Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: *Arbiters. They still are a thing actually, but they;re blue not green.
> [{quoted}](name=Seras Dragon,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=0f1d8HGz,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-09T16:36:30.213+0000) > > *Arbiters. They still are a thing actually, but they;re blue not green. WRONG! I'm taking about the old forums before Boards. Abjudicators were blue. Emisarries were green. Council members were purple.
Arkangyle (OCE)
: If he's so broken why aren't you playing him every game and getting freelo?
> [{quoted}](name=Arkangyle,realm=OCE,application-id=FjGAIbRv,discussion-id=6V2ifbsA,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-03-10T06:31:44.374+0000) > > If he's so broken why aren't you playing him every game and getting freelo? I'm an Urgot main.
Gzen (OCE)
: You mean 5 seconds off the shield of Edge of Night? It's still got 5 seconds, plenty of time.
> [{quoted}](name=Gzen,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=H9QeyrEE,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-03-09T06:22:42.987+0000) > > You mean 5 seconds off the shield of Edge of Night? It's still got 5 seconds, plenty of time. Lethality, like ARP, is only effective against squishes. If you have problems against Wukongs or Renektons then don't pick squishy into them or pick a top that's safe and not easily countered/counterpicked.
Rioter Comments
Gzen (OCE)
: Riot can't admit Lethality is overtuned, nerf Varus instead.
Lethality was just nerfed tho. (At least the items with lethality were at least.)
: http://boards.oce.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour/Edu7E6Bp-introducing-the-emissaries OCE only, and meaningful participation of some kind is a requirement.
> [{quoted}](name=Seras Dragon,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=0f1d8HGz,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-07T09:10:32.829+0000) > > http://boards.oce.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/player-behaviour/Edu7E6Bp-introducing-the-emissaries > > OCE only, and meaningful participation of some kind is a requirement. Oh I see. I remember Emissaries being a thing a very long time ago on the NA forums.
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=YEbOTUAP,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-03-07T07:42:52.023+0000) > > trolling is bad! Not sure if you're the real Colonel J or not, but I remember you from my days trolling on NA GD before I kept getting banned.
> [{quoted}](name=Broken Scripts,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=YEbOTUAP,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-03-07T22:46:47.105+0000) > > Not sure if you're the real Colonel J or not, but I remember you from my days trolling on NA GD before I kept getting banned. What name did you go by?
Tameru (OCE)
: Well you don't have to buy the skins then
> [{quoted}](name=GeneralBoomer,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=ofb1hByJ,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2017-03-09T03:14:00.451+0000) > > Well you don't have to buy the skins then I'd prefer it not appear in the store at all.
: The idea is to prevent people taking advantage of it to dodge a bad select (someone is picking something you don't like etc) in promos (or just in general with no consequences. For the afkers, a penalty might seem harsh but the penalty exists to prevent it being abused. For afkers I'd be happy for them to just see the 5 min wait timer, but it's too easy to abuse that way.
> [{quoted}](name=Seras Dragon,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=0f1d8HGz,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-04T15:51:12.084+0000) > > The idea is to prevent people taking advantage of it to dodge a bad select (someone is picking something you don't like etc) in promos (or just in general with no consequences. For the afkers, a penalty might seem harsh but the penalty exists to prevent it being abused. For afkers I'd be happy for them to just see the 5 min wait timer, but it's too easy to abuse that way. Oi. What's with your fancy name and avatar? I want in. I'm The Sheriff after all.
: So What Happens to Those who Intent feed Every Other Game?
I imagine they get banned after a while.
ciaƓ (OCE)
: Umm where did i go wrong?
I heard that Mastery Score is based on gold earned and game time. Makes sense since supports don't go around CSing or killing much.
: fucking retarded riot fuck you
I'll neither agree or disagree with the topic name.
: I honestly have more fun trolling than I do playing the game.
Tameru (OCE)
: Undertale skins
Undertale SUCKS tho.
Malygos (OCE)
: I worked 6 hours with the man I have the biggest teen-tier cringe crush on while he told me about the struggle of having a long distance relationship with a girl in Europe :J It's not my fault he sends me signals.
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=62gJvLrG,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2017-02-16T06:27:46.932+0000) > > I worked 6 hours with the man I have the biggest teen-tier cringe crush on while he told me about the struggle of having a long distance relationship with a girl in Europe :J > > It's not my fault he sends me signals. wat kind of signals .3. ?
MrKoala (OCE)
: Make League Of Legends Great Again
I say go back to before season 1.
Rioter Comments
LUPIN lll (OCE)
: http://s3.postimg.org/kwas5m6z7/sheriff_in_town.jpg
> [{quoted}](name=ForwardSkies,realm=OCE,application-id=Ntey9fRZ,discussion-id=fHZ5ENIE,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-02-11T10:46:17.111+0000) > > http://s3.postimg.org/kwas5m6z7/sheriff_in_town.jpg Woody is a wannabe. I'm a real The Sheriff.
: Urgot jungle op?
It's not very good.
