Somehow the least effeminate part of half time.

All feminist pandering is exactly what guys like milo and gavin are doing but just on the other side. They're all clickbait horseshit.

True, especially Milo. But the dopes drinking his kool-aid are worse because they enable him.

Ex: The guy trashes gamers on Twitter multiple times, and even writes an article on Breitbart saying video games influenced Elliot Roger (i.e. the Jack Thompson argument). Yet, once the guy sees an opening in the GG faggotry, he becomes their messiah because he called Zoey Quinn a cunt. They should all be liquidated.

I've never seen a more calculated panderer than Milo.

Also true. He may be a chode, but he's a smart dude. He managed to convince a movement of autists demanding "ethics in video game journalism" to suck his asshole by...publishing people's private emails. Ethics, FTW!

A young WWI artillery veteran.

Celine?

Just by reading the comments on this article (the link, I mean), it really shows the putrid nature of our modern political discourse. If it's not the SJW libtards jerking off to how "brave she is for taking a stance", its the ultra-right cuckservatives acting like white-genocide soothsayers because of a stupid half-time performance. Which means moderates are either bigoted, white-privileged shitlords, or pussy manginas with white-guilt.

Though I'm more of a liberal myself, I do blame liberals for this horseshit more than anyone. By shouting down anyone daring to question PC dogma, (or other methods like doxxing people or getting them fired because of a Twitter comment), they have turned so many people away, and strengthen the far-right more than Fox News ever could. Hard to argue with guys like Ant or Gavin when their arguments on today's society (especially pertaining to how we deal with race & islam in this country) have merit, unfortunately.

Oh, one more thing...PECKAS!

The only sorta moderate I wanna know is one that doesn't know they're a moderate. If you're gung-ho about moderation, you're missing the point. Moderate should not be a political alignment, it should be the word used to describe the compromise found between sides with seemingly conflicting interests. Otherwise, it's a weak (and dangerous) political position, in and of itself.

I get what you're saying, moderation can just be a dishonest way of sitting on the fence, which is true in certain cases.

But you're missing the point as well. There is nothing wrong with taking a side on an issue. But moderation can be valid, compromise is not a bad thing. If no one compromised, the Constitution would not have been ratified (the whole reason we have a bicameral legislature is because of the compromise the bigger and smaller states made to be represented federally). Its about knowing which hill you wanna die on. You wanna die on every fucking hill, nothing will be accomplished. It'll just be a perpetual stalemate. Stand your ground on what matters most, but you have to give a little sometimes.

For example, the discourse on radical Islam. Why does it have to be either Muslims can do no wrong, or we need to wipe the sand niggers out? A moderate can balance the extremes to have reasonable outcomes to deal with this shit. But if you want an uncompromising political atmosphere, fine. Just don't bitch when nothing gets done.

Boy am I being a pontificating ass today.

Never said compromise was a bad thing. I said compromise as a default position is silly. As for the moderate Islam thing: that is when moderation is at its most dangerous. It is illogical to suggest that a moderate Islam can exist, when it is a demonstrably radical perspective. If you are a moderate Muslim, it would be easier (and truer) to describe yourself as an infidel. See what I'm saying here: 'moderate' Islam is pernicious because it validates a radical position, while claiming it is not radical to do so. It doesn't make sense; sometimes you should not compromise, because compromise can just be another word for acquiescence or placation. If you're acquiescing to a radical for the sake of compromise, then you do not care for moderation. Since we're talking about Islam, it was moderates that decided we could not publish cartoons of Muhammad even when pertinent to the story. Restricting free speech is a radical position, and in this case it was justified by concerns of moderation, tolerance and compromise.

Yeah, I might have misinterpreted your argument a bit; (its the Asperger's, I can't help it). You're right about how moderate Islam really can't exist on its literal basis. Its different than Christianity, who's main prophet is a hippy, not a pedophilic warlord. The text justifies religious violence on no uncertain terms. (Full disclosure, I'm an atheist, I have no horse in this race). However, they can have a reformation, like the other Abrahamic faiths have had. The Old Testament justifies everything form slavery to genocide. The difference is Christians and Jews are secular, and put literal interpretations on the pay-no-mind-list. Islam as it is can't be moderate in its current form, but it can have a reformation. The closest example is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where there is little or no extremism, and are secular by and large. (There is over a billion of these cunts all over the world, so we gotta coexist somehow.)

The case you mentioned of restricting free speech is where I agree, moderation can't be accepted. If Muslims get butthurt about a drawing, they can make like a tree and get outta here. However, that's a reasonable outcome when you consider the opposite view of appeasement, which will kill western civilization.

Political moderates (or, centrists if you like) simply consider all sides. As said before, I'm liberal most of the time, but I'm also very pro 2nd amendment. Because I considered the other side of the argument rather than just be staunchly left wing. That more what I meant by moderation.

But one also must realize that, like it or not, you'll have people who disagree with you. Its a good thing, shows democracy is working. And ya gotta work with them at times, or you'll be mired in arguments. Things like free speech I wouldn't compromise on, but I can't have that attitude on every-fucking-thing.

Wow, this was really protracted drivel...I'll go back to making fat jokes about Amy Schumer now.

Good shit bro. I felt like I was the only one who usually feels like this. There need to be more of us.

It is illogical to suggest that a moderate Islam can exist, when it is a demonstrably radical perspective.

It depends on who you ask. The core texts posit many principles that are incompatible with a secular, liberal society, yes, but the core texts of Christianity have their own difficulties. The situations aren't equivalent, of course (Christianity has always had a principle of rendering what is Caesar's unto Caesar, whereas Islam is itself deeply concerned with what a "righteous" government ought to look like), but it is a matter of degrees. There's no reason why Muslims can't simply ignore those tenets of the faith that are incompatible with modern society, the same way Christians and Jews have.

If you are a moderate Muslim, it would be easier (and truer) to describe yourself as an infidel.

Again, why aren't you holding other religions to the same standards of adherence to their core texts? Is a Jew who pushes an elevator button on the Sabbath an infidel? Did the entire Catholic Church cease to be Catholic after Vatican II? Did Hinduism stop existing after the British outlawed the practice of burning widows alive?

By insisting that any adjustment of Islamic practice is a betrayal of Islam, you're speaking the same language as the Salafis and sabotaging the potential for growth and reform.

Since we're talking about Islam, it was moderates that decided we could not publish cartoons of Muhammad even when pertinent to the story. Restricting free speech is a radical position, and in this case it was justified by concerns of moderation, tolerance and compromise.

You'll get no argument from me, though I'd go even further to argue that much of the refusal to publish images of Muhammad was motivated by outright fear.

What was memorable exactly? I don't remember a second of the entire performance. So tired of this shit, if you want to change something stop using songs or words and go fucking do something.

Now that was a performance that really changed America.

tss tss ew dot com, more like yuck dot org or summing.

[deleted]

well...was it?

[deleted]

nothing about that is attractive.

id lick all their assholes.

Atta boy!!

Oh, really? You're "pretty sure."

I'd bet every dollar to my name that Ant has a meltdown about this.

Good shit bro. I felt like I was the only one who usually feels like this. There need to be more of us.