Foreigners, Don't come to JAPAN!! BEGGERS!!
We JAPANESE hate Foreigners!! Consciousness this!! Stupid Niggers!!
Why such a UGLY black monster come to this beautiful island?? Die!
Black people, Indian, Pakistan, Nepa, they are very bad smell!!
FUCKIN' loser poor country people shit!! Fuckin BAD SMELL MONSTERRRR!!!!!
They come to only to get Japanese YEN!!!!!!!
They all are BURDEN of Japanese society!!!
They will invade fiscal resource of OUR TAX!!!!!!!
G E T O U T O F J A P A N , F U C K I N' F O R E I G N E R S !!!!
>>1 is racist Korean,GET OUT OF JAPAN!!RETRUN TO KOREAN PENINSULA!!
This is why I hate japs. how can anyone like such xenophobic beasts?
>>53
HAHAHA r u Fuckin hiphop NIGGER?
Dont come to this web site.
Go to a Cave. African Shit.
According to the data of foreign resident registration in Japan 2007,
1) 606,889 Chinese
2) 593,489 Korean/North Korean
3) 316,967 Brazilian
4) 202,592 Philippines
5) 59,696 Peruvians
6) 51,851 USA
7) 41,384 Thai
8) 36,860 Vietnamees
:
:
34) 2,523 Nigerian
:
37) 1,884 Ghana
Dude, last night I watched some Phillipino chick kick Moromoto's ass on Iron Chef. All Japanese want is to be tied up and give blow jobs. Japan is China's bitch.
>> 58
All Japanese WOMEN want is to be tied up and give blow jobs. Japan is China's bitch. But now that I think about, they is what most Jap men want as well.
Being racist is fun.
Die, NIGGER.
fuckin begger.dont live in japan.
Fuckin shit skin, dont come to Japan.
I hate Texas. I say give it back to Mexico.
Uh, Kentucky.
I have never been to America, but Texans sound pretty stupid.
Yeah, Texas. The way some Texans boast their ignorance to the world makes it look like the other 49 states are just here to babysit it.
Other than that, Arizona
California's a lost cause. We should just wipe out its population and start it over.
Most people would agree a troll is someone who exists in an internet community solely to cause trouble and make people angry.
Sometimes it's obvious. If a thread in /anime/ is titled "Gook Cartoons are for Little Girls and Social Deviants", it's pretty clear this is a troll, because this board was intended for fans of the genre and they shouldn't have to defend what they enjoy in such a place.
In a board like /politics/ however, we can't ever really call anyone a troll. Most posts have the potential to make someone angry or seem ignorant thanks to the natural human instinct to filter out information that contradicts our world view.
When it comes to religion, every post will be a troll. Any discussion is impossible when dealing with something so tied into self-identity. Walking up to someone and saying "there is no god" or "you will go to hell when you die" is no different than saying "you're a fool and a liar, you've wasted your life in a fantasy world, and your grandfathers corpse is being eaten my maggots" or "you're a disgusting evil person and deserve to suffer while I watch and laugh and eat popcorn". All statements are as true and valid for someone as the color of the ocean but are still deeply offensive and sure to tear people apart and drive some to see red and then black and wake up next to a bloody hatchet. But deleting anyone of them is censorship.
Trolls are important to maintain the status quota of the internet.
>>1
You confuse trolling with telling the truth. You are not trolling when you tell the truth. At most you're babbling - "you suck you're ugly 1 + 1 = 2", two insults <<babbling>>, and one truth.
That makes no sense.
The fact that you're ugly is conclusively proven through several mathematical formula and a double blind testing of the shock-and-withdrawal reaction your malformed face has on young children.
The fact that you suck is demonstrated by this picture of you sucking, taken by a private eye i hired.
Point being, truth is often subjective and in many cases true opinion can not easily be separated from flame baiting without culling honest debaters and pardoning talented trolls.
> That makes no sense.
Why is it nonsensical?