Rioter Comments
Malygos (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2017-02-07T16:33:22.725+0000) > > I wasn't arguing a free speech thing. > > Just that i'm being silenced. > > And I make sure to be very nice. It is actually the people who reply to me who are the rude ones! You're being pushed away from someone else's platform, not silenced. You could make the same comments here and your probably wouldn't get banne-- actually... this is Riot we're talking about here... You could make those same comments, you can speak the same way, say the same things somewhere else on the internet without infraction (assuming they tolerate it there). And riling people up / stirring the pot / poking the ant's nest, whatever you want to call it is a form of trolling on the internet and it's no surprise some places don't want to deal with it. You seem to be attempting discourse with libs who only want to hear their voice echoing, it's gross but if that's what they want and Mother Jones offers a place for it, then it's not really your place to disturb that peace. The last picture you linked seems to say it best: you shared unpopular opinions, but the people who use/moderate the website didn't want to see it. As much as I dislike echo chambers, if people want to sit in them, it's their decision. But yeah, Mother Jones would be silencing you IF they came after you and prevented you from speaking elsewhere.
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2017-02-08T08:55:41.295+0000) > > You're being pushed away from someone else's platform, not silenced. You could make the same comments here and your probably wouldn't get banne-- actually... this is Riot we're talking about here... > > You could make those same comments, you can speak the same way, say the same things somewhere else on the internet without infraction (assuming they tolerate it there). > > And riling people up / stirring the pot / poking the ant's nest, whatever you want to call it is a form of trolling on the internet and it's no surprise some places don't want to deal with it. You seem to be attempting discourse with libs who only want to hear their voice echoing, it's gross but if that's what they want and Mother Jones offers a place for it, then it's not really your place to disturb that peace. > > The last picture you linked seems to say it best: you shared unpopular opinions, but the people who use/moderate the website didn't want to see it. > > As much as I dislike echo chambers, if people want to sit in them, it's their decision. > > But yeah, Mother Jones would be silencing you IF they came after you and prevented you from speaking elsewhere. They're silencing me from their site tho ?_? Don't be so semantical.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=000100010000,timestamp=2017-02-07T04:54:58.903+0000) > > I'd give you my profile, but all my removed comments are hidden unless you're logged into my account. Nah don't give out your profile, it's not a safe move.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=0001000100000000,timestamp=2017-02-07T04:56:37.547+0000) > > Nah don't give out your profile, it's not a safe move. Here are some of my many removed comments and one user affirming my wrongful ban! https://i.gyazo.com/d492d0039bb75185758f29e8c4ea3e85.png https://i.gyazo.com/d326c40e1ffa9b8c87e793b2cd43023b.png https://i.gyazo.com/d2fb905ec4c62a8de3f3100d53f0f7e2.png https://i.gyazo.com/0cd27864af4f99241d654674d2a035f0.png https://i.gyazo.com/197664d76ce6928a0e5fc0fb91c20d72.png https://i.gyazo.com/2c48d29fed673570cb2bd582c77b0071.png https://i.gyazo.com/f70c132daa62ec54dc7168e7a3ca3940.png
Malygos (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2017-02-06T15:33:32.384+0000) > > What's the difference? https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2017-02-07T07:51:16.273+0000) > > https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png I wasn't arguing a free speech thing. Just that i'm being silenced. And I make sure to be very nice. It is actually the people who reply to me who are the rude ones!
Rioter Comments
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-02-06T09:19:53.527+0000) > > No, you're just being shooed away from someone else's platform. > > You're allowed to speak freely, that doesn't mean everyone should be forced to listen. Mother Jones (presumably) isn't stopping you from taking your thoughts elsewhere. It depends. Since it can be either just "I really don't want to deal with you" or an abuse of the system to steer the discussion in a way one wishes (censorship). The problem is that we're working with a lack of context in this case. If assuming OP wasn't sharing their own pov/topics/opinions in a whatever fashion that one feels "yeah I don't want to hear your opinions" but rather they were correcting stuff, they really shouldn't be blocked for it. I mean sure one can block others for correction, but it merely means they ain't cool. But idk.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=00010001,timestamp=2017-02-06T16:33:17.108+0000) > > It depends. Since it can be either just "I really don't want to deal with you" or an abuse of the system to steer the discussion in a way one wishes (censorship). > > The problem is that we're working with a lack of context in this case. > > If assuming OP wasn't sharing their own pov/topics/opinions in a whatever fashion that one feels "yeah I don't want to hear your opinions" but rather they were correcting stuff, they really shouldn't be blocked for it. I mean sure one can block others for correction, but it merely means they ain't cool. > > But idk. I'd give you my profile, but all my removed comments are hidden unless you're logged into my account.
Malygos (OCE)
: No, you're just being shooed away from someone else's platform. You're allowed to speak freely, that doesn't mean everyone should be forced to listen. Mother Jones (presumably) isn't stopping you from taking your thoughts elsewhere.
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=zRHiEIxg,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2017-02-06T09:19:53.527+0000) > > No, you're just being shooed away from someone else's platform. What's the difference?
Rioter Comments
Niji (OCE)
: Rest in Peace Lajneen. The best poster these boards have ever seen. Who will put the mentally weak people in their place now? Who will make support mains remember their place? Who will stand up for the rights of assassins all throughout Valoran. Lajneen was more than just a great poster, he was a god among men. I can only hope people here learn to follow in the examples he set, we may never reach perfection but we can try and chase it.
