Slashdot Mirror


Twitter Reinstates White Nationalist Leader's Account (buzzfeed.com)

An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed: On Saturday evening, Twitter reinstated -- with verification -- the account of Richard Spencer, a leading figure of the so-called alt-right movement, and the head of the white nationalist think tank, The National Policy Institute. Spencer's account was suspended mid-November as part of a larger cull of prominent alt-right accounts... However, according to Twitter, Spencer was banned on a technicality: creating multiple accounts with overlapping uses. Twitter's multiple account policy was put in place as a safeguard to help curb dog piling and targeted harassment. [Twitter] offered to reinstate one of Spencer's accounts if he agreed to follow the company's protocols.
Vox says the move "raises the question of to what extent Twitter intends to enforce the 'hateful conduct' policy." But the suspension had also been criticized by David Frum, a senior editor at the Atlantic, who wrote that "The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing...lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity... today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter." But BuzzFeed points out that though the account's been reinstated, Spencer "is now tip-toeing around the company's three strike policy, which carries a permanent suspension."

470 comments

  1. Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ban the motherfucker for TOS violation and deny him the audience that feeds his hatred of everyone and everything else.

    1. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, because then you make him a "free speech martyr" and he'll still end up getting his message out on another platform anyway.

    2. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Facebook?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Terms are terms, and service providers set the terms. Anyone who violates them loses the service. Twitter is being weak and not enforcing its own policy. Fuck the idiotic trolls and faggot kids who can't deal with reality, they don't deserve coddling much less respect.

    4. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by DogDude · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Who cares? Let him use some third rate, white-only application to shit on other people.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it is within their legal rights to enforce the fuck they want.
      But it's still not a good idea, specially if your plan is to actually combat white nationalism instead of just sweeping it under the rug.

    6. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and then let this application grow and gain neo nazi moderators and turn it into a racist safe space.
      Without free discussion, and real actual discussion instead of retarded namecalling we get shit like trump in power.

    7. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just so long as he doesn't post, say, a non-explicit picture of a mother breastfeeding her child.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    8. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called stormfront

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Twitter bans him, they have to ban ALL the supremacists or else it's racism on their part.

    10. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh the irony, a user who doesn't like hate speech using a pejorative term for a gay male. Shame on you.

      I believe it's possible to have two of these three things: anonymity, free speech, and an absence of hate speech. However, I don't think you can have all three of those things simultaneously. Twitter is a business and are free to decide what to allow and prohibit on their service, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their decisions. No matter how much you censor hate speech, the ideas will thrive in dark corners. People have to decide to reject those ideas, rather than just pushing them out of view so they can wait in the shadows. The change in attitudes toward homosexuality isn't because of censorship, but just because people have learned there's no reason to be hateful. Language such as yours isn't unacceptable because it's censored, but because we've stopped repressing homosexuals and people have decided isn't not so bad.

      I believe the best way to stop hate is to confront it. The problem is that most people aren't willing to speak up when they see hate. It's easier to look away and let them hate continue. That's why it thrives, and will continue to do so. I've seen some really nasty hate speech on Facebook, even with the use of real names. Even when something is clearly offensive and harassing, people generally look away, and the behavior continues.

      Shame on you for your hate speech. You're part of the problem.

    11. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom of speech in your US constitution applies only to the state. You ignorant fuckwit.

    12. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check your court ruling, it doesn't work that way.

    13. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first amendment only applies to congress and state legislation, you dummy.

    14. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you implying that the presence of a white nationalist on a platform makes it more likely to embrace free discussion and rational discourse?

    15. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but its the only true way to combat the bad ideas they carry.
      Bad ideas can only be killed by convincing arguments, rather than screaming "racist bigots!" until it magically disappear.

    16. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Yes, and look how big it got with all those people being banned everywhere else not called 4chan, instead of debated with.

    17. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Let him use some third rate, white-only application to shit on other people.

      But... I'm confused. Aren't we telling him not to use Twitter?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    18. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.

    19. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      What ToS violation? Multiple accounts? That's gonna take out a lot of people,,,

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    20. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      And hate speech. If Twitter was German he would be prison already.

    21. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't help but think that the alt-right movement is a symptom of that. That, and I think you can only try to feminize society so much before you'll get a reaction, which is also what this is. We live in a world where a guy can kill somebody while reckless driving, sue some of the people that he injured, and then suddenly he's a brave hero because he has gender identity disorder and got a sex change.

    22. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Technically speaking it is not their right. Under the constitution, no law, I repeat NO LAW, can be written which conflicts with freedom of speech and contract law, the law around which contracts is based, is a law and it can not be written in such a way as to infringe upon freedom of speech. To claim corporation have the right of censorship under contract law, is a lie, NO LAW, shall be written that infringes upon freedom of speech and that fucking includes contract law.

      Were you in a fraternity when you studied law at Trump University? Because you just embarrassed all your brothers with that legal opinion which bears no relationship to reality.

      If I demand to read my poetry at Carnegie Hall, it is not censorship for them to say, "Get the fuck out or we'll call the cops". It is not censorship if my Great American Novel is rejected by Simon & Schuster for being badly written.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban the motherfucker for TOS violation

      Which TOS is he violating if he does all the nazi saluting off site but keeps it clean on Twitter?

      More to the point of selective enforcement, which TOS is he violating that Black Lives Matter or Free Palestine groups are not?

    24. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That, and I think you can only try to feminize society so much before you'll get a reaction

      Huh?

      It's feminists who are pissed off about FB's ban on non-sexual images that (gasp!) involve a breast. Regardless of context. Things involving breast cancer are particularly frustrating. They banned a Swedish video on breast cancer awareness. They instituted a permanent ban on a tattoo artist who tattoos nipples on women who have gotten mastectomies. There's hundreds and hundreds of examples. Photographic? Artistic? Cartoony? Banned, banned, banned. Some people have taken to representing breasts and nipples as squares as a workaround.

      The thing that's most annoying about it is that they're portraying things that are distinctly not sexual as if they're sexual. A mother breastfeeding her child is not a sexual act, and it's disgusting and insulting to act like it is. A breast cancer awareness video or a survivor of breast cancer are not there for sexual titilation - they're about survival from a deadly disease. Facebook's obsession about these things is a giant insult.

      You went off on a most bizarre tangent there... what on Earth does Jenner have to do with Facebook's banning of breastfeeding / breast cancer images?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    25. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      You are correct. The first amendment says that the government can't censor you at all.

      The government will allow you to setup a twitter clone and spew as much hate and rhetoric as you want. Stormfront forums do just fine as the government is prohibited from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

      That is not what happens when Twitter deletes your account. Why is this such a difficult concept?

    26. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Bad ideas can only be killed by convincing arguments, rather than screaming "racist bigots!" until it magically disappear.

