Skavau reaches 10000!
its party time! and peanut butter jelly TIME!
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
BEST PERSON I KNOW...A TRUE FRIEND....I TOTALLY LOVE THAT GIRL.π₯°
its party time! and peanut butter jelly TIME!
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
BEST PERSON I KNOW...A TRUE FRIEND....I TOTALLY LOVE THAT GIRL.π₯°
so he is now a girl. I knew he was one of them damn trans freaks.
sharewe shall never know!
sharewhy did she leave the board again? son of a bitch!
shareOh no
I
h
a
v
e
a
f
e
e
l
I
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
I
s
t
h
r
e
a
d
i
s
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
t
u
r
n
i
n
t
o
.
.
.
.
.
T
H
I
S!
!
!
π±
π±
π±
It probably has something to do with the lashing it has been receiving in this thread lately:
https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting
We could use this thread to keep track of the threads he's currently being brutalized in. Oh sorry...I meant "she"
shareWhat amazing arguments were put to me in that thread that I simply could not refute?
Or are you of the opinion the murderous fascist who made that thread somehow has a point?
A
n
d
a
w
a
y
w
e
g
o
.
.
.
.
.
!
!
!
LOL so it begins.
shareWelcome to 1000 questions! haha
shareThe Interrogator of MovieChat
shareOne of them. It would be hilarious to see a list of all the questions asked in a single week by BennyMuso and Skavau turned into one of those word cloud pictures.
sharePerhaps if people didn't make ridiculous claims on here that are obviously utterly batshit, I wouldn't feel inclined to ask for some sort of sourcing.
Keep in mind the user you're replying to claims that Obama had 3 gay lovers as a fact. And that the military handpicked Trump to run for office, but watched as the 2020 vote was mired in fraud and did nothing.
Talking to Skavau is like talking to an AI chatbot. It's so exhausting. But I did finally manage to get a rise out of them with my reactionary politics. So at least now we know they have emotions. Definitely got to be on the spectrum though.
shareYou mean your actual fascist politics.
I've always talked to fascists like they are shit on my shoe.
I've always talked to fascists like they are shit on my shoe.
You want to censor me and destroy my life. I'm just rude to you on an internet forum because you want to do that to me (and others).
We are not the same.
I don't want to censor you. I want everyone to hear what you have to say.
Besides, you said you're not Woke. So you're not even going to be rounded up let alone killed. What are you crying about? Stop whining.
In your ideal world, I would be censored. And all 'woke' people would be persecuted or killed.
So yes you do.
>Besides, you said you're not Woke. So you're not even going to be rounded up let alone killed. What are you crying about? Stop whining.
Could I make arguments about social or political issues that would be considered 'woke' by you? Or would your Saudi Arabian style morality police kick my door down?
In my ideal world, you would not be censored. You would simply be treated like a piece of shit. Which you are.
Same thing goes for the Wokes. I simply want them marginalized. I want them to be pariahs. Outcasts. Like they used to be.
>In my ideal world, you would not be censored. You would simply be treated like a piece of shit. Which you are.
Which means what, in practice?
>Same thing goes for the Wokes. I simply want them marginalized. I want them to be pariahs. Outcasts. Like they used to be.
And when was this?
Also, this just isn't true. You just said you want them institutionalised into labour camps.
I'll give you a real world example. How are Nazis or racists treated in the world today (in liberal circles)?
They are marginalized, fired from their jobs, looked down upon, discriminated against. Called pieces of shit by people like you. They are social outcasts.
That is what I want the Wokes to be. I want them treated the way we treat Nazis today. Except minus the online censorship. I don't want them censored online.
>I'll give you a real world example. How are Nazis or racists treated in the world today (in liberal circles)?
Oh, you mean cancelled?
I thought you hated cancel culture.
>That is what I want the Wokes to be. I want them treated the way we treat Nazis today. Except minus the online censorship. I don't want them censored online.
So how on earth would you enforce that? Nazis and fascists are banned from online forums online.
Nazis actually want to harm people. There's no correlation between than and a 'wokist'.
I thought you hated cancel culture.
>I do. That is why I want to punish the cultural left and let them suffer the same fate.
Should private companies and individuals and online forums have the right to ban people from accessing their spaces?
>Once again, this is a Popper's Paradox in action. A variation on a theme: By cancelling the cancelers we are cancelling cancel culture.
No, you're just maintaining it - but flipping it.
And again: You apparently reject the right of private groups to choose who may enter their spaces. You want "wokes" treated the same way as Nazis are treated now, but minus the "online censorship". That can only mean you want to force sites like Reddit, Discord, Facebook, wherever to host them.
Should private companies and individuals and online forums have the right to ban people from accessing their spaces?
>If I were having this conversation with a normal person in earnest, I would tell them that this is a very complex topic and would depend on the company, the online spaces, and all sorts of other considerations. It would be a long and tedious conversation.