> [{quoted}](name=Niji,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=hv4Gd4Io,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2017-02-05T17:47:52.186+0000) > > Rest in Peace Lajneen. The best poster these boards have ever seen. Who will put the mentally weak people in their place now? Who will make support mains remember their place? Who will stand up for the rights of assassins all throughout Valoran. > > Lajneen was more than just a great poster, he was a god among men. I can only hope people here learn to follow in the examples he set, we may never reach perfection but we can try and chase it. I miss him... http://i.magaimg.net/img/1i0.gif
Rioter Comments
SamuelaM (OCE)
: Oce Garbage
Oi. Don't make fun of my OCE brethren.
Niji (OCE)
: I hate ANIME!
Good title, bad post.
Rioter Comments
: I NEED HELP WITH BLITZ!
HeartVine (OCE)
: Heartbroken
\>giving Riot money
HeartVine (OCE)
: 2016 is over
Greatest year ever. Brexit. Trump. Me becoming The Sheriff of OCE GD. Could've only been better if my man Mr. Abbott was still PM. Good dreams, sweet prince ;( https://i.sli.mg/XTIfGY.jpg
Malygos (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=wMs8PjeY,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2016-12-27T15:24:49.518+0000) > > I can't believe you AUs think nothing of eating roos... they're considered pests in most parts of the country
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=wMs8PjeY,comment-id=00070001,timestamp=2016-12-27T21:44:06.936+0000) > > they're considered pests in most parts of the country Does it say something that when people think of AU they think of roos, who are considered pests? https://i.sli.mg/fWBThB.png
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-28T05:06:08.327+0000) > > I'd just like a yes or no answer. No paragraphs of nothing. > > When gays were denied marriage, killed, or banned from being gay in the West, it was not motivated by Christianity at all? As previously explained, it had to do with Christianity, but it was not motivated by it, and instead religions like many other things are often used as a rationalisation and/or justification for the person/action's said motivation. Motivation usually comes from personal businesses or political beliefs. Much like how in a much simpler analogy, a murder may have to do with knives or guns, but obviously it's clearly not motivated by them. So, it's a No. But really, paragraphs exist to expand, clarify, explain and elaborate, you can't just say "give me a line and let's be done with it". Then we run into the risk of oversimplification. When the subject is simple yeah we do that, but when the topic is intricate, then it's not going to work.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-28T06:53:12.500+0000) > > As previously explained, it had to do with Christianity, but it was not motivated by it, and instead religions like many other things >are often used as a rationalisation and/or justification for the person/action's said motivation. Motivation usually comes >from personal businesses or political beliefs. What would it take for something to be "motivated" by a religion then? Or can that not ever happen?
Malygos (OCE)
: yo i love diving into politics on the internet for no particular reason but this was a thread about celebrating the australian police for protecting the public so good job piggies
> [{quoted}](name=Malygos,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2016-12-27T21:15:24.753+0000) > > yo i love diving into politics on the internet for no particular reason but this was a thread about celebrating the australian police for protecting the public > > so good job piggies I also heard there was a truck/van explosion with fuel in it, but the AU gov is being all hush hush about it. What was ever found out abotu it?
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-27T15:18:39.449+0000) > > I'd say a more accurate comparison of the IRA and ISIS is if the IRA quoted the Irish constitution to justify their actions, but there isn't any. > > And terrorism is more than just fear, but using that fear created to control you. > > In some middle eastern and african countries, sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic laws are in place using islamic figures and texts to justify it. Are these countries with these laws also somehow not motivated by Islam at all just like terrorists aren't, but instead "motivated by their own goals independent of Islam, though they use the text to justify and validate their motivation" ? > > When gays were could not get married, were the laws against it somehow not motivated by Christianity at all? The ISIS also attempted to quote doctrines from Islamic texts where they conveniently ignore all of the religion's 14 centuries worth of achievement and development just because the much MUCH earlier stuff seem to suit themselves better. And guess what, and they still got many things either straight up out of historical and cultural context, or that they just got it outright wrong. Why? Because Islam is not the reason, it's a tool for them, refer to the earlier analogy. Yes, terrorism is about using fear the control you, which is precisely why the media intentionally or otherwise spreading and amplifying the fear and creating divide FOR THEM rather than trying to tame and correctly inform the masses, isn't a great solution. All Abrahamic religions are sexist and homophobic to a certain extent, it's not something exclusive to Islam. However those things are **enforced **by religions and **not a product **of them (invented somewhere else but ended up being integrated into the religions). Sexism originated purely out of our agricultural society construct when proto-humans settled down and started farming, where we used the men to work in the fields and women staying at home tending the homes and caring the young, it was a model that worked practically during that time and so it was kept; and it is where the sexism became a thing as some overly alpha males believed that women are inferior or something. Homophobia is also a concept developed independently of religions, and it was entirely grown on the backs of the sole fact that homosexuals can not reproduce, which was deemed anti-societal, anti-nature and "wrong". Hence coming back to the original point, neither of these things originated from any specific religion, even though they are still hard-pressed against by many religious figures be them from Islam or Christianity or whatever. **Again much like the post earlier, just because someone uses something to twist, confirm and suit their own personal desires or ideal, it doesn't automatically outlaw the said thing on the basis of them being exploited. Religions is rarely the "motivation" as it is typically the case that they are the "justification" or "rationalisation" as opposed to being the cause or instigator of any specific event. As in the end of the day, a book while could have an agenda but it has no agency, however we have both and both in plentiful quantities.**