      Racist bigots never magically disappear. Unfortunately, almost all of the people who fought in WWII are gone now, or they'd tell you the most appropriate way to deal with Nazis: You blow their shit up until you get their attention, then you give them a choice of being good citizens. Maybe the process has to be repeated every so often, like spraying for cockroaches.

      In the meantime, the one thing you do NOT do is normalize them in any way. You don't try to engage them in reasonable conversation, you don't pretend that they have a valid point of view and you don't pretend that "both sides do it". You simply point and scream, "Nazi over here" and then chase them back into a hole or punch them in the face. Nazism, White Supremacy, White Nationalism or alt-Right - whatever you want to call it, it's not just another ideology. It's not normal.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1, Troll

      Let me guess. You're fat. You're lazy. You haven't hit the gym in years if ever. And you've fucked a relatively small number of women.

      People like you just don't matter anymore. You're all talk, all action. Watch the Q&A with Spencer at Texas A&M - every faggot pussy hurling threats like yourself is a total fucking loser.

      Fear not, when we take control of this country, we will indeed show YOU mercy. But you will be deported.

    28. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Faggot try again. I can kick your ass easy, and can shoot your "platton" without breaking a sweat. You should enlist in your army for a while you fucking pipsqueak weak ass faggot.

    29. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems to work that way when it's a gay couple wanting a Christian baker to make them a cake...

    30. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by quantaman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, and then let this application grow and gain neo nazi moderators and turn it into a racist safe space.
      Without free discussion, and real actual discussion instead of retarded namecalling we get shit like trump in power.

      But I don't think they actually want a safe space, they want victimization.

      The alt-right segment that is causing trouble on Twitter has a very predictable pattern, they find a target and then troll them until they get a reaction. If the victim retaliates they claim that the victim is the real racist/sexist/bad person, if instead the service retaliates they claim they're being censored.

      In either case they need a victim to target and aggravate and they need an authority to rebel against. You're not going to get a lot of black women signing up to be harassed on an alt-right Twitter knock-off. The only way they get what they're looking for is by being on the same service as their target.

      If you're talking about actual harassment I have no problem with banning, they get to throw a tantrum for a couple days but then you've taken away their access to victims.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    31. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what? A liberal outlet with billions of accounts or a conservative outlet with 10,000s?

    32. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with hating people.
      You're just a hate hater.

    33. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame on you for your bigotry. Can we stop with the idea that gay males (you use an offensive term for this) are somehow weak and unmanly? You should apologize for your bigotry.

      While I believe some things like racism need to be confronted immediately and strongly, that does not include engaging in violence to do so. That is a dangerous view that goes well beyond European hate speech laws. If you believe that Twitter is out of line in tolerating hate speech, protest or organize a boycott. You have the right to believe that American laws are far too permissive of hate speech. I'm sure there are Americans who share your views, and our nation has the ability to change that if we see fit. We can amend the Constitution if we so desire, though there are very good reasons why it's hard to do so. If your speech incites violence, you can be charged with crimes in the United States. We do have restrictions on hate speech, and I want to point out that your idea of killing people for their speech isn't that far away from inciting violence. Let's not respond to hate with hate.

    34. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 1

      And they will get every word of this post you just did and use it to create 10 more of em.

    35. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We got Trump because the fucktards running the DNC believed they could both stack the Republican deck and their own primary without repercussion. You can thank them personally for every minute of Trump. They thought that Trump was more offensive to America than She was, and that they'd get Her into office because It Is Her Turn, and they miscalculated. The voters voted against those shenanigans as much as they voted for Trump.

      Putting it any other way is running an apologist front for the DNC.

    36. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's feminists who are pissed off about FB's ban on non-sexual images that (gasp!) involve a breast.

      I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. People are getting tired of being pressured to go against the grain of their biology just because it offends somebody else, and the mere fact that you're a minority can be used to justify your sins. These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.

      Did I not convey that properly?

    37. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop with the stupid "alt-right". Call them racists or bigots. Don't let them try to disguise themselves. Call these ducks the damn ducks they are.

    38. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Time was, in the 1970s in this case, the left objected to malls ejecting protesters inside in front of stores. They claimed that, even though the malls were private property, they functioned as modern public squares, and free speech was so important, it should override private property rights in this case.

      Now they stand squarely -- squarely -- for private corporate speech rights. Try to envision a liberal suing Twitter in an attempt to claim they are a modern town square, or postal delivery system, and therefore should be forced to allow alternative points of view the corporation does not want to promote.

      That case lost in the Supreme Court, by the way.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    39. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 1

      You think they come from some portal to hell?
      They are made of regular people that got caught into a "safe space" that "taught the undisputed truth" until becoming what they are.
      Germany was the perfect safe space to make something like nazism grow, because they could literally cut out any opposition and make people only hear their side of the story.
      Yes, your approach did work well back then because there was no such thing as the internet, so you could just round up everyone with the wrong opinion and toss some nukes at their heads.
      Now? now you can basically get people in germany and defuse nazism before it even have the chance to exist instead of letting they grow, organize, kill millions etc etc etc...
      But on the same token you can create it the same way.

    40. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More interesting is the government's baldfaced assertion that it has the power to strip religious behavior from the behavior of staying alive, which is to say, earning money, which is to say, baking for some people.

      "We hereby declare that religious people need our permission to be religious in earning a living, a brute requirement of staying alive! We decline to permit them."

      Religion is something they declare, fait accompli, is not part of business, AKA remaining alive by putting food in your mouth. They declare it only is permitted, by government, as a quaint lifestyle choice severed from anything of note.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    41. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Z80a · · Score: 1

      They have a safe space already, but what they don't have is an unsafe space where their shit get called at.

    42. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I demand to read my poetry at Carnegie Hall, it is not censorship for them to say, "Get the fuck out or we'll call the cops". It is not censorship if my Great American Novel is rejected by Simon & Schuster for being badly written.

      Yes it is. Did you think that an act has to be a First Amendment violation in order to be censorship?

    43. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "These literal fascists" includes you. You think the same way they do. Their goals are your goals. You ARE one of them.

      You will now admit that I'm right.

    44. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will deport no one. You won't even take control of your own life, let alone the country. And you're an even bigger pantywaist than the whiny little hypocrite you're trying to threaten.

    45. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. He's not a motherfucker because a fake news post from Buzzfeed says he's a white nationalist.

      Hint: He's NOT A FUCKING WHITE NATIONALIST YOU DUMB FUCK

    46. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know FUCK ALL about the "they" you're painting into a box.

      There is no such thing as the alt-right. What you are describing is just trolls.

      The only right wing neonazi fuckers are in a Putin funded basement in St Petersburg trolling the internets with fake racist comments because Putin wants us to believe there is a "rise of the right"

    47. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I suggest that we just let people feel the way they feel without the requirement to confront them "immediately and strongly"?

      but otherwise I agree with your text

    48. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is already a free-speech martyr. Stop watching the mainstream media #FakeNews. He is not a White-Nationalist leader, nor is the alt-right a racist movement.

