't any.

Another contradiction is how liberals value the bill of rights and amendments such as the 15th amendment or the 1st amendment which are under attack from Republicans and recently Donald Trump, but for some reason don't value and belittle the second. I read at a gun shop the other weekend "the second amendment protects all others" and it seems to have the right of it.

This is asinine. The Constitution isn't divinely inspired and amendments aren't sacred. Do you see liberals defending prohibition?

[Great Rumbler]

America is plenty enough evidence that arming more people in more places isn't solving any problems, but instead just creating more.

[Himu]

America is plenty enough evidence that arming more people in more places isn't solving any problems, but instead just creating more.

There are over 300 million guns in America.

In a year, there are 30k gun deaths. Of those deaths, two-thirds are suicides. About 11k are homocides. Out of 300 million guns. Many of these homocides are committed with stolen or illegally acquired guns and are not licensed.

Guns create more problems how exactly? Those numbers are miniscule. If you're talking about mass shootings, guns certainly aren't the main problem. Especially since most gun owners are well trained and follow safety protocols.