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-27T16:51:47.199+0000) > > The ISIS also attempted to quote doctrines from Islamic texts where they conveniently ignore all of the religion's 14 centuries worth of achievement and development just because the much MUCH earlier stuff seem to suit themselves better. And guess what, and they still got many things either straight up out of historical and cultural context, or that they just got it outright wrong. Why? Because Islam is not the reason, it's a tool for them, refer to the earlier analogy. > > Yes, terrorism is about using fear the control you, which is precisely why the media intentionally or otherwise spreading and amplifying the fear and creating divide FOR THEM rather than trying to tame and correctly inform the masses, isn't a great solution. > > All Abrahamic religions are sexist and homophobic to a certain extent, it's not something exclusive to Islam. However those things are **enforced **by religions and **not a product **of them. Sexism originated purely out of our agricultural society construct when proto-humans settled down and started farming, where we used the men to work in the fields and women staying at home tending the homes and caring the young, it was a model that worked practically during that time and so it was kept; and it is where the sexism became a thing as some overly alpha males believed that women are inferior or something. Homophobia is also a concept developed independently of religions, and it was entirely grown on the backs of the sole fact that homosexuals can not reproduce, which was deemed anti-societal, anti-nature and "wrong". Hence coming back to the original point, neither of these things originated from any specific religion, even though they are still hard-pressed against by many religious figures be them from Islam or Christianity or whatever. > > **Again much like the post earlier, just because someone uses something to twist, confirm and suit their own personal desires or ideal, it doesn't automatically outlaw the said thing on the basis of them being exploited. Religions is rarely the "motivation" as it is typically the case that they are the "justification" or "rationalisation" as opposed to being the cause or instigator of any specific event. As in the end of the day, a book while could have an agenda but it has no agency, however we have both and both in plentiful quantities.** I'd just like a yes or no answer. No paragraphs of nothing. When gays were denied marriage, killed, or banned from being gay in the West, it was not motivated by Christianity at all?
Niji (OCE)
: all I got for christmas is coal, 16 tons of it :(
> [{quoted}](name=Niji,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=VrnEpFwz,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2016-12-26T16:13:24.409+0000) > > all I got for christmas is coal, 16 tons of it :( https://i.sli.mg/TyhL3E.jpg
Sneed (OCE)
: christmas thread
Merry Christmas you AUs.
: What do you AUs think of roo meat?
I can't believe you AUs think nothing of eating roos...
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T16:07:46.118+0000) > > You feel terrorism is on-par with murder/homocide/robbery? The latter 3 effect relatively few persons compared to terrorism. Ignoring terrorism will stop terrorism as opposed to reducing as many terrorist threats as possible? What's the difference between terrorism and crimes that they require vastly different handling methods and approaches? Terrorism IS a crime. There is virtually no difference between terrorism and say robbing bank, the only fundamental difference is in what they're after, one is after some form of political gain while the other is after money. But for some reason, we're supposed to fear the terrorism but feel indifferent about murder/homicide and robbery. Let's also look at it this way, statistically, when you die to some causes there's a very high chance that you either: * Died in the traffic in some manner, most likely car crashes. * Died to an accident of some manner. * Died to some kind of disease and sickness, especially cancer. * Died to some kind of substance overdose, smoking and alcohol in particular. * Died to domestic-level violence, as in local murder cases fueled by trivial conflicts, random acts of murder that happened for no apparent reason, or being clubbed to death by your mentally unstable neighbour. And these aren't just more likely, no, you're VASTLY more likely (ranges from being thousands of times more likely to hundreds of thousands of times more likely) to die from any of those causes than being blown up by a terrorist. What's more, according to the figure from a couple years ago, you're even more likely to die from a brain-parasite, which is almost completely unheard of unless you work full-time in the hospitals, than dying to terrorists. But we only see threats in terrorism, while we're totally fine with the rest. When murder/homicide/robbery happens, what do we do? We condemn the criminal; we raise public awareness; we elaborate on how to deal with as well as how the cases were dealt with as any future update if necessary; and we raise security to deal with them. When terrorism happens, what do we do? We condemn the criminal and everyone that's associated with them; we spread fear and lead false impression/perception on its details; we pass policies that target groups of people at the same time rather than dealing with the criminals themselves specifically, and carrying it out; we raise security against the people who have something in common with the terrorists and carve the divide into your society; and we completely ignore all of the social issues and backlash that come after this kind of mis-handling and keep on grinding this gear on and on. There is a strong dissonance between how we handled the 2, even through they are both criminal activities. What's more, terrorism by definition is about making you afraid so that their goal and message comes easier to come across as they could essentially