    49. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Oh this is going to be hilarious. Please talk more. Let me go grab my popcorn.

    50. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is already a neo-marxist black supremacist safe space platform. Twitter will not bad peoples saying "kill all White peoples", but will be very fast to terminate anyone saying "Kill all Black peoples". This was tested and confirmed several times. Twitter need to die.

    51. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.

      You lack historical depth. The "alt-right" has always been here, they just used to be the norm. It's only by standing up and demanding that they be recognized, that they exist and have the same rights that the so called special interest groups have managed to push society into no longer accepting the "alt-right" viewpoint as normal. Of course, they're only "special interest groups" in that they stand up to the bigots who would pretend they don't exist. When your entire philosophy rests on treating everyone who thinks differently from yourself as a sub-human with no right to exist, being stood up to does seem extraordinary.

    52. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Germany was the perfect safe space to make something like nazism grow, because they could literally cut out any opposition and make people only hear their side of the story.
      Yes, your approach did work well back then because there was no such thing as the internet, so you could just round up everyone with the wrong opinion and toss some nukes at their heads.

      Sometimes, the stupid comes at you fast. Let me take these things one at a time.

      Germany was the perfect safe space to make something like nazism grow, because they could literally cut out any opposition and make people only hear their side of the story.

      You need to read history some day. The Weimar Republican was not a period during which speech was suppressed, nor was it a "safe space". I mean, shit. Have you ever read one single thing about Germany in the time before 1930?

      Yes, your approach did work well back then because there was no such thing as the internet, so you could just round up everyone with the wrong opinion and toss some nukes at their heads.

      There were no nukes in 1930, but if there were, you probably wouldn't round people up before nuking them.

      now you can basically get people in germany and defuse nazism before it even have the chance to exist instead of letting they grow, organize, kill millions etc etc etc...
      But on the same token you can create it the same way.

      That is such spectacular babbling nonsense that I don't know how to respond. You're basically saying, "The same thing that prevents Nazism will cause it

      Can someone who is a native English speaker please translate for me?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    53. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by colinwb · · Score: 1

      It might be censorship if the "Great American Novel" is quite well written and "a publisher" refuses to publish it; then again, it might just not fit with their general publishing ethos. But if it's lousily written, then a (reasonable) rejection on those grounds isn't censorship, merely good judgment, and whether the publisher agrees or disagrees with the novel's social/political views is irrelevant.

    54. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excellent post that points out the Left's hypocrisy. Generalizing a group based on a few of its members is bad and makes you a bigot, but it's okay for them to do it to white people who support individual freedom and free speech by painting them all as inbred hill-billies.

    55. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only thing new about alt-right is the politically correct terminology because the poor little snowflakes get butthurt when someone calls them what they are - white supremacist scum.

    56. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by skam240 · · Score: 1

      What a bunch of made up nonsense your post is. Please point to a real life scenario where something like this happened because as far as I'm concerned you might as well be talking about elves and leprechauns.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    57. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by russotto · · Score: 1

      The only right wing neonazi fuckers are in a Putin funded basement in St Petersburg trolling the internets with fake racist comments because Putin wants us to believe there is a "rise of the right"

      Why would Putin bother funding this when Soros has it covered?

    58. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      False. If you're going to call someone an ignorant fuckwit, at least be sure you aren't being one yourself. The First Amendment to the US Constitution only applies to Congress. It does not cover Executive Orders, nor Supreme Court rulings; it only covers one arm of the state. Technically, the POTUS can issue Executive Orders restricting free speech.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    59. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As opposed, I presume, to the black supremacist scum of Black Lives Matter?

    60. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _Any_ government action at _any_ level, not just Federal and State. And not just legislation! Any action whatsoever!

    61. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      You mean you, personally, can't debate them. They can, and should, be debated. But sure, keep trying to pretend you're on the good side when you think someone should be beaten for having an opinion.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    62. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will somebody please gas this kike? Thank you!

    63. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      You're totally fucking insane.

      As a citizen of this country, respect the freedom of speech or come up with an argument and prove you have the right to disagree

      The problem with this world is people like you who are absolutely brainless but assume you have a right to an opinion despite absolute zero education in philosophy and zero life experience. Your brain has been hacked. You have a lifetime of experience that doesn't correspond to the experiences that made your instincts in the evolutionary process. It makes you hopelessly confused forever because you have zero self awareness. An authority can tell you anything is true and you will believe it and evangelize it because you are rewarded by that authority. You require nothing else.

      You are much worse than a Nazi who says "all jews must die"
      You are a Nazi that says "freedom must die forever"

    64. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      You may have a serious reading comprehension problem. And a much more serious lack of awareness of the world around you.

    65. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you can convince them to be less racist. Yes, if the neo-Nazis gain a lot of power, then - and only then - is violence the best way to deal with them. It's far preferable, however, to convert them before it gets to that point. Minds can be changed. You're just too fucking eager to incite violence.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    66. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      It's meant to be a monument to our societal values, which should be respected throughout all aspects of life, you complete retard.

    67. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck?

      What is a 'good citizen' if those people are blowing other people's shit up? That's not good, it's just stupid.

    68. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, because then you make him a "free speech martyr" and he'll still end up getting his message out on another platform anyway.

      What exactly did he say, anyhow, that was against their ToS? The summary just says they purged him along with a lot of other people whose politics they didn't like and I haven't the foggiest clue who this guy is or why I should care.

    69. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you explain people taking his posts and changing "white" to "black" and they don't get flagged?

    70. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, almost all of the people who fought in WWII are gone now, or they'd tell you the most appropriate way to deal with Nazis: You blow their shit up until you get their attention, then you give them a choice of being good citizens

      I wouldn't count on that.

      Apparently the people who fought WWII aren't any more enthusiastic about having their countries handed out from underneath their feet than the alt-right are.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    71. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, you can convince them [thedailybeast.com] to be less racist. Yes, if the neo-Nazis gain a lot of power, then - and only then - is violence the best way to deal with them.

      According to Richard Spencer, they've just won the White House. Does that meet your standard of gaining a "lot of power"?

      Me, I take them at their word. When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time. I actually knew people who fought Nazis in Europe last century. If they could have crushed Nazism when it was just 3000 guys in a beer hall, they wouldn't have hesitated. It was that bad. I take them at their word, too.

      If you want to spend time changing Nazis minds, be my guest, and I wish you luck. You can start with the incoming President's Chief Strategist. It's up to the rest of us to have a contingency if you fail.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    72. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another one of those societal values is that private (as opposed to government-run) clubs and organizations may use _any_ criteria to choose who to include among their members.

      Just as Jimbo's KKK Messageboard and Mailing List can choose to bar membership to anyone who's not both a card-carrying member of the KKK and wearing blue hair, Twitter, Inc. can bar membership and access to their services on similarly arbitrary grounds. This is a _very_ important right.

      (And no, non-discrimination laws don't apply here. These are not businesses providing essential services (such as housing, food, and transportation) to the public. These are private clubs that happen to have _very_ low barriers to enrollment.)

