Hundreds of women assaulted in German NYE celebrations

[ViolentPanda]

I am on the left. I have every right to dissent and disagree with shite that is written as dogma.

Please quantify your leftism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which is why you just call people wankers and degenerates...

It's called "projection".

 

[andysays]

Well if you're not intending to quote directly you really shouldn't use " " quotation marks. They signify that you are indeed attributing the words to someone specifically, so it's easy to see how the confusion has arisen from your carelessness...

If I'm quoting someone here, I use the reply function. If I'm I'm quoting an online article I include a link and use the quote function, both of which indicate that something is a direct quote, and where that quote comes from. If it's a paraphrase of an idea which isn't mine, I use quotation marks to indicate that.

That's a pretty standard way of doing it, I would have thought, but if you can suggest another better way that can I indicate that something like the trope I'm referring to is a trope, and not my words/my opinion, I'll give it a try.

...It's a good post which I broadly agree with and will comment on later

Look forward to it

 

[ViolentPanda]

andy, that great response above does it refer to the hundreds of women , the police, or both?

You disgust me.

It refers to Casually Red, you daft fucker.

 

[andysays]

It's called "projection".

That's the conclusion I've come to about much of his posting as well - he takes his idea of what he thinks are the characteristics, opinions, behaviour of his fantasy hate figure, the degenerate leftie, and he then projects them on to anyone and everyone who might vaguely qualify in some way.

 

[Spymaster]

If it's a paraphrase of an idea which isn't mine, I use quotation marks to indicate that.

Well again, that's an incorrect use of the (" ") quotation marks that you used. To paraphrase you could give (' ') a go, or nothing. That way, this confusion wouldn't have occurred.

That's a pretty standard way of doing it, I would have thought, but if you can suggest another better way that can I indicate that something like the trope I'm referring to is a trope, and not my words/my opinion, I'll give it a try.

Job done.

 

[bimble]

It refers to Casually Red, you daft fucker.

ok thanks. really helpful post. Is it bad manners to call women cunts around here? Or wankers? Those are still missing from my accolades after all this time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That article isn't appologism its denial. People who refuse to condemn that article whilst warbling on about what's wrong with me are of course free to do as they like but i'm glad the revolution isn't coming anytime soon, don't much fancy living in a utopia run by Dietmar Henner & friends.

Henning.

 

[Spymaster]

Is it bad manners to call women cunts around here? Or wankers?

Apparently, "cunt" and "wanker" to women are ok here because they're not gender specific. "Bitch" and "cow" however, can get you into hot water.

 

[andysays]

Well again, that's an incorrect use of the (" ") quotation marks that you used. To paraphrase you should give (' ') a go. That way, this confusion wouldn't have occurred.

Job done.

I'll try that in future, even though the " ' " symbol looks to me like an apostrophe and so even less appropriate. Maybe we need an "air quotes" symbol something like this

 

[ViolentPanda]

ok thanks. really helpful post. Is it bad manners to call women cunts around here? Or wankers? Those are still missing from my accolades after all this time.

It's not about your sex, your gender, or your reproductive organs. It's about you asking a stupid question - one which a quick glimpse at the post above andysays 's post would have revealed the answer to.
Act like a daft fucker and I'll call you a daft fucker, regardless of your sex, gender or bits.

 

[andysays]

ok thanks. really helpful post. Is it bad manners to call women cunts around here? Or wankers? Those are still missing from my accolades after all this time.

Tip for the future, all mentions of "degenerate lefties" also refer to CR, unless specifically attributed to someone else

 

[Spymaster]

I'll try that in future ...

Good stuff. Wouldn't want anyone accusing you of lying.

 

[andysays]

It's not about your sex, your gender, or your reproductive organs. It's about you asking a stupid question - one which a quick glimpse at the post above andysays 's post would have revealed the answer to.
Act like a daft fucker and I'll call you a daft fucker, regardless of your sex, gender or bits.

I'm glad at least one person is paying attention, just a shame you're about 24 hours too late

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why are you taking this tone to a woman on a thread about women being raped?

Because we don't live in a paradise where status as a woman renders woman inviolable.

 

[bimble]

It's not about your sex, your gender, or your reproductive organs. It's about you asking a stupid question - one which a quick glimpse at the post above andysays 's post would have revealed the answer to.
Act like a daft fucker and I'll call you a daft fucker, regardless of your sex, gender or bits.