force a demand being fulfilled based on manipulation of fear. Yet we're somehow giving in into that method, right into the center of it, when terrorism incidents happen, even though we have no issues facing other crimes sensibly. This is really not okay. To not dance to the tune is far from being ignorant of the issue at hand, there is a difference. All it really comes down to is just NOT being emotionally involved and throw rationality out of the window every time something remotely close to terrorism happens, even though we deal with all sorts of other nasty crimes just fine but somehow terrorism is an exception. This bias is utterly irrational and nonsensical, and it's also fatal to any and everybody besides the terrorists themselves. And again, that's not okay. It's not ignoring, and I'm not advocating so, but I'm saying that we need to look and deal with it rationally, just like what and how do it when it comes to general crimes as a whole. > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=00010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T16:07:46.118+0000) > So... Groups like ISIS aren't "real muslims" or not affiliated with/motivated by Islam at all? Define "real muslim". If you start saying "you can only be a real muslim if you hate other religions, are barbaric, are territorial and vicious, and wants to conquer the world and rid off anybody who doesn't believe in Islam....." Then I would have to stop you and instruct you to read beyond viral media for a couple days before I ask you to come back and do it again. Anyone who believes in teaching passed on by Islamic figures and text in a worship/spiritual manner or that they simply identify themselves to be apart of the Islamic religious community, is a muslim, it's simple as that. And their texts, just like any other texts, have good things, and outdated things. It really means nothing as a whole. Are the member of ISIS muslims? Yeah, or at least a good majority of them are. No doubt. But are they motivated by Islam? No. They are motivated by their own goals independent of Islam, though they use the text to justify and validate their motivation. This is not something exclusive to religious criminals, this is a trait shared by almost all criminals, because they want to feel that what they're doing is right, that they have the stance to say that there is nothing wrong with them or their actions, and ISIS is not any different. But just like the previous point earlier in this post, we tend to treat them completely separated for some reason. Let's make a comparison case: Remember the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the late 60s that functioned for 30 something years until mid-2000s came around, who went on a rampage causing some 70-80 individual bombing incidents across that 3 decade period, while dressing themselves as the "true Irish who want nothing to do with the British"? Sounds familiar doesn't it? Oh yeah, it sounds an awful lot like ISIS, only that it's less hardcore but still very much so. Now would we looking back at the time period, claim that the IRAs are in fact, the representation of real and true Irish people, or that they're motivated by the virtue of being Irish? You won't, because they weren't and still aren't. They are just a bunch of politically motivated and "practical-minded" (and I use the term very loosely) individuals who believe they are "doing the right thing" by placing big names and cause onto themselves to try and justify their actions, that is all. And ISIS is no different. Much like IRA doesn't represent the Irish people, ISIS does not represent Islam or muslims. Understand that crime does not carry by association, and that correlation does not imply causation. Remember these 2 key phrases well, they will take your thinking wide, far and high.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T17:36:52.168+0000) > > What's the difference between terrorism and crimes that they require vastly different handling methods and approaches? Terrorism IS a crime. > > There is virtually no difference between terrorism and say robbing bank, the only fundamental difference is in what they're after, one is after some form of political gain while the other is after money. But for some reason, we're supposed to fear the terrorism but feel indifferent about murder/homicide and robbery. > > Let's also look at it this way, statistically, when you die to some causes there's a very high chance that you either: > > * Died in the traffic in some manner, most likely car crashes. > * Died to an accident of some manner. > * Died to some kind of disease and sickness, especially cancer. > * Died to some kind of substance overdose, smoking and alcohol in particular. > * Died to domestic-level violence, as in local murder cases fueled by trivial conflicts, random acts of murder that happened for no apparent reason, or being clubbed to death by your mentally unstable neighbour. > > And these aren't just more likely, no, you're VASTLY more likely (ranges from being thousands of times more likely to hundreds of thousands of times more likely) to die from any of those causes than being blown up by a terrorist. What's more, according to the figure from a couple years ago, you're even more likely to die from a brain-parasite, which is almost completely unheard of unless you work full-time in the hospitals, than dying to terrorists. > > But we only see threats in terrorism, while we're totally fine with the rest. > > When murder/homicide/robbery happens, what do we do? We condemn the criminal; we raise public awareness; we elaborate on how to deal with as well as how the cases were dealt with as any future update if necessary; and we raise security to deal with them. > > When terrorism happens, what do we do? We condemn the criminal and everyone that's associated with them; we spread fear and lead false impression/perception on its details; we pass policies that target groups of people at the same time rather than dealing with the criminals themselves specifically, and carrying it out; we raise security against the people who have something in common with the terrorists and carve the divide into your society; and we completely ignore all of the social issues and backlash that come after this kind of mis-handling and keep on grinding this gear on and on. > > There is a strong dissonance between how we handled the 2, even through they are both criminal activities. What's more, terrorism by definition is about making you afraid so that their goal and message