    73. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rtb61, you are a special kind of stupid.

    74. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you could sing something more topical

    75. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      I do think Trump is a racist. I do not think he's an anti-Semite (what with his daughter converting to Judaism and all), and I don't think he will make racism a large part of his presidency; I think he's a nationalist first and foremost. Moreover, I think someone as dumb as Richard Spencer isn't a great judge of the current White House priorities. As far as I've heard (and a quick Google search confirms) he's not been granted any power. I'm sure he believes "his people" have won the White House, but that doesn't mean he's right. It'd be a different story if Trump was saying it, but at least he has denounced that sort of thing.

      I take some of the alt-right at their word; they are racist (but deny being neo-Nazis; I guess you don't take them at their word on that) but Trump isn't saying that. He's saying - whether you believe him or not, and I am doubtful - that he's for all Americans regardless of race.

      Either way, if they do start actually heading down the road towards new internment camps, I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. But I think we're still early enough along that conversation can have a meaningful impact.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    76. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He does have a point buried in there all the same.

      If contracts are only upheld by the laws in which govern contracts, and contract law can't violate the first amendment, then how can contract law have the power to violate the first amendment by enforcing a contract?

      Why not just declare a binding license agreement on US citizens for, say, filing their taxes. Then put in whatever unconstitutional crap you want. Starting to sound like the ACA tax penalties, but on a nastier scale.

    77. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Appeasement ... you don't know the meaning of the word! Considering that - - after Trump gains control of the military and DHS gestapo - - white nationalists will take just vengeance on progressive slime. Whether or no they start butchering-out the neo-Trotsky progressive American left is tough for an historian to predict. Wholesale slaughter carries some negative feedback, while snipping-off Soros/Page/Bezos/Pritzker/Zuckerberg entitled-elite types would be viewed as simple justice against cultural traitors.

    78. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It does not cover Executive Orders, nor Supreme Court rulings; it only covers one arm of the state. Technically, the POTUS can issue Executive Orders restricting free speech.

      And everyone would be free to ignore those orders, because neither has the authority to issue them. Your "correction" is just mental masturbation.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    79. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Just like everyone would have been free to ignore the Executive Order to go to the internment camps for Japanese-Americans in WWII, right? That was just mental masturbation too, huh?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    80. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      When your mom tells you to keep it down when you're recording your GamerGate podcast, is that sensor sheep too?

      You still bitter you backed the wrong horse? There there. Have a blanket and go cry in the corner for a while. You can chant to yourself that Gamergate is still only 300 people, and not one of the top 800 subs on reddit now.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    81. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also known as a Secular State. No state can survive a long period of time without being secular. See history for examples.

    82. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is something they declare, fait accompli, is not part of business, AKA remaining alive by putting food in your mouth. They declare it only is permitted, by government, as a quaint lifestyle choice severed from anything of note.

      No, just the things we don't let anyone have leeway on, you operate a commercial business, we expect you to serve people regardless of their race, religion, creed, ethnicity, and the like. Some places, but not all, have extended that to sexuality. You are also obligated to respect people's legal marriages. Don't like it? Tough shit, your religion doesn't give you license to do whatever you like.

      But there are exceptions for conscientious objectors, for holidays, and a few others.

      Don't like it? Start learning to persuade people, not adopt a whining attitude.

    83. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The text because apparently you have trouble reading "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." See nothing what so ever about only applying to the government, the congress shall make NO LAW and that includes the writing and application of contract law. I know you corrupt asshats have your own colourfull corrupt interpretation of English but how much simpler does it need to be for you idiots.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    84. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      So are you gonna ban the BLM leaders that advocated killing cops and spewed racist bile against whites? How about Leslie Jones who advocated her followers attack several people and "fuck their shit up" as well as saying several times she would "stomp a white bitch" both of which is against their TOS and supposed anti-hate rules?

      Can't have your cake and eat it too, either the rules apply to everyone or its just more bullshit designed to silence one side over another and push a particular political narrative.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    85. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your religion has fuck all to do with baking a god damned cake. You can bake a cake without praising jesus every 10 fucking seconds. You're making excuses for them and yourself to be bigots.

    86. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do know FUCK ALL about the nazi fuckers. I live among them. I work with them. They're celebrating daily that they get to go back to being racist, sexist, bigoted pigs.

    87. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by cyber-vandal · · Score: 0

      What *you* do is lump all white people together and blame us all for the crimes committed by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. You don't have any right to call anyone else stupid or to use the white men you normally vilify in an attempt to win this argument.

    88. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      People are getting tired of being pressured to go against the grain of their biology just because it offends somebody else,

      If you're biologically a dickhead and people don't like you because you're a dickhead and you're pressured into not being a dickhead, well... shit. Not really sure I have any sympathy there. Oh, an BTW, I know you're implicitly shoving "man" into there, but the notion that man==dickhead is one of the most ludicrous things I keep hearing on slashdot.

      These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.

      Right, so... people are pressuring others not to be dickheads so the response is to hate on Jews. How in the ever living fuck does that make the slightest shred of sense?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    89. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have the collective might of the military, you do whatever the hell you want people to do.

      All those that have gun fetish to fight a corrupt government will simply be crushed.

    90. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      You haven't hit the gym in years if ever.

      Never hit an inanimate object.

      And you've fucked a relatively small number of women.

      That's a curiously non-specific phrase. I like how it's not merely "small", but "relatively small". Relative to what?

      every faggot pussy hurling threats like yourself is a total fucking loser.

      I think you forgot to check "post as AC".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    91. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      That certainly seems to be a common misconception, popularized by fake news sites like Breitbart. In reality, to pick up your example, being transgender comes with a number of challenges and certainly doesn't convey immunity from the law.

      As for biology, I'm afraid you will be expected to overcome it on a regular basis in modern society. You may feel like resolving your problems with violence, or grabbing that guy's crotch, but you won't be able to excuse that behaviour by saying "it's my biological imperative!"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    92. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet tough guy detected.

    93. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Only to the extent that black people used to be second class citizens, homosexuality used to be illegal and women used to be domesticated and lacked voting rights. Most people don't want to go back to that.

      stand up to the bigots

      When your entire philosophy rests on treating everyone who thinks differently from yourself as a sub-human with no right to exist, being stood up to does seem extraordinary.

      Indeed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    94. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rights end where mine begin. I understand the gay couple did not want anything more than an ordinary wedding cake. Had they asked for a giant penis cake, then I could understand an objection. But not serving them only because of their status as homosexual was a form of discrimination.

      We live in a secular state because, as stated in another post, no state can survive a long period of time without being secular. History provides many examples. It is the price we pay to survive as a state, but it is cheap.

      Religion is a personal choice granted by freedom of religion granted by the state. That means we must respect the secularism that granted such choice, else we would all be forced to certain a religion by the state as it was before freedom of religion.

