Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/29/14 11:35 AM, MrPercie wrote: But I guess we would rather pick out all the bad apples of the protesters, who are naturally flawed by emotions, than the bad apples in professional positions in law and government expected to be held to a higher standard in the first place.

If this is your true feelings, than please, get used to the current system. Cause if you're not willing to cater your message so that the entire country gets behinds it, your message will (as it has been recently) fall upon deaf ears.

Imagine if the protests were a well organized machine and Kareem Abdul Jabbar were the only one allowed to speak or act...

At 12/28/14 11:36 AM, Radaketor wrote: Except, you know, not every user here lives in an english speaking country or has access to english tutors/classes, of course if they're using an english website they need a basic grasp of the language but they're entitled to their mistakes, i didn't know the difference between you're and your for years and i've been speaking english since i was 3 years old.

We like people from other countries here. We understand learning and conversing in another language is hard. Most of us have done it ourselves (I lived in Japan for a while.) All you need to do is just tell us you're not that good at English and we will give you slack. There may be a jerk here and ther but there's nothing you can do to avoid them.

At 12/28/14 07:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Well European rule saw an almost entirely empty and undeveloped country turned into one of the most prosperous countries in Africa and a first-world country in many respects. Black rule has seen south africa go from the safest country in africa to the murder capital of the world and a country where a third of men admit to having committed rape and where tens of thousands of children are raped annually and prisons are routinely over capacity (though many inmates are simply released without trial).

Your second half of line items may be true, but my guess is that the ones above were just as bad during apartheid, they just went unnoticed cause no one in the government gave a shit.

At 12/27/14 11:57 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: for fucks sake

Very interesting story that highlights the problems of both sides.

First off, a black man claiming that when(edit for flow) he doesn't get his way it's because he's black.

This is followed by a situation where you have to seriously ask: "If he were white would they really have considered him a security concern?" A crying white man going in and out of the restrooms numerous times after getting mad would likely not be enough to divert a plane.

At 12/26/14 05:57 PM, AxTekk wrote: Wait, that Brown had punched him in the face or that he was running away?

The running away portion. What Brown did to Wilson in the car is unclear, but the autopsy proved the Brown was shot while facing Wilson. This coroborates witness testimony that stated Brown was moving toward (how is disputed) Wilson at the time of the last sets of shots.

At 12/25/14 11:06 PM, Korriken wrote: It's better to live in the countryside where you can have a well that draws it right out of the ground. No filter can top that.

The fact that our water is not well water is precisely why it is so good. It is rain runoff ans also omes from stream and creek water. Well water tends to be stale and carry a lot of sediment.

At 12/25/14 01:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Brown had apparently punched him in the face. Either way he was running away when Wilson shot him....

This fact was disproven long before the grand jury decision was made.

At 12/25/14 11:13 AM, Korriken wrote: Then I realize there's no bottled water left and the only thing there left is city water. ugh.

That's why it pays to live in one of the Nortern corners of the Country. The tap water up here in the PNW rivals filtered water. Word is Maine's tap is even better.

At 12/24/14 03:41 PM, Korriken wrote: What I want to know is how did the protestors get there so quickly?

How quickly did they get there?

At 12/24/14 12:03 PM, Teddiikun wrote: Rightfully so

That's correct, Sony does have the right to show shitty, low brow, loser movies as they wish.

Seth Rogan and James Franco have done more to hurt the pro-weed movement with these shitty movies than anything else recently has.

At 12/24/14 12:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: light claimed that im an ignorant racist whose views on this topic are invalid because I had supposedly said (in the past, not even this thread) that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than whites, and I explained why this is not ignorant, and on it went...

Get back on topic, I don't want to see this thread locked because of two people compuslively trying to compare penis size.

I'm curious as to what exactly the intelligence differential between blacks and whites (if there is one) has to do with the two officers' deaths...

At 12/23/14 04:09 AM, lapis wrote: Still no reason to bring race into it, though.

Well, the strange realization that a suburban Sydney accent somehow sounds like a mixture of Hotlanta and New York black vernacular is a reason to bring race into it. (it doesn't) Cultural appropriation if I've ever seen it. So yes, Iggy Azalea has tons of race issues (not to mention the sadisticmonkey that constantly comes out of her mouth).

This sort of action and the response by many in the Garner/Brown group is only serving to hurt their cause.

Wat many groups don't realize is that in order to succeed they must win over the middle. Those who are friendly to the end cause but aren't necessarily very excited about doing the legwork. These people are reluctant for a multitude of reasons. They may not be affected and thus do not realize it is as big a probem. They may not like the methods of the more vocal group. They may not like all of what the vocal group wants. They may just be too lazy. They may also just not want to risk any of what they have for the goal.

This middle group is very fickle. It only takes ONE of these to kill a movement or to stall it dramatically.

The riots were one thing. They were short and most in the middle realized that they were fueled by well justified anger, even if they were misplaced and wrong. However, moving to the realm of killing police officers and then trying to laud it is going to completely kill the movement. Most American have a respect for the police as protectors, even if they do not like interacting with them. So if the middle sees the vocal group vocally supporting actual violence against the police, they will be turned off and the change the vocal group had rioted and screamed so loud for will stall.