> The fact that you're ugly is conclusively proven through several mathematical formula and a double blind testing of the shock-and-withdrawal reaction your malformed face has on young children.
For which definition of "beauty" does this prove that I'm ugly?
> Point being, truth is often subjective and in many cases true opinion can not easily be separated from flame baiting without culling honest debaters and pardoning talented trolls.
Flaming is something pointless, and trolls take advantage of that. Stop flaming, or in the general case, stop caring about who says what, but only for this which answers "what", and trolls will suddenly disappear.
> Why is it nonsensical?
That truth and trolls are mutually exclusive, or that truth has anything to do with trolling besides the dishonesty of intention. The entire post makes no sense to me, because I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "You confuse trolling with telling the truth".
> For which definition of "beauty" does this prove that I'm ugly?
>Main Entry:
> beau·ty
>Pronunciation:
> \ˈbyü-tē\
>Etymology:
> Middle English beaute, bealte, from Anglo-French, from bel, beau beautiful, from Latin bellus pretty;
> That truth and trolls are mutually exclusive, or that truth has anything to do with trolling besides the dishonesty of intention. The entire post makes no sense to me, because I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "You confuse trolling with telling the truth".
You could had simply said that you don't understand me, and ask me to rephrase, which I will do now:
When I said that you confuse trolling with telling the truth, I mean the act of trolling with the act of telling the truth. As such, you'd wrongly blame someone who tells the truth as a troll. That is because your definition of trolling is more than it should be.
> Walking up to someone and saying "there is no god" or "you will go to hell when you die" is no different than saying "you're a fool and a liar, you've wasted your life in a fantasy world, and your grandfathers corpse is being eaten my maggots"
Actually, you're right, it is the same in the sense that both are unjustified opinions. In the first case, I will ask you "What evidence do you have that supports your case?". In the second case, I'd question "How do you know?". Ie, in both cases I'd ask for evidence, which you probably are unable to provide. You could had said this instead:
>>15
I think understand a little better where you're coming from, but I still don't seewhere truth or falsehood comes into play. I'd say it's irrlevent because I'd say...
> ....a troll is someone who exists in an internet community solely to cause trouble and make people angry.
In which case anything goes if it helps the troll cause a flamewar or fragment a tightly knit community.
I wouldn't call anyone a troll because to know for a fact someone is a troll you'd have to know their intentions... so unless they've announced themselves beforehand
> Uglyness is a subjective quality, there's nothing to "prove" like you suggested.
I stand by my belief that the physical appeal of a person can be relatively measured through the reactions of his or her cultural peers.
>>7, Socrates was a gadfly because he constantly asked "why?" in countless variations. The man played devil's advocate, and he was hurtfull because he questioned everything a person stood for (which if you haven't noticed is a little taboo itself). He provoked arguments because logical dialectic is a pursuit of knowledge.
Anyhow, trolls reflect hurtfull things, but they are nothing like a calm question. They are neccessary to make us question, but still, a true troll never will. Question, that is. At least, not to those they are bugging.
The problem with REAL trolls is when a person comes along and says something actually truthful and/or interesting or a good opinion, that is where the downmodders/tools come from.
Head over to /r/apple in Reddit and say Jobs should have never released the iPhone 4 and watch those tools wreck your karma. Or head over to Digg and link to videos of Palestinians being killed or their homes bulldozed and watch the Digg admins kick you out.
Those are the REAL trolls.
If a democracy is following the choice of the majority, is the majority's view always the right one? Even if the majority asked crazy things like said "Hey lets not bother helping the poor" etc.
>>85
One of the biggest problems with modern military police actions is determining who is a threat and who is simply a neutral bystander. In other words, we don't know who to shoot.
Let's take Iraq for example:
In Iraq, you have "terrorist" guerrillas fighting against the US occupying force. These guerrillas, while incapable of posing any significant military threat to the occupying forces, have a advantage that allows them to carry out a strategic political agenda (i.e. getting the Americans to leave by making the occupation very expensive.) That advantage is that they blend seamlessly into the native population to resupply and escape from US forces. It goes even further - combatants do not stick around to be identified and are indistinguishable form the population (no scarfs wrapped around faces, no uniforms, no formations.) What's worse, they will often attack (non-US, non-military) targets as living bombs, damaging their own infrastructure and noncombatants (which the US is trying to repair and protect.)