      Another way to say the above is that you are free to your beliefs, but you may not force others to adhere to your beliefs. This is the circle of secularism. The only other option is state mandated religion, which may violate your religious belief.

    95. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Religion is not a protected attribute. It's a choice, and is not an excuse for not following the law.

      This should be obvious. If your religion required you to rob a bank every other Sunday, do you think it would be acceptable to do so? Maybe you are the only follower of this religion, but who has the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    96. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If twitter has a plan to influence public opinion they are more than a service provider

    97. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by khallow · · Score: 1

      Bakers discriminating against gay couples has nothing to do with whether a state is secular or not.

    98. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When your entire philosophy rests on treating everyone who thinks differently from yourself as a sub-human with no right to exist

      Oh, the irony. You do realize that a good part of the Richard ("Hail Trump") Spencer crowd are white supremacists that do exactly this to every non-waspy group? Right?

    99. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So the whole 'personal responsibility' thing the conservatives are always going on about ONLY applies to poor people or drug addicts or whatever group you currently want to justify not helping (or more usually - going out of your way to screw by voting for somebody who promised to make a law that takes away the things that keep them alive.

      It doesn't apply to rightwingers. When people go asshole neo-nazi like the alt-right - somehow that's the fault of progressives ? You do realize that this shit existed long before progressives right ? Kind of makes the "you caused this" thing an obvious piece of bullshit.

      No, the ONLY thing that changed this year is that these assholes who HAVE BEEN THERE ALL ALONG - have come out of the woodwork, because Orange Hitler made them feel safe and secure in doing so. They never went away. Hell black people have been telling you how they bump into these people every day and get mistreated by them as a daily life thing for decades ! Just because you were able to pretend they didn't exist anymore, doesn't mean they weren't real.

      And nobody has tried to 'feminize' society, absolutely nobody has ever been asked (at least, not by the progressives) to 'act against their biology'. I find it incredibly insulting that you seem to believe that just because I *have* a dick I automatically have to *be* a dick. What has feminists done that's so bad ? They asked you to call out your buddies when they make rape jokes - because that sort of shit make actual rapists feel justified and safe. They asked you to actually *ask* the girl before you touch her privates- and to be a decent enough human being not to take advantage of a drunk woman.

      These are not 'against your biology' - it is merely being a decent human being. If you find anything they've asked for excessive- it's not your biology that's the problem, it's the fact that you are a horrible human being and the entire species would benefit from your death.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    100. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry - if you're going to make a claim of supremacism - you should show some evidence.

      "Please stop shooting us when we're unarmed and haven't done anything" is sort of the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    101. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's just pissed because somebody told him taking a dump in the middle of the mall foodcourt was against the law. After all - taking a dump is a perfectly natural biological imperative which everybody (barring a few with colostomy bags) has to do on a regular bases to survive so how dare government regulate where, when and with whom he is allowed to drop a deuce ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    102. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Different law, different amendment of the constitution entirely - and already passed supreme court muster (from one of the most notoriously conservative supreme courts of all time actually).
      Now I'm sure you're about to shout that there hasn't been any case about gay wedding cakes in front of the supremes - and you'd be... wrong because that's not how legal precedent works. The civil rights act was challenged in 1965 - and EVERY SINGLE THING IT SAID - applies EXACTLY the same way to THIS question. A business could not deny service to a person just for being black it said - EVEN THOUGH many people had a religious belief that segregation is mandated by god.
      The supreme court upheld the law.

      The exact same scenario is happening right now - the ONLY thing that's changed is this time it's anti-gay christians rather than anti-black christians who are freaking out about having to love their neighbour.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    103. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what you're saying is... liberals will respect, abide by and defend supreme court decisions EVEN IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THEM - and may even come to change their minds in time.
      Now sure, liberals are still pretty hopeful of overturning citizens united but that is a pretty damn recent finding.

      Call me when conservatives stop trying to overturn Roe v Wade and instead just embrace it as the law of the land. As it stands, if history is any indication - the only reason there won't be a lot of people protesting Obergefell in 30 years is because everybody protesting it NOW will be dead.

      That's the crux of course, conservative America is literally dying of old age. We don't need to FIGHT the culture war anymore, we can just wait it out. We won the day the youth started thinking gay people should have the same rights as straight people, trans people should be respected and have equal rights... and that anybody who thinks the bible says different is reading it wrong.

      65% of the country supports gay marriage, and for under 30's it's close to 80%. The young republicans don't support this shit anymore. They realized that saying they want government 'off our backs' doesn't make sense if they ALSO support government getting 'in your vagina'. They know that Planned Parenthood NEVER does a single abortion with tax money (it would be illegal) and provides thousands of other very needed health services that have nothing to do with the only one that older republicans care about - and how vital these things are.

      The liberals have won - because even the conservative young people agree with us on these things.

      One day, people will think of those who fought against equal rights for gay people very much the same way you now think about those who fought against abolitionism. Because that is EXACTLY what they are.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    104. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Tyrannicsupremacy · · Score: 0

      it's a good thing only people like him are seething with hate, and not people like you who are clearly loving and peaceful.

      --
      http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
    105. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      But what you lot are demanding would be the EXACT OPPOSITE of doing that.

      Forcing twitter to let publish speech they dislike is not defending free speech - it's flagrantly trampling on it.
      Or do you allow every activist in town from BLM to the KKK to come and paint slogans on your living room walls ?

      The right to choose who we want to associate with, what speech we want to allow on our personal property, what speech we want to distribute - that is freedom of speech too - and you want to deny that to people.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    106. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      So? If that's our main problem, you should be happy.

      Just as a little reminder, last century saw two world wars with 60 million and 38 million deaths, both of which were instigated and led primarily by white nationalist leaders. And then white nationalist communists took over half of Europe. I'll take any contemporary allegedly "feminized society" anytime over that. Check your priorities.

    107. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      A publisher's judgement can frequently be as unreliable as human judgement about anything else. Gone with the wind was rejected by 7 different publishers before one took a shot at it - and it became a bestseller.
      There are LOTS of examples like that.

      Publishers are people, books are assessed by human beings- the assessor must try to determine if people will want to read the book, mostly they have ot base that on whether *they* enjoyed reading it. They can apply some knowledge of literary theory, budgets and ability to take a risk, the reputation of the author etc. etc. etc. but ultimately - that former one is unquantifiable and not always reliable.

      But in no case is it censorship. What separates it from censorship is that you are not beholden to the publisher. Nothing stops you from sending your novel to another publisher - or, if you run out of them, to publish it yourself. Even in the days of print-only self-publishing happened frequently and in the day of ebooks it's extremely viable.
      In fact, a common piece of advice given to young authors on how to get their first manuscript published goes:
      Send it to a publisher, any publisher.
      They will probably reject it, but will send back some feedback with it. Edit the manuscript to incorporate their feedback.
      Then send it to a DIFFERENT publisher.
      Repeat until you get one that says "Hey, we'd like to run with this but..."
      That one will get you an editor, work with him until your manuscript is a book.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    108. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      The reason for rejecting hate speech in public spaces has nothing to do with changing the minds of hateful people. We KNOW that doesn't work.