comes easier to come across as they could essentially force a demand being fulfilled based on manipulation of fear. Yet we're somehow giving in into that method, right into the center of it, when terrorism incidents happen, even though we have no issues facing other crimes sensibly. This is really not okay. > > To not dance to the tune is far from being ignorant of the issue at hand, there is a difference. All it really comes down to is just NOT being emotionally involved and throw rationality out of the window every time something remotely close to terrorism happens, even though we deal with all sorts of other nasty crimes just fine but somehow terrorism is an exception. This bias is utterly irrational and nonsensical, and it's also fatal to any and everybody besides the terrorists themselves. And again, that's not okay. > > It's not ignoring, and I'm not advocating so, but I'm saying that we need to look and deal with it rationally, just like what and how do it when it comes to general crimes as a whole. > > Define "real muslim". > > If you start saying "you can only be a real muslim if you hate other religions, are barbaric, are territorial and vicious, and wants to conquer the world and rid off anybody who doesn't believe in Islam....." Then I would have to stop you and instruct you to read beyond viral media for a couple days before I ask you to come back and do it again. > > Anyone who believes in teaching passed on by Islamic figures and text in a worship/spiritual manner or that they simply identify themselves to be apart of the Islamic religious community, is a muslim, it's simple as that. And their texts, just like any other texts, have good things, and outdated things. It really means nothing as a whole. > > Are the member of ISIS muslims? Yeah, or at least a good majority of them are. No doubt. > > But are they motivated by Islam? No. They are motivated by their own goals independent of Islam, though they use the text to justify and validate their motivation. This is not something exclusive to religious criminals, this is a trait shared by almost all criminals, because they want to feel that what they're doing is right, that they have the stance to say that there is nothing wrong with them or their actions, and ISIS is not any different. > > But just like the previous point earlier in this post, we tend to treat them completely separated for some reason. > > Let's make a comparison case: Remember the Irish Republican Army (IRA) from the late 60s that functioned for 30 something years until mid-2000s came around, who went on a rampage causing some 70-80 individual bombing incidents across that 3 decade period, while dressing themselves as the "true Irish who want nothing to do with the British"? Sounds familiar doesn't it? Oh yeah, it sounds an awful lot like ISIS, only that it's less hardcore but still very much so. > > Now would we looking back at the time period, claim that the IRAs are in fact, the representation of real and true Irish people, or that they're motivated by the virtue of being Irish? You won't, because they weren't and still aren't. They are just a bunch of politically motivated and "practical-minded" (and I use the term very loosely) individuals who believe they are "doing the right thing" by placing big names and cause onto themselves to try and justify their actions, that is all. > > And ISIS is no different. Much like IRA doesn't represent the Irish people, ISIS does not represent Islam or muslims. > > Understand that crime does not carry by association, and that correlation does not imply causation. Remember these 2 key phrases well, they will take your thinking wide, far and high. I'd say a more accurate comparison of the IRA and ISIS is if the IRA quoted the Irish constitution to justify their actions, but there isn't any. And terrorism is more than just fear, but using that fear created to control you. In some middle eastern and african countries, sexist, misogynistic, and homophobic laws are in place using islamic figures and texts to justify it. Are these countries with these laws also somehow not motivated by Islam at all just like terrorists aren't, but instead "motivated by their own goals independent of Islam, though they use the text to justify and validate their motivation" ? When gays were could not get married, were the laws against it somehow not motivated by Christianity at all?
: > The latter 3 effect relatively few persons compared to terrorism Murder/homicide and robbery affect many many times more people than terrorism does, even in the US where the threat of terrorism is paraded around as the world's worst crisis in decades. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying terrorism isn't bad, but the claims are rather disproportionate to the true state of things. As far as the US is concerned [this](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/) should give you some interesting facts about terrorism vs other violent deaths, the tl;dr being 71 terrorist deaths vs 301,797 gun related deaths (2005-2015). [Homicide specific stats say 15,809 in 2014 alone.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) For some more comparison, [in 2015 alone 54,619 people died from pneumonia and influenza in the US, and 105,718 people were killed by accidental injuries.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf#019) > Ignoring terrorism will stop terrorism as opposed to reducing as many terrorist threats as possible? To an extent, yes. A large reason ISIS gained so much traction was because of media attention. They suddenly had a means to reach out to people they would have never otherwise seen. Not that the governments should ignore them, but the media will do whatever it takes to get that click, even if that means giving these people the attention and the fear that they want, and as soon as the government jumps on that bandwagon they have a victory. > So... Groups like ISIS aren't "real muslims" or not affiliated with/motivated by Islam at all? I think there's been a bit of a miscommunication between you too, but ultimately, to label ISIS as real Muslims is to label all people who consider themselves real Muslims as ISIS. They are a group of people with a set of beliefs, not unlike how there are different (sometimes vastly so) factions in Christianity. People with any sort of sound moral compass agree that it's a pretty dodgy set of beliefs but it is what it is. Whether it's an Islam ideology or not, it is their ideology and that is what they have labelled it.