I got confused, because the post above was this one:

Well we've heard your opinion loud and clear 2 pages back. You've clearly agreed with the ..scummy...article that the cologne mass sexual assault is a myth , a myth propagated by a false police report . And you've accused Bimble and I'd presume anyone else who doesn't go along with that of willingly being " spoon fed " anti foreigner propaganda by a rabid media for believing it did happen .
Post #4569
So that just leaves us with all these inconvenient women who claim they were , actually, sexually assaulted by hundreds of North African migrants who were shielded by hundreds more egging them on . And who complain media, politicians and police colluded in a wall of silence for days afterwards, something the German state broadcaster has actually apologised for doing .

Are they lying " nazi whores " then ? or just plain ordinary liars of un identified political affiliation. Because matey, either those women are full of shit or you, your fellow travellers and that article are . No getting away from it . And personally I don't think those hundreds of women made those horrific stories up . No matter how much you obfuscate and squirm around the issue .

So I asked which bit of that andy was calling a lie, and you're explaining that it's all of it?
I still don't follow. If andy thinks the leaked police report was false / embellished then he also thinks the women who make up the subject of that report were lying.
Or what?
If the women were not lying, and so there really were hundreds of genuine reported sexual assaults in the square that night, then what was embellished / false in the police report?
I don't see how he can have it both ways, really. Explain if you can. That's what I was asking.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well if you're not intending to quote directly you really shouldn't use " " quotation marks. They signify that you are indeed attributing the words to someone specifically, so it's easy to see how the confusion has arisen from your carelessness.

It's a good post which I broadly agree with and will comment on later.

Most people learn at about age 13 that "quotation marks" don't just pertain to quotation, but also to emphasis.
Perhaps you were bunking off on that day/week, and missed the class?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm glad at least one person is paying attention, just a shame you're about 24 hours too late

Wasn't posting much yesterday, as local events required my presence elsewhere.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I got confused, because the post above was this one:



So I asked which bit of that andy was calling a lie, and you're explaining that it's all of it?
I still don't follow. If andy thinks the leaked police report was false / embellished then he also thinks the women who make up the subject of that report were lying.
Or what?
If the women were not lying, and so there really were hundreds of genuine reported sexual assaults in the square that night, then what was embellished / false in the police report?
I don't see how he can have it both ways, really. Explain if you can. That's what I was asking.

He was calling CR's claims about him in the post you've cited a lie. It's obvious if you're reading with an open mind, and in context to the thread. The Goebbels cite is marking out that however many times CR repeats his various calumnies, nobody will believe them - that CR is in that way, the antithesis of Goebbels.

 

[Spymaster]

Most people learn at about age 13 that "quotation marks" don't just pertain to quotation, but also to emphasis.

Ah, but Andy has clearly stated that he was seeking to paraphrase a "trope", hence not emphasising.

Your ejaculation is therefore, misplaced.

 

[bimble]

He was calling CR's claims about him in the post you've cited a lie. It's obvious if you're reading with an open mind, and in context to the thread. The Goebbels cite is marking out that however many times CR repeats his various calumnies, nobody will believe them - that CR is in that way, the antithesis of Goebbels.

But andy says he believes the women but thinks the police report was false. I don't get that, it makes no sense far as I can see. And that's the subject of CR's post.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I got confused, because the post above was this one:



So I asked which bit of that andy was calling a lie, and you're explaining that it's all of it?
I still don't follow. If andy thinks the leaked police report was false / embellished then he also thinks the women who make up the subject of that report were lying.
Or what?
If the women were not lying, and so there really were hundreds of genuine reported sexual assaults in the square that night, then what was embellished / false in the police report?
I don't see how he can have it both ways, really. Explain if you can. That's what I was asking.

In andysays 's graphical reply to CR, it's not about women lying or not lying - that much is, dare I say it, pretty obvious. It's about CR's bullshit.
That you immediately took it to be a comment on the behaviour of women in Cologne, shows either a lack of analysis, or a willingness to respond to perceived, rather than actual points. Neither do you any favours, in terms of presenting a convincing - or even a factually "right"/correct argument.

 

[andysays]

I got confused, because the post above was this one:



So I asked which bit of that andy was calling a lie, and you're explaining that it's all of it?
I still don't follow. If andy thinks the leaked police report was false / embellished then he also thinks the women who make up the subject of that report were lying.
Or what?
If the women were not lying, and so there really were hundreds of genuine reported sexual assaults in the square that night, then what was embellished / false in the police report?
I don't see how he can have it both ways, really. Explain if you can. That's what I was asking.