      The reason to help slow the speed at which those, extremely viral and dangerous, ideas can propagate. These are not ideas we should be tolerant off, or extend the ideology of tolerance to include. The philosopher Karl Popper proved in the 1930s (as NAZI propaganda was peaking) that it's logically impossible to be tolerant of intolerant ideologies - it is literally a self-contradictory position.
      You are not tolerant of different ideas UNLESS you actively try to suppress intolerant ones.

      If you want to argue that point - read Popper's paper BEFORE you do, or I will just rip you apart with quotes, you'd best come up with some counter-arguments first.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    109. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      None of that made there be more of them.

      They were always there - they just congregated somewhere together.

      Why exactly is that a bad thing ? Let them fester in their corner. I'd much rather than them all shitting in a big heap together than leaving their dumps all over everybody else's living room carpets.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    110. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as he isn't pissed in the middle of the foot court I think we can put up with that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    111. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      one of the top 800 subs on reddit now.

      I had no idea you guys broke the top 800 subs on reddit. That's a real accomplishment and you should be very proud.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    112. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Accidentally moderated while reading, so posting to undo. I knew nothing of this study before digging around and skimming through it. Worth a read, if you like seeing this type of study.

    113. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Block all theBLM and Black Panthers and all other racist speech perpetrated by non whites.

    114. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah such a great tactic, fuck you, it's your fault! Did your daddy not teach you responsibility?

      And this is why you have president Trump, Btw, please continue to double down on your stupidity, because the rest of us find it hilarious.

    115. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STUF twitter also allows for BLM and other 'coloured' nationalists.

      free speech is free speech you commie

    116. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone else that doesn't agree with me is a Transphobic Misogynistic Racist Islamaphobic Bigot Hitler 2.0!

      I hate them! How can we rob them of their right to free speech?

    117. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop attacking the cops, stop doing drugs, get a fucking job, raise your damn kids, stop fucking killing each other, stop breaking the fucking law, stop fucking lying to police, Black Lies are still Lies!

    118. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cake is a requirement for life?
      Who knew.

    119. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Or you could, ya know, engage him and explain why his ideas are wrong. Or just ignore him.

      At the various anti-Trump protests this past year I saw people waving hammer and sickle flags. Commies! Real commies! Don't they know Stalin killed more people than Hitler?! Holy shit! These are terrible, terrible people! But I didn't freak out and give them national news coverage because a bunch of stupid street commies waved a flag. Those people are every bit as irrelevant as Spencer and the 300 people in a nation of 300 million who showed up to his convention. Either debate them or ignore them. I choose ignore.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    120. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You should reread about the Civil Rights Act. It does protect religion from discrimination just like race. Sexual orientation (the baker thing) was set up via state law.

      What is funny is the rhetoric about "gender is a social construct" i.e. a choice that you can make when you deconstruct your notions of cis-normatitivy. You choose your gender as much as you choose your race (Rachel Dolezal) these days so why would any other attribute that you choose to make your 'identity' any different?

      who has the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't?

      An old question that has been asked a lot, see tomb stones in Arlington Cemetery.

    121. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    122. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please shoot us when we strongarm rob a liquor store and try to wrestle your gun away

    123. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      When it is a public accommodation private business's loses rights in favor of public interest. Just like the baker with gay cakes. To quote the CO case: " No one is asking the [business owner] to change their belief.".

      There is a public interest in ensuring all public forums of speech be impartial.

    124. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.

      I think that's the most fascist statement I've seen on /.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    125. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Nazism, White Supremacy, White Nationalism or alt-Right - whatever you want to call it, it's not just another ideology. It's not normal.

      There's a difference between those things. In this case I think these people are ethnic nationalists, and how can you say that isn't normal? Isn't that what pretty much every nation in the world was and just about all still are? A nation for a people with shared culture and genetic lineage? Pretty sure you have to be Japanese to be a Japanese citizen, etc.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    126. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unarmed? Really? Haven't done anything? Really?

      You have to put together 2 examples to get somewhat close to your claim, and that's 2 of the 12 that have gotten riot out of BLM.

    127. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      "Relative to what?"

      Ron Jeremy of course. Don't forget, if you aren't paid to do something you aren't doing it right. Including pounding puss.

    128. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rape can be funny. Imagine Daffy Duck raping Porky Pig.

    129. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the GP was referring to Caitlyn Jenner. -PCP

    130. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's quite possibly that "going against the grain of [someone's] biology" is a really neat excuse for racists/misogynists/whateverists. "I'm not actually hate-filled, it's just going against the grain of my biology, so I'm going to react to it in precisely the same way that a racist/misogynist/whateverist would react, but I'm different and should be respected!"

    131. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Please stop shooting us when we're unarmed and haven't done anything" is sort of the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

      That would be great if those parts weren't fake news, something that should be well-known by now. And I would more fully agree with that if the response to it wasn't that we have a lot of people assassinating random cops.

    132. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand what "gender is a social construct" means, and that it does not imply it is a choice in any way, shape, or form. If we take that bit out of your argument, the rest falls apart rather quickly...

    133. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Civil Rights Act provides protection against discrimination for religions, but does not extend that to allowing religions to discriminate unless there is a bona-fide reason that is a normative part of the organization's operation, and there are very few examples of that.

      As for gender, it's not that different to how religion is defined. What makes someone a Christian? Because they say they are? Because they follow Christian values, which are themselves far from universally agreed upon? Because they go to Church? There is no one specific thing, you have to look at the person's actions and attitudes as a whole. It's the same with gender.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    134. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, the cited religion actually requires that the bakers produce two cakes for every one requested.

    135. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ban speech we don't agree with!

    136. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they had been doing something pretty much every time. Felonious assaults, theft, stabbing people to death, etc.

      You keep misrepresenting reality to hurt people you don't like and then act surprised when they don't like you right back. Hurt them enough and they will kill you. Same as with any other group.

    137. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's not just abnormal, it's illogical. "Race" is not a scientific term and can mean anything you choose it to. Also, you will find people of greatly differing cultures in a single country, so this idea there is "one culture" representing a country is also ridiculous. And people with no known Japanese ancestors indeed can - and frequently do - become Japanese.

    138. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did YOUR daddy teach you you need to be responsible for the behavior of others? That isn't responsibility, that is a form of masochism.

    139. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to you as a child that you hate and fear your fellow countrymen so? If you hate nearly half the people in the country, you need to find yourself a new country. Trying to oppress half the population of a country because you don't like them is only going to cause violence.

    140. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. The majority of the left is made up of White people you fool. So please tell me how acknowledging the faults in your own society is bigoted?

    141. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      "Race" is not a scientific term and can mean anything you choose it to.

      But haplogroups are distinct, and marked by different features and traits. This is one of those topics that the left makes annoyingly nitpicky when it's convenient for their argument. You only hear "race isn't a scientific thing!" when it's in response to someone on the right to derail the topic into pointless hair-splitting. Nobody on the left ever responds to Black Lives Matter or people yelling about racial wealth inequality with "silly, race isn't a thing!" It's ultimately irrelevant, as few things in human interaction are determined according to "science." Culture isn't scientific, but it's very relevant to building functioning societies.

      "Race" is blurry, but most people fit generally into one or another broad categories, and I don't think there's anything illogical about wanting a country that's for people who are basically alike and share similar culture mores. That's been how nations have worked since the beginning of civilization, and this modern multiculturalism is new, experimental, and I think really just an excuse to expand state power under the pretense of "protecting" from each other all the different ethnic groups the state crammed together. If everyone agrees shitting in the pool is wrong without thinking then you don't really need a sign up that says "no shitting in the pool." Who would do ever do that? Bring in some other culture where pool-shitting is natural and expected and all of a sudden you need signs, enforcement, a Department of Pool Shitting Regulations, etc. Good if you're in the pool shit monitoring business, but kinda bad for everybody else.

      As for your statement about Japan I'd need a citation on that. As far as I knew Japan was essentially closed to immigration.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    142. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What 2016 has taught me:

      The following groups are alt-right:
      Metal heads. Gamers. Comic fans. Anime fans. Democrats. Socialists. communists. Moderates. Conservatives. People who disagree with intersectional identity politics. People who believe pedophiles should be jailed for exploiting children.

      Am I leaving anyone out?

    143. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep selling cigarettes (capitalism) and telling a cop you are licensed to carry (2nd amendment) are evil criminal offense that only the Black man engages in. Those people need to get it together and be more responsible like White militia men who protect federal lands from the federal government with their assault weapons.

    144. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richard Spencer is controlled opposition.

      The mainstream media keeps shoving him in our faces as the alt-right boogeyman, while real 'alt-right' people have no idea who he is and where he suddenly came from.

      His rallies are attended by more journalists than actual fans.

    145. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Eh, not really because the main point was what the CRA covered which is religion.

      That last bit was a gab about leftist ideology in academia. If gender is a social construct, why would it matter what the doctor "assigns" if you decide you are a different gender at a later time? Gender-fluid is about someone choosing their gender. It is a conscience choice someone makes based on their feelings of gender identity. If it is not a choice, then it is not a social construct because nothing society does can change your gender. Even if the doctor got it wrong by looking at your genitals and extrapolating that observation to gender.

    146. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Insightful"? Really?

    147. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Can you deny someone public accommodations based on their religion? That is the point of it. It isn't only about a recognized religious church being discriminated against in business affairs or government services.

      Sure, but all your saying is that they choose their identity which is the point. It doesn't matter that a protected class is a choice or not what matters is that you cannot discriminate on that classification. You cannot deny someone service based on race just like you can't deny service based on religion.

      To your post: "It's a choice, and is not an excuse for not following the law.". It is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on religious grounds.

      The funny thing with regards to these protected classes (even state level defined classes, i.e. sexual orientation), is that if you use the right language you can discriminate whoever you want because those laws are much more about intent than action. For example: a cake with bible quotes is 'offensive hate speech', you can deny service. A cake for a gay wedding; 'they are liberal'. Ideology is not a protected class you can deny service.

    148. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's the thing.

      First some background. I was born in South Africa and lived under apartheid. I'm a brown person. I'm amply aware of white supremacy and hate it with every inch of my soul. However, I've also seen black supremacy and black nationalism. While white supremacy oppressed us, black supremacy burned down our town. And yeah, I've also seen brown/Islamic supremacy (my own group). Heck, even in the UK, I have Indian Muslim family I visit that gloats how they got together and drove the blacks out of the neighborhood because they bring drugs and prostitution.

      I give all that as a background because if you live in any way long enough you quickly realize how every group has an 'alt-right'. This point cannot be overstated enough.

      Now when white people were just so damn powerful as it was the 'norm,' yeah we could all just pretend only white people were racist. Or I guess in modern social justice terms... that only white racists matter because only whites have power.

      This is some serious bull shit in my view, because all groups have power. I'm in Canada now. I'm Indian. My high school heavily Indian. Yeah, do you think white kids had any power? Nope, they got punked off for being white same as any other people.

      This is the point we are in history and why the alt-right is more prevalent. Regular white people are seeing how society is allowing every other gang to arm itself and spread itself to the teeth, while singling our only white people.

      Only white people can't be proud of their identity.
      Black power... that's a good thing. Not for me. To use modern lingo. I get triggered by black power as rioting black people burned down my home in South Africa in the name of black power.
      Indian power... that's a good thing because ethnic people need to have an identity. ...
      women power... that's a good thing.. because...feminism.

      These extremist groups really only gain power when regular people starting siding with them. I'm a bit of a realist. I don't pretend we can stamp out all form of hate, but various thing in regular society have people join their 'alt-right' movement and think they are legitimate.

      Again I can speak from my own example. Muslim communities are segregationist and racist to any level. You can't be openly gay. Heck, it's really tough to have openly left Islam as I did. I'm still battling through it.

      I really and truly don't see any different between white supremacists and muslim supremacists and black supremacists... hate is hate.

      The danger we face is that we've empowered and encouraged and turned a blind eye to all the other supremacist groups out there. White people aren't really blind to this and what is natural but to be sympathetic to the people who even have your interest at heart.

      Oh I see parallels all over the place. White people might not be part of the alt-right, but they sympathize. The same way most Muslims aren't part of ISIS or radical groups, but they do sympathize. You I attend regular family functions with regular Muslim people and I get to hear wonderful conversation like:

      It's sad people got killed over cartoons, but they really shouldn't be speaking about Islam anyways.

      I guarantee you there's some white people today going, I'm not for hate or white supremacy, but all I want is for my kids to have an identity they can be proud of or very legitimate issue X,Y,Z.

      Basically, of course you're right the alt-right has always been there. The problem is you can't just take this approach to only white people. It's basic group tribal dynamics. And society has changed quite a lot. It's not the 1960s USA where no other group had power, but white people and no other group is filled with hate and a conquest to subjugate and segregate other people.

      It's sad to see us a society not really demanding every other alt-right part of society be pushed to non-acceptance as well.

      It's also sad that regular white people can't just have a regular white identity and be proud of it.

    149. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be able to but the numbers that do so successfully with marrying in are small enough to mean they are pretty much nonexistent.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Japan

    150. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see, the problem is that alt-right types will take a statement like this one about South Africa - a majority black country - and use it to demonstrate 'reverse racism' in the U.S. - still a majority white country, and full of other minorities besides black people. There is no such thing as reverse racism in a country where the supposed racist minority is still suffering discrimination. Yes, I suppose there can be a form of 'compelled non-discrimination' - if only as a form of social pressure, which some whites will see as discrimination against them.