> [{quoted}](name=Seras Dragon,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2016-12-24T16:52:05.647+0000) > > Murder/homicide and robbery affect many many times more people than terrorism does, even in the US where the threat of terrorism is paraded around as the world's worst crisis in decades. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying terrorism isn't bad, but the claims are rather disproportionate to the true state of things. As far as the US is concerned [this](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/) should give you some interesting facts about terrorism vs other violent deaths, the tl;dr being 71 terrorist deaths vs 301,797 gun related deaths (2005-2015). > > [Homicide specific stats say 15,809 in 2014 alone.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) > > For some more comparison, [in 2015 alone 54,619 people died from pneumonia and influenza in the US, and 105,718 people were killed by accidental injuries.](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus15.pdf#019) > > To an extent, yes. A large reason ISIS gained so much traction was because of media attention. They suddenly had a means to reach out to people they would have never otherwise seen. Not that the governments should ignore them, but the media will do whatever it takes to get that click, even if that means giving these people the attention and the fear that they want, and as soon as the government jumps on that bandwagon they have a victory. > > I think there's been a bit of a miscommunication between you too, but ultimately, to label ISIS as real Muslims is to label all people who consider themselves real Muslims as ISIS. They are a group of people with a set of beliefs, not unlike how there are different (sometimes vastly so) factions in Christianity. People with any sort of sound moral compass agree that it's a pretty dodgy set of beliefs but it is what it is. Whether it's an Islam ideology or not, it is their ideology and that is what they have labelled it. Well of course murder/robberies affect more people when you combine them all together, but as singular events terrorism effects more. To think that terrorism should be reported the same as murders/robberies feels off. I did not say ISIS are real muslims, but posed a question to the person. To honestly believe terrorism (not ALL terrorism obviously) doesn't happen because of Islam, the very extremist/fundamentalist parts/sects of it, is ridiculous.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Colonel J,realm=NA,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T06:46:23.369+0000) > > Hear hear! > > https://i.sli.mg/OgfhyG.png To clarify on it, I'm going to use this as a platform to post the following: Terrorism happens in spite of Islam, not because of it. How Islam ended up getting entangled with terrorism is a very long history that can't be generalised, it has a lot to do with geo-politics, history, and certain aspects of the religion itself that may or may not function as a catalyst of the equation. One needs to read a bit to really get a sense of its real scale and its intricacy. Geo-politics and history you could read them on your own time, I am not going to go beyond the basics here as it would be endless. What I could briefly touch on is what does Islam actually has to do with terrorism in its own context. Islam is not a centralised religion. it while does not allow different variation of their text, they do allow different interpretations of it. In terms of its context, your interpretation of Islam is just as solid and valid as mine, as long as both of us are not hacks who make baseless assumptions, both of our take on the religion are supposedly equally as valid. This is cool, not bad. And? The reason why Islam is even brought into the picture is that Islam fundamentally allows the use of force to achieve a certain end, if the cause is just. The problem begins to really seep in when "end" and "just" are all up in the air for interpretations. What's bad is that while good people would interpret it the positive way, and well the bad people would just interpret it the negative way, or ways that serve their tarded goal and desire; and the religion allows that purely out of fundamentals of not questioning one's faith and their interpretation of it. This doesn't just happen in Islam, this happens in almost every religion. Islam is just, as far as I know, the only one in the mainstream religion to confirm that anyone's interpretation of their faith as valid, while the other ones have ended up generally only allowing a certain amount of flexibility extending from the central agenda, and this property of Islam has more or less opened the flood-gate to nutjobs and nonsense taking advantage of it. Then you have the radicals who would take the religion's words out and put it behind their own intent and run with it, and you get what you see. How are we supposed to fix this? I have no idea, but I hope a solution, a fair solution, could be found soon. BUT, What about the **motivation**, where do they originate? Well to answer the question in its simplest form, it's politics. The religion is just a vehicle, it's not the driver. And well, countries that are in poorer conditions, being oppressed, or war-torn tend to produce more people who are more politically radicalised. It's not something exclusive to anybody, if your back is against the wall, you'll bite, it's just how it is. And instead of pointing fingers at someone who have their backs against the wall, or worse even try to push them onto it, try to help them is the morally better and more beneficial solution. Issues should be resolved by mutual cooperation, or really whatever that's not what we're doing now. I absolutely agree with Essembie that alienation does NOT resolve problems. Again, going back to the main point: Terrorism happens despite of Islam, not because of it. And the news' portrayal of Islam's role in today's scene is only shallowly binary (either "Islam is totally okay" or "Islam is totally not okay") at best, insulting at worst, and it's clearly not helping.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T10:32:28.194+0000) > > Like how murder/homicide or robbery are portrayed, which is just "yeah this happens, they are retards, they've been arrested (or currently being investigated), and kids don't do this at home". You feel terrorism is on-par with murder/homocide/robbery? The latter 3 effect relatively few persons compared to terrorism. Ignoring terrorism will stop terrorism as opposed to reducing as many terrorist threats as possible? > [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2016-12-24T11:07:43.538+0000) > > To clarify on it, I'm going to use this as a platform to post the following: > > Terrorism happens despite of Islam, not because of it. So... Groups like ISIS aren't "real muslims" or not affiliated with/motivated by Islam at all?
Mozzie25 (OCE)
: 100% agree. People like Trump and Hanson aren't stopping terrorists. There just giving them more ammunition. It's pretty easy to say the west hates all Muslims when you have political leaders trying to ban them from countries.