I don't give a flying fuck. I'll take your refusal to elaborate as an inability to do so without contradicting yourself regarding civil liberties, or free speech or freedom of association. Because you're not clever enough and have thought nothing out beyond "woke bad".
>However since I'm not talking to a normal person, but instead an exhausting, joy draining, subhuman autist, whom I don't take seriously, I simply don't respect you enough to answer you earnestly.
"Normal people" apparently being people who suck up to fascists, in your mind.
Take my refusal anyway you want you tard. You've just demonstrated that you're not interested in the truth. You're not interested in actually listening to people. You're just going to believe what you want to believe regardless is if it's true or not. No amount of sophistry is going to hide the fact that you are just a pathetic midwit. You talk so much, but you've got nothing to say. Nothing of value.
Your opinions are as vapid as a stagnant pool.
What "truth" am I not interested in?
I read what you say. It's mostly hateful garbage. But I read what you say.
What is it I believe, exactly?
What? Sorry, you're breaking up...
shareBack to you behaving like a 10 year old again, I see.
shareHello? Are you there?
sharewhat makes him a fascist?
sharePosts like this:
https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting?reply=6646713877f7d35412fa3fe2
https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting?reply=6646775477f7d35412fa4019
https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting?reply=66467d6977f7d35412fa4057
I think he's saying that to get a rise out of you. I doubt he really holds those beliefs.
shareI mean he initially replied to capuchin and said it. Not me.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But he is 100% presenting as a fascist.
You know those gender fluid freaks who think they are a she/her one day and then he/him the other day depending on the weather?
That's me, except with fascism. Sometimes I'm just your friendly neighborhood socialist and other times I'm a your friendly neighborhood National Socialist
You know, like an Almond Joy.
How do 10 year olds behave?
Do you have evidence for your assertions of how 10 year olds behave?
Is that biased source the only evidence you are providing?
Why did you arbitrarily choose the people of the age of 10; do you have some underlying bias towards 10 year olds?
Do you realize that labeling 10 year olds in such a fashion makes you a racist, fascist, alt-right bigot?
I think you are misapplying the word see; can you provide a source for the meaning that of the word that you are implying here?
What do you mean by the word back?
Where is your evidence that this has happened before?
Cute satire. It's based on an evaluation of his behaviour. Perhaps some people genuinely think pretending not to hear someone in a comment chain constitutes adult behaviour. I don't.
Claims like "Barack Obama had 3 gay lovers" as certain other users have made however, or "Lady Gaga is Jewish" do suggest good reason to ask for evidence.
Why are you celebrating an arbitrary number?
sharewhy does anyone celebrate arbitrary numbers? you have 34413 posts. you are amazing. only 600 to go for the big 35000!!!!! woot!
shareI could understand 10000, but not 9895.
shareββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
9900 posts of "evidence please" and endless arguing for no reason.
shareOne of the most recent posts I asked for evidence for was the claim that Barack Obama had 3 gay lovers.
Do you think that such claims should remain unchallenged, and that people should just accept it uncritically?
You ask for evidence anytime anyone says anything that goes against your leftist ideology.
shareI really don't. But I find myself doing it a lot because people keep making ridiculous claims.
But that wasn't an answer to my question: Do you think that the claim that Obama had 3 gay lovers should just be accepted uncritically? No need for the person who said it to provide any kind of source - we should just agree with it?
evidence please...
shareFuck this bullshit ass thread!
Signed, million man
You don't like it?
shareNot especially
Signed, million man
You don't like Skavau, or the fact that everyone is piling on her/him/them?
She/he/they do it to themselves. They just keep coming back for more.
If it's me, and you don't like the vibe, let me know, and I'll stop. I respect you and your opinion.
Eh. I like both of you but the bickering really belongs in politics at this point. I don't care what you do I just voiced my opinion.
Signed, million man
I'll try to keep it limited to the politics section. Skavau is responding to multiple threads at the same time. It's hard to keep up.
I normally don't have time for this, but I had the afternoon to myself and felt like trolling for a little bit.
I don't DM people and tell them to make threads about me. I'm so awful according to the far-right bloc on here, yet they just can't keep themselves from trying to challenge me, or bait me. It's pathetic.
shareI'm not DMing anyone. I can't DM anyone because this is a new account. And it's the only account I have.
shareI didn't say you were DMing. My point is that I am not asking people to make these types of threads and all these people who claim to despise me can't keep themselves from trying to bait me, trying to challenge me.
shareYou are doing it to yourself.
Anyway, stop responding to this thread. If you want to continue bickering, move it to the Politics thread.
I'm done here.