When the very people you are protecting are helping your enemies, what do you do? If you can give me a better solution than "Get the f'ck out with your tail between your legs." then you will have solved the little problem with "noncombatants."
>>85
What I was alluding to in my original post is that
1) the German people =/ Nazis and they still supported them.
2) Germany had its own reasons for doing what they did (please note how they were screwed over by the allies following WWI.)
3) if Germany had won WWII we would all be thinking very differently about this. If Hitler was der feuhrer we would simply not know about the concentration camps. Instead we simply don't mention what the Allies did (see firebombing of Japan.)
4) WWII is still too close to home for the world to really talk about. Give it a few more decades when all the vets are dead. Then we'll talk.
The majority may not always be right, but what other system would you have us use?
I'd still choose democracy. I'm not saying that democracy is always wrong, just that you can't keep a democracy wrong when the elitest superstructure (Those at the top of the political food chain, not DQNers) decide that they get to play fast and loose with reality and morals.
That's just reality. Genocide, use of WMDs, arbitrary arrests without trials, torture, and other such things are wrong. Just because you can come up with a rationalization for doing those things does not make them OK. The reason is that there will always be a justification -- there is always some enemy around, whether forgein or a political group (remember our millitias?), and therefore it's a blank check.
Criminals are the same way. They blend in with their neighbors. They don't wear colored "I'm a criminal" jerseys, they don't wear masks when they aren't commiting a crime. They go after civillian targets -- they rob 7-11, not the police station. Etc. That doesn't mean you get to raid every house in the area and shoot anyone who resists having his door kicked in.
>>88
i'd choose democracy as well - it has it's problems but it's the best system i've heard of (that actually works.) it has it's problems, but from what i've seen these are fixed over time, one way or another. it just cheese's me off a bit when people complain about things they don't understand and then blame the faceless majority.
i guess the big difference between terrorist guerrillas and criminals is that criminals don't have an agenda (except for organized crime i suppose.) this makes them less of a problem because they only attack targets of opportunity rather than randomly blowing crap up.
Japanese violent "minority" circle
http://hrdpocu.blog.shinobi.jp/
one of the principles of governmance in my country is "to do what is right then what is popuplar"
When the entire world minus one person has the same oppinion they have as little the right to force their oppinion on that one person as he has on forcing his oppinion on them.
(Now and then one just has to use nice one-liners.)
>>52
Sounds a bit like France, but I didn't read everything, just quickly glanced.
>>1
Just a simple sociologic fact: people on average tend to be less an less intelligent, open-minded, etc, as they gather up (usually starting from more than three person). This gives "somebody else's problem" mentalities, mob mentalities, etc.
So I guess, "the majority" as a whole can't be always right, no. Hence why most of our modern Western societies fail (in my opinion, stagnating and maintaining a precary equilibrium is NOT success for a society). We need more "distributed computing". To make an analogy, we need some kind of Peer-to-peer network, and not client/server architecture.
I have some ideas on how to make this work, but they need more maturing. Then I'll write a book.
If everyone has the same opportunity, the wiser people must be going to succeed than the more foolish ones.
Therefore democracy will be inevitably supplanted by bureaucracy at once.
But I still prefer democracy to autocracy.
I choose Republic. Republics are supposed to protect the rights of the minority electorate from the injustices of the majority. Right now, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to fuck over the people in Arizona to prevent them from deporting illegal aliens. But when Bush II was in office, he turned the country into a jail and called anyone who disagreed with him a traitor and unamerican.
Fuck these people. I still wonder if it is even safe to be registered to vote anymore. One day, the majority party will jail those who voted against them. It is only a matter of time.