> [{quoted}](name=Mozzie25,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2016-12-24T00:17:59.998+0000) > > 100% agree. People like Trump and Hanson aren't stopping terrorists. There just giving them more ammunition. It's pretty easy to say the west hates all Muslims when you have political leaders trying to ban them from countries. Hear hear! https://i.sli.mg/OgfhyG.png
SEKAI (OCE)
: While sad to read this on the day before Christmas, but I would still congratulate the police for stopping the plot and prevent the disasters from ever happening. They are the heroes who deserve the most cookies. I truly appreciate and respect their position, service and courage to do such jobs (though not all, I hate the bully cops that do exist). I really do mean it, when the police are cool, they are really cool. That said, I have some problems with news media though. INCOMING WALL YOU ARE WARNED. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. > ... which police said was inspired by the Islamic State (IS) group. > ... "Certainly these [people] are self-radicalised, we believe, but inspired by ISIS and ISIS propaganda." This appears in news often, but it's not really true. They are inspired by the _portrayal_ of those terrorist groups. Similar to how the mass shooting never stops in the US, the reason why there are so many terrorists, or pseudo-terrorists, thesedays is that many of them are strictly chasing after the fame of being a terrorist. Or copy-catting if you will. Again, just like how mass-shooters inspires more mass-shooters in the US. But why though? The answer is incredibly simple: It's the new's portrayal. Or more specifically, the MASS MEDIA news' portrayal. From here on, every "news" I mentioned below would mean I said "mass media news". And do note: I don't just say "news" as the news here in AU, or in the US, but I mean all or at least a good majority of the news as a whole. News is not an objective media, in fact no media really is, but the point is that News is some of the most subjective you could ever find despite being supposedly bias free in theory, as it's really just a kind of program that tells people what happens around the world in the end of the day. The issues though, is we always end up getting a skewed and/or distorted vision of the world through selective and biased reporting of the news, be it intentional or not so. Now it's not like there's conspiracy or anything (though I wouldn't be surprised 1 bit if there's actually a shit ton of it), the problem is that news only reports what **sells**. And what sells better? Drama. So they sell conflicts because that usually make the drama. Hence the news become a giant board where everyone hate everything and urging you to do it the same, while 1 board's narrative may very well contradict with another from the very same news outlet. Worse, a lot of news outlets have a huge tendency to oversimplify real and complicated issues for whatever reasons. Thus rather than educating people of the matter across the world and why it came into being that way, many times it merely strives to confirm the pre-existing stigma, impression, stereotype or myths of certain subjects. Because agreement also means more sales. What this all mounts up to is that criminals get an incredibly big and undeserving mount of spotlight from the news media, while they also oversimplify the said criminals into cartoon traits. This creates the death spiral of the never-ending amount of terrorists, just like how the never-stopping amount mass-shooters came to be. If you still question why, because of 2 reasons: 1. Because news often give criminals way too much spotlight, it's simply bound to inspire some nutjobs to go "hey I could be famous too". If you think that's crazy and impossible, then that's precisely why so many nutcases go with the idea. Copycat crime is a very real thing, and news are only making it worse. 2. Because when the news oversimplify the criminals' whatever background, it also often wanders into the demonisation and insult territory for that said background. What happens is that there will be those who personally share the background with the said criminal and would feel the news is slapping them in the face for no reason, or that some others could become sympathetic with the said criminals and feel that they were misunderstood or oppressed, and thus they would end up becoming the criminals themselves to try and conduct their impression of justice themselves. Not to mention, for every scandal, every mass-shooting, every rape cases and ever terror plot. There will always be a reverse-crime where the "righteous", or those who claim to be, would out of hatred or anger conduct crimes themselves against those who are merely associated with the criminal reported for no apparent reason other than "XXX people like you are criminals". There have been murder, attempted murder, mass-shooting, defamation, assaulting & harassment, attacking via weapons (guns and grenades), discrimination or even terror plots from all kinds of reverse-crimes (let's not even get to the state-sponsored ones, really I don't want to go there because of all the filth). And guess what? News rarely run this kind of report (online news have lesser problems because you could actually find reports of such things), again for some reason. Also then the worst of the worst, which I've briefly touched up previously, is the cherry-picking. Oh dear, the cherry. What if I told you that many perceptions in this world implied through the news media is actually false? What if say I told you that you have a VASTLY higher chance to die in the traffic while you're on your way to school or work from the usual suspects of vehicle-related causes (such as drunk driving or speeding), than say being blown or shot by a criminal or terrorist? This is the kind of problem with news, the cherry-picking, which again, originates from the innate desire to sell their papers rather than informing people about them. This creates a dynamic where we believe in many things, and the vast majority of them are factually, statistically and actually false, though not because of false information, but because of false suggestions. This false perception of the world is really the most dangerous aspect of the news media. In short, the entire news industry is just a clusterfk overall really (but I guess online news are definitely less of an evil in this regard). What's even worst to think about is that news are still functioning under the pretense of "informing the world" when they are ironically many of the reasons why the issues they're reporting have even gotten THIS bad to begin with, and they're unknowingly (or even knowingly, but I won't assume) pushing people further and further away from not only not reaching and actually solving those problems, but also turning the people against each other, due to the rift of divide between demographics and individuals the news media has unfortunately created over the years and decades. The only truly unbiased section of the news is really just the financial reports, weather forecasts and maybe sports. The rest is just a giant vicious cycle with the news media acting as one of the biggest pillar to it, it's a businesses that prays to have blood shed everyday so it will have something to talk about and get sales, and it's not getting away anytime soon. News can be great, in fact it's so in theory. Though maybe not so much in practice atm, and it's such a shame.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2016-12-23T17:04:44.042+0000) > > build wall How SHOULD terrorists be portrayed :thinking: ?
Essembie (OCE)
: The sure fire way to breed more terrorists is to alienate a whole section of society in politics and media. The fear these politicians prey on is self fulfilling.
> [{quoted}](name=Essembie,realm=OCE,application-id=dQOcTl8O,discussion-id=UohO0Qmx,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-12-24T00:05:45.609+0000) > > The sure fire way to breed more terrorists is to alienate a whole section of society in politics and media. The fear these politicians prey on is self fulfilling. I agree completely. https://i.sli.mg/yQ5Cnz.jpg
Show more

Colonel J

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion