ArcturusMengsk Revenge Fantasy

[Yogi]

Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.

The state of Homosexuals in this country is a lot better than the state of Blacks before the Civil War. It's better than Blacks during Martin Luther King's time as well.

[Ender]

We should demand he explain himself and verify if he is sincere about committing random violence or if he has more nuanced plans. Quite frankly, I don't think there's anything that radical about organizing and arming if you're LGBTQ or atheistic; as I said, its really nothing more than the Malcolm X approach. However, deliberately initiating violence against civilians for ideological offenses is clearly unacceptable.

And on that I disagree. I don't waste my time arguing with the guy passing out Chick tracts, I don't waste my time yelling at the KKK rallies, and I'm not going to waste my time here. He put forth nothing in the form of a coherent argument worth dissecting. A discussion about militancy vs civil disobedience, yes, as you have demonstrated that is something to discuss. That isn't this. This is another example of someone thinking that the board culture will let them talk big. We see if a couple of times a month. And I see no point in actually trying to reason with such bullshit. Call it a dick measuring contest if you want, I don't see it that way as I am not making claims to rival him.

[Master of Ossus]

Diocletian had the right idea.

What the fuck? Are you insane or do you just like supporting mass murderers?

Dude. Have you read this thread? The guy IS insane.

Arcturus: I don't know where you learned your history, but even today John Brown is viewed as a total nutjob and dangerous criminal. Even though his anti-slavery position is now nigh-universally supported, his methods and militant ideals are and should be reviled.

[Illuminatus Primus]

We should demand he explain himself and verify if he is sincere about committing random violence or if he has more nuanced plans. Quite frankly, I don't think there's anything that radical about organizing and arming if you're LGBTQ or atheistic; as I said, its really nothing more than the Malcolm X approach. However, deliberately initiating violence against civilians for ideological offenses is clearly unacceptable.

And on that I disagree. I don't waste my time arguing with the guy passing out Chick tracts, I don't waste my time yelling at the KKK rallies, and I'm not going to waste my time here. He put forth nothing in the form of a coherent argument worth dissecting. A discussion about militancy vs civil disobedience, yes, as you have demonstrated that is something to discuss. That isn't this. This is another example of someone thinking that the board culture will let them talk big. We see if a couple of times a month. And I see no point in actually trying to reason with such bullshit. Call it a dick measuring contest if you want, I don't see it that way as I am not making claims to rival him.

Clearly he's escalated since then, but you went right up to the "call out" posturing right off the bat. If you think he's a problem, recommend action in the Senate (or if you'd like something to actually get done), PM RedImp or another supermod who is currently on the board, and ask them to check it out. Everyone else opposed his comments on ethical and pragmatic logical grounds; and I think the default state of discourse should be that; if the person insists on saying, "yeah, you pussy blah blah blah", sure, go all Mike on his ass. But the threshold for calling out at the personal level has fallen to shocking lows. I think everyone forgets how long people actually tried to debate with kiddie Trekkies who called names right off the bat and made obvious logical fallacies and lied before they'd go all-out flame.

[CmdrWilkens]

I had a much longer reply on this topic but it got gobbled up by the vagaries of my roaming internet connection. So this will be the short, and much less emotional, reply. The question goes to Acturus and its rather simple. I wonder if you have ever actually expereinced violent death first hand? I truly wonder because I have and I firmly beleive that no person who has ever done so will advocate the rash and utterly despicable violence you are suggesting. What gives you the right to take another person's life, by what grant of judgement do you consider your cause so righteous that you have the moral authority to END A HUMAN FUCKING LIFE?

Tell me why you have that moral authority and maybe your cause of violence has justice but until you can answer that you remain a demagouge more concerned with getting his way than in being right.

[The Romulan Republic]

Diocletian had the right idea.

What the fuck? Are you insane or do you just like supporting mass murderers?

Dude. Have you read this thread? The guy IS insane.

Arcturus: I don't know where you learned your history, but even today John Brown is viewed as a total nutjob and dangerous criminal. Even though his anti-slavery position is now nigh-universally supported, his methods and militant ideals are and should be reviled.

And in any case the comparison is of questionable relevancy, since discrimination against gays is not on the level of discrimination against black people during the days of slavery. It just isn't.

[Junghalli]

Prop 8 passed by a very thin margin in California- time and peaceful action are your friend in this matter.

I agree with this. Look at the trends in the treatment of marginalized groups over the twentieth century: there's a strong trend toward those groups demanding, and eventually getting, their rights, without any bloody civil wars. I don't see why homosexuals can't be seen as fitting the pattern, when indeed they have been getting more public acceptance over the past decades. Things are getting better for them, it's just that it's happening in the usual frustrating two steps forward one step back way that major social progress tends to take.