I think Taiwan is independent country already.
So there is no need to declare independence.
If Taiwan declare independence from China formaly,China
will attack it and destroy peace of East Asia.
When it happens,Can USA support Taiwan??
I support the autonomy of Taiwan, not its independence.
I support the Formosa Punch and the Tahitian Treat.
DYNOMITE!
I support the independence of Taiwan.
But Ma Ying-jeou loves China and hates Japan (´･ω･`)
I support Japan reconquering Taiwan. It's a sort of compromise
I support independence in general
Taiwan is already de facto independent. So... why is this poll even here.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.
But who is Caesar? Taiwan people are.
I think whether Taiwan is a better place or not really depends how can we make Taiwan better. How do imporve Taiwan's economy, How do imporve Taiwan's education ... May be it is easiler to be independent, may be not. I just thought may be the starting point is not always starts from whether Taiwan is part of China or not.
------------
##....._.....|
|...........# ------
#...........| |....|
--------------- ###------------ |...(|
|..%...........|########## ###-@...|
|...%...........### # ## |....|
+.......<......| ### ### |..!.|
--------------- # # ------
### ###
# #
---.----- ###
|.......| #
|........####
|.......|
I support the total destruction of the state of Texas.
There are plenty of threads here that touch upon Democracy. Often the fear of the chaos that it has become-some Anons attack the ideas of Communism without knowing what they are or heap scorn upon the Parliaments and Senates of democratic nations for their infractions. Sometimes Anon has rightfully called out injustices on the part of stolid China and less flexible nations, and other times our members succumb to-though it may be a curse to say it-unchecked nationalism or pride.
But do you know what you are fighting for? Or against? We must, at a glace even, admit that the model of the modern republic is Chaotic... unjust even. But do you want anything more? Does your nation deserve anything less than anything more? Why?
> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.
What the hell man, do want to have the runner-up be junior vice president or some shit like that?
> This country needs to go back to being a republic and more political parties need to be formed.
where 38% of the people vote someone in, the other 62% is totally fucked?
Hell.. I'm not even American and I know most of the power is focused in the senate.
> What we have in the US now is mob rule, where 51% of the people vote someone in, the other 49% is totally fucked.
Electoral. College.
>>23
Oh yeah? Then why isn't the word "democracy" written anywhere within the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Because the Founders wanted to avoid using any form of that word like the plague and for good reason. Just because it has some democratic functions doesn't mean it should be regarded as such.
IHBT
You're a troll, so I won't respond seriously to you. I will say that you are a big fatty fat fat who should look up what an indirect democracy is, unless you don't care and just wanted to disturb everyone's groove around here, in which case you should go butter yourself up and roll down a grassy hill on camera and post the video on the internet for everyone to watch.
>>25
What is your problem? I stated that the word "democracy" is not mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head where it's mentioned by a Founding Father is in Federalist paper #10 where it is not looked upon very favorably.
Since you couldn't come up with a rebuttal, you decided instead to go off on a childish tangent, further solidifying my point that the American form of government is a republic, not a democracy. So stop spouting this bullshit that it is.
Once again, IHBT.
To be honnest , it's just a bull of shit ^^ !! and it didn't even exist hahahaaaaaaa
>>28
That's true, but that's a party. The republican form of government does have some democratic functions within it, but to say that it's strictly a democracy is ridiculous.
Does the thread come from corrupt goverment? Is there unstable neibhour at large? Do you think terrorists are the gravest danger?
All in all, what does your country have to fear?
Russia.
their CQB skills would kill a Lion.
Would someone just post something already?
I am a citizen of /b/ and I fear lions. In fact, whenever I see a lion, I get in the car.
Perhaps I should hire one of these Russians of whom >>29 speaks.
Greetings, There is no point to what country i'm from, because after the lisbon treaty i now fear a world under one government
>>32
I agree, and I do not even live in a European country.
I'm from the internet. Well, not really, but i moved there from New Zealand. I'm mostly afraid of cold weather and bumping into drunk people around the university.