It's cool man. It's just that this thread became Melton V Skavau 2.0 . The old thread got nuked. I know we can put aside our political differences and watch a movie together. π
Signed, million man
I don't think you're awful at all. I feel you're misguided and have a pathological need to argue, using dishonest tactics. I'm not saying 2020 was rigged or stolen. I honestly don't know but you REFUSED to admit that there was even a chance that it was. I got news for you, you don't know either and to say it was 100% positively not, is dishonesty. A LOT of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.
shareWhat dishonest tactics am I using?
> I'm not saying 2020 was rigged or stolen.
I didn't say *you* did. I'm asking you if you think that ridiculous claims such as the claim that Obama had 3 gay lovers should just be accepted without inquiring for a source?
>I honestly don't know but you REFUSED to admit that there was even a chance that it was. I got news for you, you don't know either and to say it was 100% positively not, is dishonesty. A LOT of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The 2020 election was one of the most audited and investigated elections ever. It also defies logic too that the Democrats would rig the presidency but forget to rig the senate properly (leaving them reliant on Joe Manchin and Sinema).
Again, you won't acknowledge that there was even a chance. I'll leave you to your dishonest stonewalling.
shareAs much as a chance as any election.
shareBased on what you said, if ever there was a 0% chance of an election being stolen previously, even if it was in just in one instance, one could argue that this election in question had a 0% chance of the election being stolen. Is that what you're trying to state here Skavau, or are you being intentionally vague?
shareWhat? I don't see any reason to think the US election in 2020 was mired in any more fraud than, say, the UK election of 2017, or the German election of 2021. I can't rule it out, but there's no good reason to think its really likely beyond the attempts at fraud by individuals or small groups that likely infest any election.
share"As much as a chance as any election."
Based on that statement, I can pick any election and draw parallels and conclusions from it, including an election that had a 0% chance to be rigged. Was that the intent of your statement?
No. I don't even know what you're trying to say here at all really. I don't think the Democrats as a party rigged the election. I don't think they could even if they wanted to. Could I be wrong? I guess. Maybe Macron rigged the French presidential election. But there's no good reason to think its likely.
shareI think you actually do understand what I was implying in regards to the clarity of your language or, more accurately, a lack of it.
You know, I kind of like this version of Skavau that displays some self doubt and makes "I" statements rather than attacking the perspectives of others and doing petty things like gloating over getting posts deleted. This side of you should come out more often on here.
>I think you actually do understand what I was implying in regards to the clarity of your language or, more accurately, a lack of it.
I really don't.
>You know, I kind of like this version of Skavau that displays some self doubt and makes "I" statements rather than attacking the perspectives of others
I only "attack" the perspectives of fascists on here. I simply have zero respect for people who would persecute me. That includes fascists, christofascists, nazis, stalinists.
I've never ever claimed to know everything anyway. This is just a false premise. I could be wrong about all sorts of things, but people just making outrageous claims... I mean how should people respond to that?
When did I gloat about getting a post deleted?
Never mind, that didn't last very long.
shareSorry, you made a bunch of accusations against me. It just seems you don't want me to ever defend myself and challenge claims people make.
No idea how you got the idea I think I am infallible.
See what I mean? Arguing for no reason. What are you actually hoping to accomplish?
As far as Obama's gay lovers? Don't know, don't care. You are constantly whinging about "proof" and "evidence" for any and everything people say. Why? To get attention? To prove something? It has gotten very old. People say all kinds of things. Do you think everyone automatically believes them? News flash: They don't and don't need you as some sort of arbiter for "truth".
>See what I mean? Arguing for no reason. What are you actually hoping to accomplish?
I am merely defending myself. Why is that wrong? Why should I say nothing to people who launch baseless attacks against me?
>As far as Obama's gay lovers? Don't know, don't care.
That's fine. But what is wrong with me asking people who make that claim for evidence?
> You are constantly whinging about "proof" and "evidence" for any and everything people say. Why? To get attention?
Because this is a forum. And no, I do not say it to "everything" people say. This is just demonstrably wrong.
>People say all kinds of things. Do you think everyone automatically believes them? News flash: They don't and don't need you as some sort of arbiter for "truth".
No, but there seems to be a bizarre hostility to the idea of being asked for evidence or some kind of sourcing for claims about reality made on here. Why does it bother you that I ask this of people?
Because this is a forum. And no, I do not say it to "everything" people say. This is just demonstrably wrong.
Yes, I like arguing (or debating, disputing, whatever). I don't see that bad at all. People aren't required to reply to me.
shareWow, it reached a 9900 turd count? Amazing. I always knew it was full of shit.
share
[β]Β mtxmind (3224)Β 2 days ago
Oh no
I
h
a
v
e
a
f
e
e
l
I
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
I
s
t
h
r
e
a
d
i
s
g
o
i
n
g
t
o
t
u
r
n
i
n
t
o
.
.
.
.
.
T
H
I
S!
!
!
π±
π±
π±
Β replyΒ Β editΒ Β deleteΒ Β share
[
Congratulations Skavau. π
Signed, million man