To attempt to clarify this, pretty much everything in CR's post in response to me is a lie, a misrepresentation, a projection of what he thinks "degenerate lefties" are saying/thinking/doing.

I've never said I think the victims are lying for instance, I've never said that the Cologne assaults never happened, or that they weren't largely committed by people described by the victims as foreigners, who subsequently turned out to be mainly North African.

What I have done, and what I will continue to do for as long as I think it's necessary, is to challenge the specific lies and distortions in the media and on this thread, and the lapsing into far right tropes, either deliberately or subconciously in the media and on this thread.

The main person who's doing all that here, explicitly and deliberately, is Casually Red. I don't hesitate to say that, because it should be clear for anyone who's read his posts over time on this site to see the sort of shit he pulls.

You, bimble, have come out with various distortions and misrepresentations of other people's postings on this thread, and you've also seemed to me to lapse into or regurgitate right wing tropes, though whether you're doing it deliberately or simply out of stupidity/carelessness/a genuine inability to read and properly understand I neither know nor care.

 

[andysays]

But andy says he believes the women but thinks the police report was false. I don't get that, it makes no sense far as I can see. And that's the subject of CR's post.

If you can point out specifically where you think I said the police report was false, I will attempt to explain where/how you've got the wrong end of the stick

 

[ViolentPanda]

But andy says he believes the women but thinks the police report was false. I don't get that, it makes no sense far as I can see. And that's the subject of CR's post.

You know that Goebbels fella? Besides his propaganda accomplishments, he was also fairly good at presentational matters - organisational responses etc. He understood that if you institutionalise certain predicates into the way groups of people think, you can affect their responses. Is it so difficult to believe that senior coppers haven't been somewhat "indoctrinated" by ruling class attitudes into "managing" such issues to reflect what they believe that their political masters would like to see?
Certainly, I'd always look at the composition of such structures before relying - or not relying, as the case may be - on the words of state or quasi-state bodies. They all have agendas.

 

[bimble]

Can't do quoting on phone. But what was it about the wsws thing that you agreed with then? I thought it was that bit. If not that then what?

 

[bimble]

You know that Goebbels fella? Besides his propaganda accomplishments, he was also fairly good at presentational matters - organisational responses etc. He understood that if you institutionalise certain predicates into the way groups of people think, you can affect their responses. Is it so difficult to believe that senior coppers haven't been somewhat "indoctrinated" by ruling class attitudes into "managing" such issues to reflect what they believe that their political masters would like to see?
Certainly, I'd always look at the composition of such structures before relying - or not relying, as the case may be - on the words of state or quasi-state bodies. They all have agendas.

Sure. The police report were talking about though, the investigation into who leaked it to the press is ongoing. If it was false / embellished, then you're saying the numbers we've been told about reported victims that night are false, is that right? Augmented by the police then, to further their own agenda or something. It's all a bit desperate this, I reckon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure. The police report were talking about though, the investigation into who leaked it to the press is ongoing. If it was false / embellished, then you're saying the numbers we've been told about reported victims that night are false, is that right? Augmented by the police then, to further their own agenda or something. It's all a bit desperate this, I reckon.

No, I'm saying that if you look at the attitude* toward immigration from Syria that fuelled the "surge" in the latter half of 2015, you'll see a reason (or two) for why the establishment might have wished to downplay the seriousness of what happened.

*There's an attitude among the German political class that the demographic currently fleeing Syria - the professional middle classes - are good fodder for mid-to-long term German capitalism, at a short term cost.

 

[andysays]

Can't do quoting on phone.

You seem to be managing pretty well, including your various replies to VP

But what was it about the wsws thing that you agreed with then? I thought it was that bit. If not that then what?

You find the specific post of mine you want to take issue with and quote it so we can all see what it is you're accusing me of saying, otherwise I'm going to conclude that, yet again, you have totally misunderstood or misrepresented what someone is saying.

There are so many examples of this on this thread, including the ones VP has pointed out to you recently, that anyone else would be a little embarressed by now, might stop and think before making any more accusations, might even apologise for being outraged and disgusted by what you think someone is saying, simply because you have misunderstood (and that's being generous to you), but not you, you just carry on digging yourself ever deeper...

 

[bimble]

ViolentPanda Err.. Have you read the article we've supposedly been discussing? It says the opposite, that the events were falsely inflated by the police report, and the lying women.