I'm from the US and afraid of corporate sponsorship of political campaigns.
Philippines here. I fear the extensive corruption and poverty here. :((
American here. I'm afraid I won't get my 99 cent big mac :(
>>37
You could lose some of those pounds though, man.
I'm currently reading "Red Hot Lies", which was recommended to me by a couple of environmental scientists (former alarmists themselves). The case against the "Global Warming Industry" is almost too built up to be real it seems, and if it is it's sickening.
I'm not sure if everything I'm getting from the guy is totally true, but alot of it is or at least seems to be true.
From what I've read, I'm a little disappointed in the alarmists (Gore, etc) tactics.
However, I've been blessed with a sense of caution when it comes to trusting "authorities", so I'm not allying myself with anyone, including this author.
Regardless, I'm now seriously considering the facts about Global warming.
Before, I knew pretty much nothing about it, other than the message I was constantly getting hammered with by news media, etc: "it's the consensus! therefore it must be true" so I formerly just assumed it to be the case that global warming was real and would be catastrophic if we didn't immediately cut down on toilet paper and air conditioning.
I have a hard time arguing with anything that NASA and MIT considers to be an undeniable truth.
I wasn't trolling at all. MIT and NASA both believe global warming to be real, I really don't see how that's a troll.
The whole point of this thread is to hash out different view points and challenge what so called scientific authorities say, so I don't think what you've contributed is really on point with my intention (but maybe I didn't clarify that as much as I thought I did).
So, you coming in here and saying "well the authorities say such and such, so it's hard to argue with that" seems like a troll to me.
BTW, just so there's no confusion, I'm talking specifically about man made global warming.
>>5
Point taken. By the way, it's not really "the authorities", it's "Geniuses". But I'll stop now.
there is a thread in science about global warming I'm poster 27, 30, 32, and 34 I don't feel like just copying and pasting so you can read my opinions there if you want.
Computer models evolve in the direction that maximizes funding.
Or, to take my tongue out of my cheek and quote someone brighter than I:
Public funding of science in matters that influence public policy is a very serious matter.
Global warming has already been debunked.
Weather stations positions in/around cities record higher temperatures than ones that are not. Surveys did not include weather station recordings that were outside of cities, invalidating results.
Hackers found documents saying global warming is a scam.
Climategate scammer admitted that there was an increase in temperature within the last 20 years, however the increase was statistically insignificant (less than a 0.1% increase).
Several other surveys across the world show global cooling rather than warming.
>>9
All of those models and all of that public funding go to waste if the scientists skew results. Sadly, the general public does not know better.
So there's a conspiracy involving tens of thousand of people all around the world, that manipulate openly discussed formulas on publicly available data and kekekekeke into their sleeve as they rejoice making $45k a year?
Man you skeptics are dumb. I like how there are tons of books on the subjects, but NONE of them accurately attack the math. The immutable key to proving their case that scientists are liars. Instead, they come up with silly slogans about public funding.
I hear Alex Jones is looking for new readers, guys.
I am a Japanese and living in CA.
I wonder how Americans think about illegal immigrants.
tits or gtfo
bitches
>>2 well, maybe it's because the US is too selfish to grant citizenship to the people who deserve it a whole lot more than most of the lazy bums who were born with the right to citizenship. So what about the rest of them, who are actually trying hard to get citizenship? you can't just judge all of them like that. stfu.
>>3 wtf. racist faggot.