I can appreciate how people are frustrated at stuff like Prop 8, but the way I see it the big picture says that you may have lost a battle but you are winning the war.

[fgalkin]

First of all, your philosopher-speak SUCKS. Please try harder next time.

With that out of the way, let's look at your post in greater detail

Frankly, the only sort of event that will both guarantee homosexual rights immediately and preserve them in the future against any Redeemer-type movements (as has now taken root in California, in reaction to the judicial ruling recognizing marriage there) is a full-scale, militant neo-abolitionist Movement.

Why? The only thing that will guarantee is a backlash from the Christian community, complete with possible armed reprisals from THEIR militant groups. Which are far more numerous and, frankly, better at it than you are.

And just as Emancipation was won, not by the submissive minority, but instead by well-intentioned, crusading members of the majority willing to sacrifice life and limb and social prestige for the cause, so to will this Movement be dominated mostly by heterosexuals - the problem heretofore with the LGBT movement has been its inability to properly create an alliance with members of the majority who do not feel threatened by them.

If their message is "Support LGBT rights or die," how many will NOT feel threatened by it?

And the watchword must be, peace if possible, force if necessary. The Mormon cult in Utah and the Southern states must be put on high alert by a force of men-at-arms willing to fight and to bleed for the sacred liberties of others, free from the soul-poison of Christianity.

Oh yes, challenge them in their strongholds. THAT will certainly end well.

Identity politics have accomplished not a thing in four decades, and a stronger tonic is required.

You mean aside from gaining the support of the majority for gay rights, ending a lot of workplace discrimination, and even bringing about gay marriage in a few states? Yup, certainly nothing's changed from the times when buggery would land one in prison.

Of course it would be dangerous. No great undertaking is accomplished without some amount of hardship. However, I have seen among my close friends in my generation - thanks in no small part to my 'prostelyzation' efforts on a local level, but also a growing trend absent myself - an increase not only in atheistic, but anti-Christian sentiment. If such an event occurs, it will happen in this century; I do believe that the economic difficulties of our day will continue for some duration, and will precipitate at least a parallel historical framework to that of the mid-nineteenth century. And I believe that this social issue will be at the heart of the conflict, if and when

LGBT rights at the heart of a new conflict? You are basing that astounding assessment on what exactly? Slavery was not merely about racism, it was about ECONOMICS. When it ceased to be so, the racists gave in without another civil war, as they did in the 1960s, because defending it was not worth that much.

Need I remind you that the Reverend King came into a leadership role a full century after the Civil War - a century which, might I add, saw the Ku Klux Klan reach an organization strength in the millions, the destruction of entire black shanty-towns in Florida and Alabama, and the lynchings of tens of thousands of African-American individuals in the decades between? King was the culmination of that history, not the start of it.

And yet, all of this went away without another civil war. What does that tell you about your theory?

I don't expect to garner any support on this particular forum, since even the atheists here are of the garden-variety Dawkinsonian stripe, and the very reason why secularism is in decline in the first place. When the Christian feels his 'rights' are threatened, he beats the drums of war and goes on the march; when the secular humanist feels likewise, he gently sobs into his hands and surrenders, quivering, without a fight. Most of you are as contemptible as the groups against which you rail, with the added problem of being mostly inept at political manuevering and hence ineffectual at securing the liberties you seek.

As opposed to what? A teenage rebel without a clue withe little ideas of his own beyond HUR HUR KILL ALL CHRISTIANS? Personally, I'd take Dawkins over that, any day.

However, I assure you that the day will come when, seeing as opportunity to realize their theocratic regimen in the event of economic pandemonium, the religious forces in this nation which have to date been bottle-necked by the political limits of liberal democracy will rise forth, and not one of you will be able to, or will even attempt to, prevent it.

You are basing that brilliant assessment of the future on what, exactly? Please enlighten me, I am genuinely curious here.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Mr Bean]

Let the record show that ArcturusMengsk was twice under Senate discussion for questionable behavior, the first for saying that Dog-fighting was an "art" and not animal abuse.
Senate Discussion MK I

And the second time he was under discussion for advocating violence against Christians and also advocates militant gay organizing.
Senate Part 2

The second offense was determined bad enough that it was put to the Senate for a Ban thread, at which time he was by vote of a super-majority of members voted to be banned
Vote Thread

[The Wookiee]

Sockpuppet Einzige cast into the void.