At 12/22/14 07:21 PM, MonochromeMonitor wrote: In what universe are Arabs natives to Israel? They arrived in the 8th century by conquering the Byzantines. You don't become native through conquering. The natives have always been the Jews,

Gahaha! Even the Jews admit they were conquerors of the region now known as Israel. Several books of the Bible are almost solely dedicated to this fact.

This thread is drealing worse than the pro-Brown/Garner movement. Keep it together.

At 12/21/14 10:12 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I'd rather people injected psychology and criminology into crime stories rather than politics and grief.

And miss out on the fun?

I think they're one and the same and I would say that what we would consider evil is in fact a mental illness.

Mental illnesses can usually b put into two categories, chemical and social. The chemical ones are ones where there's an outright physiological explanation for the problem. The social ones are where are person has a mental state that deviates from the norm to the extent that it is considered an illness.

Evil fits right into that latter definition. It encompasses a menta state in which a person wishes to engage harm on others. Simple little evils are human nature, as is simple depression, simple head voices, simple anger, and so on and so forth. Once those simple traits become disproportionately large, or uncontrollable, they become mental illnesses. Small evils like being a jerk are nothing, but once it becomes large enough to inflict severe harm on a person or a society it becomes large enough to the point it could be considered evil.

We already consider psycopathy and sociopathy a form of mental illness. Evil fits right in with those. The problem with the term evil on a medical level is the term is wholly objective. Evil is formed 100% off of the moral of a person and their community. Pshycology would prefer the mental illnesses to be something more concrete.

For those thinking posing as a military soldier should be OK, please tell us why.

At 12/19/14 11:29 AM, Gario wrote: they just displayed a level of technical ability this country never knew they could pull off

I'd have to dispute that completely. It is well known that there are a good amount of groups out who can pull this off and many of them are willing to make attacks for the highest bidder. Now, if this is a homegrown North Korea government cell, then yes, you are right. However, the more likely situation is that North Korea merely hired mercenary hackers to do their bidding for them.

I really want to see how North Korea is spinning this whole issue in their media. Could give us a great deal of insight into why the threats came now and not earlier.

At 12/19/14 03:29 AM, lapis wrote: I was making a observation about the BBC, and to a lesser extent about The Guardian.

OK, makes sense now. I missed that whole part of it (and I clearly shouldn't have).

At 12/18/14 09:33 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: After the movie was pulled, many reviewers are saying it was a two out of five stars. Perhaps Sony was afraid it would flop ,so this helped them make the decision to not show it.

If Sony had already sank th cost of making and marketing the movie, they stand to lose more by not sending it to theaters and getting what they could than by ot releasing it.

However, Sony may have seen this as a flop and then used the threats as a way to garner extra interest in the movie by pulling it and adding a strong controvery element to the movie.

At 12/18/14 11:38 AM, SPOICYHUMOSS wrote: It is your problem if people replying to your op don't understand you, unless you just don't give a shit about your thread.

Te tenor of the arguments indicates that most people clearly understood the point. The point being that OP thinks Americans expect way too much, and expect far more than they deserve.

You may not be American, but in America the term entitled/entitlement indicated an attitude of undeserved expectation. Sure, the dictionary definition may have the mroe benign version, but the common usage and connotation is what OP meant and most people understood.

Within every term, especially one that can be subjective and lay in the realm of opinion is open to discussions as to the exact metes and bounds intended by the speaker. That does not change that the general meaning intended was recieved loud and clear by most here.

idc it's still stupid -1/10

Only to those who were unable to understand it from the get go.

At 12/17/14 12:28 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The BBC =/=CBS.

Meaning?

I believe the point that was made was the lack of one while support for the other, not that it didn't exist.

My point is tat support for victims of such acts ALWAYS exists. It will come. It will come from zounds of people. Therefore ensuring that those innocents who may be blamed and atacked for percieved involvement by the knuckledraggers of society is not wrong and is not taking away or representing a lack of support from the actual victims.

......so you agree the hostage-taker was a victim?

A victim of his own fuckheadery.

First off, this issue has NOTHING to do with free speech. The government isn't doing anything, therefore the notion of freedom of speech (which only involves governmental restriction of speech) is all wrong.

Anyway, this is an issue of terrorism, not speech. Someone openly, willfully, and consciously choosing to not say something has never been an issue of speech. This is an issue of coercion in which an outside party used the threat of violence to get something they wanted. I don't think the group actually gave a shit about NK. My guess is they were flexing muscle and figured this movie and the NK connection would provide them the most credibility.

The problem here, one that South Park so eloquently pointed out years ago with masterful use of the humble Manatee, is that these threats have no power save that given to them by those who capitulate. What Sony has essentially done is sent a strong message to the wrold's terrorists, to its beligerents, and to its powerhungry crazies, is that such threats will not only cause a stir, they will be wildly successful.

Should these threats come again we can all thank Sony for this.

At 12/15/14 10:33 AM, lapis wrote: No need for a hashtag to support the families of the captives of course,

This is the dumbest statement I have ever heard. Proof

If you think the victims won't be supported, you're hitting sadisticmonkey-TheKlown levels of conservative idiocy.

In America, you impose sanctions.
In Soviet Russia, sanctions impose you!

At 12/14/14 11:09 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: So far the left side isn't willing to be honest.

About?