I personally have no problem with "LEGAL IMMIGRANTS", However, I do have a problem with illegal immigrants. I have this problem because they have broken the law. There are billions of people from third world countries all over the world, that does not mean you can invade countries without going through the legal process. Immigrants from other countries other than MEXICO,go through the proper process, why can't Mexicans? I am tired hearing that Mexicans are hard workers and Americans are lazy bull crap! The truth of the matter is Mexicans want Money!!!! Yes, the will be at work everyday because it is a guarenteed paycheck to funnel back to their home countries! There quality of work is poor, their customer service is poor, they have no respect for Americans, American Laws , or the American Flag. They march on American soil waving Mexican flags demanding American rights. If you want sympathy try waving an American flag. How can you hang a Mexican flag on top of an American Flag on the same flag pole, in America, plain disrespect. Sorry to all you blinded folks, this is their plan to come her and have as many babies as they can, remember power comes in numbers,and take their "so called land " back. That is why they will not assimalate. They will not learn to speak the language, they rather work under the table and make tax free dollars, go to any emergency room they are flood with illegal immigrants, whose footing the bill? You and I the taxpayer, That goes for schools, social services and other services. If Illegals want to be in the US, contribute to society and stop using our society. I am not afraid of being a multicultural country, people this is a planned takeover we are just to politically correct to see it!!!! Like a hispanic co-worker told me a few years back, spanish will be the official language in the very near future.T o the big corporations money isn't everything, what about patriotism!!! Don't let greed ruin America.
Disregard that, I smoke rocks.
What does multiculturalism have anything to do with a country being 3rd world?
On another related note, haven't you heard of world trade?
>What does multiculturalism have anything to do with a country being 3rd world?
They're not at that level yet. Give it another three or four decades.
>On another related note, haven't you heard of world trade?
Indeed I have. And it's quite a failure.
If we live in a world that is governed by religion and corrupt governments, whose power was attained through systemic victimization of more peaceful cultures, how can anyone expect those who struggle today to respect "our" laws?( foriegners who live in countries that are more repressive, countries that use their citizens like slave labour, so westerners can have more "stuff)
We live within a Win/Lose paradigmn that promotes instability, and people will migrate where they will have a better life, better opportunities. Just like the european settlers came to the N.A. Continent. But what happened? The Chruch and Monarchy brutalized and used the native residents for their own gain, then set about on the usual genocidal path.
Expecting lawful behaviour within a system that is unjust, feuled by favourtism, greed and arrogance, is totally illogical.
What do you think, 4-ch, of this controversial open source license?
Its proponents point to how it keeps free/open-source software free by preventing modified versions from being closed-source, say it reflects the attitude of "I'll share, but only if you share, too", and claim that it is responsible for lots of the open source software we have today.
Within the open source community, the GPL has also been criticized for a number of reasons, from the opinion that there's ambiguities in it and it's best not to keep open-source code locked behind uncertainty, to specific criticisms against parts of the license deemed not helpful to freedom, to dismissals of the whole idea as hypocritical. However, the GPL remains the by far most popular open source license.
...so let's discuss it!
GPL's good, the only problem is that many people tend to forget about licensing when they find source code. I've seen many a program that blatantly rip off open source projects without so much as mentioning their names, much less following proper protocol.
Whenever this topic arises I feel apathy. There are plenty of OSS licences to choose from; this is much ado about nothing.
The largest problem with the GPLv2 in my opinion is that it mixes up the legal with philosophy too much. Perhaps they should have cut it into two parts: the actual legalese, and a separate document that explains what it all means.
I like the LGPL and MIT licences a fair bit.
I usually prefer the BSD license, or, if it's a very simple program, to just release my code into the public domain.
For one major project that I undertook with a friend, we used the Eclipse Public License.
I understand the aims of the GPL, and I like the idea, but for my own code, well, I really don't care what you do with it, I'd rather it's just out there and as easily accessible as possible. I really don't care about "credit", I'd be satisfied simply to know that somebody else was getting some use out of my code, and if I don't know, it's not like I'm especially disappointed.
I think there is room for discussion though, given that the GPL is the most popular license, and also there's the GPLv3 controversies...
Why not just always use public domain?
>>9
Because then someone can take your code and patent it.
I can't tell if you're serious or not, >>10.
The GPL is here to force companies into sharing their modifications of source code. That's the theory.
In practice, companies don't modify GPL code, they just want to copy-paste it, but they can't because it's GPL, so they either: hide it, or get another piece of code.
With BSD, that wouldn't happen.