      Affirmative Action is a whole other subject, and maybe it's not the best way to remedy the effects of past outright discrimination, but those effects are real - and if you've got a better idea, then out with it.

      As far as white people needing a 'white identity they can be proud of'. How about an 'American identity that represents our national value of equal opportunity for all'. Using racial identity to shore up your personal pride is maybe a valid reaction to having been discriminated against because of your race to counter the narrative of racial inferiority that still infects this country. But it's downright silly to build an identity based on being white in America. What exactly is that identity - "we used to run this country - but now we're just as downtrodden as the rest of ya"? It's a big ole distraction / misdirection of anger towards the people who trod you down. Hint - it's not black people, it's the party who's nutcase candidate you just elected.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    151. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are getting tired of being pressured to go against the grain of their biology just because it offends somebody else, and the mere fact that you're a minority can be used to justify your sins. These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.

      I agree that belief in bullshit is the basis of the alt-right.

    152. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serge_Tomiko is a holocaust denier, anti-semite, and homophobe. Don't give him the attention he desperately wants.

    153. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedophile != child molester; not every pedophile is a child molester, and not every child molester is a pedophile. Confusing the two is like confusing anti-censorship for pro-shitpost.

    154. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WWII vets who would say that are gone because they were mostly wiped out by the Russians, you fascist dick.

    155. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by aristotheron · · Score: 0

      Let me preface my statement by saying you are a completely retarded piece of shit. You seriously cannot read let alone think or reason.

      Twitter is not "personal property" it is a public space. The fact that it is privately owned is morally irrelevant. This idea that 'some people can own the lives of others (slavery) is something that even your retarded group agrees with, but you are just too retarded to realize the different forms slavery takes all around you.

      "what speech we want to allow on our personal property, what speech we want to distribute - that is freedom of speech too"
      No, no it is not. Twitter is not the press. It is an interface to a public forum. It's ability to censor needs to be legislated to oblivion.

      Yes, you allow everyone to say whatever they want. You have the right to choose who you associate with. What the fuck are you talking about?
      Do you understand how twitter works at all? Or anything at all for that matter? If you don't like to see things you disagree with, no one and nothing is forcing you to see them. Your personal choice is unimpeded: to live in your echo box and be a completely retarded piece of shit that is totally unaware of the world.

    156. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      Geez. Why the hell don't they have a "only see tweets from verified accounts" checkbox?

      Then bans would actually stick and no one would have to worry about anonymous accounts. The targets don't have to receive death/rape/etc threats from anyone who isn't verified and if someone does some real bad shit, they have verified identification to punish the real people who do this shit.

    157. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing normal about institutionalized hate.

    158. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the crux of course, conservative America is literally dying of old age. We don't need to FIGHT the culture war anymore, we can just wait it out.

      Society progresses one funeral at a time.

    159. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting people rather than debating them sounds like fascism to me...

    160. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between those things.

      No, there really isn't any difference between those things. For people who aren't Nazis, there's no more difference than between a German Shepherd and an Alsatian.

      You will hear all sorts of explanations from White Nationalists as to why they're not the same as White Supremacists or alt-Right or neo-Nazis, but trust me, the differences are trivial compared to the similarities. You scratch the surface and you find a goose-stepper. None of them should be allowed anywhere near civil society.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    161. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's a dick. And you're a pussy. And the other guy, well, he's an arsehole. I hope this makes the situation clear.

    162. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. You can be oppressed and discriminated against and still be racist.

    163. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's basic group tribal dynamics"
      I've been trying to tell people this for years. The vast majority of people's beliefs about race and racism are completely warped because they refuse to accept this fundamental aspect of humankind, and themselves.

    164. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government is a secular state meaning there can be no state religion. That's all it means. It doesn't mean the government can force a person to do something that directly violates his religious beliefs, especially when said beliefs don't interfere with anyone else's. The Baker in this example is not interfering with the gays' ability to get a cake, he's adhering to his own belief that fornication is a sin. The gay people can get a cake somewhere else. Why is it OK for the government to violate one person's beliefs, but not another's, because the other is a minority? Why must the government violate one man's rights (1st amendment, freedom of religion) to solve a dispute, when the better solution for both parties is just for the customer to go somewhere else?

    165. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint - it's not black people, it's the party who's nutcase candidate you just elected.

      Typical liberal, resorts to name-calling because he can't support his argument.

    166. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Your link is missing the brave hero part without which you havent made any kind of point. I do dimly remember this but i dont remember her being labeled a hero after the crash.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    167. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oops, you didnt write the parent i was replying to. My main point stands but sorry i implied you said something you didnt.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    168. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Huh? The social constructs are basically categories for sex and gender. I'm firmly in one because that's my biology and psychology. Other people work differently, and are in other categories. If we, as a society, change the categories around, I might be in a different category. (Right now, I'm a straight cisgender male, not out of choice but because I am. I could be dumped into a category like "sexually attracted to females" like, say, a certain female cousin of mine, if categories change like that.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    169. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the situation is clear: You're upset because you agree with me.

    170. Re: Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologist sited. Behold the child rapist in training.

    171. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only white people can't be proud of their identity.

      Setting aside the real problem IMHO that nobody should be proud of their skin color based identity... I have to of course admit the importance of your comment. However another serious aspect of this problem is clickbait and poor journalism. This headline, this issue, is a trump-esque troll. The key weaselword/conflation is nationalist/supremecist. There is so much ugly history on this issue, and the sleazy journalists know that they can slip the word 'nationalist' in, and get a 'supremecist' reaction. Your comment however did some justice for the issue. However you still seemed to gloss over the point that the real evil here is nationalism. and the PATRIOT Act. Yeah, homosapiens are quite often unpleasant, and the internet put all the unpleasantness of the world under a microscope at everyone's fingertips. Interesting times.

    172. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by meta-monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    173. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you made you misogyny perfectly clear.

    174. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by dywolf · · Score: 1

      selling goods and services is not religious behavior.
      and you should be ashamed for making such an ignorant statement.

      operating a public business means being open to all the public.

      this was done to prevent the widespread discrimination that came before, where no one got together and decided a course action, but each shop owner through his own individual discriminatory decision led to a collectively discriminated against group.

      quit pretending this a new notion that came out of thin air, and you are seeing it for the first time.
      and if you really are seeing it for the first time, then your education was sorely lacking, and you should work to correct your ignorance.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    175. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is it possible that you're in high school and lived under apartheid?

    176. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left can't get anything done without mass killing/death it seems. It's literally a death cult.

    177. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your post is technically accurate with respect to how that decision is to be applied, sexual orientation is not a protected class under Tile VII. Therefore, this decision does not apply to the wedding cake issue under current jurisprudence.

    178. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for gender, it's not that different to how religion is defined. What makes someone a Christian? Because they say they are? Because they follow Christian values, which are themselves far from universally agreed upon? Because they go to Church? There is no one specific thing, you have to look at the person's actions and attitudes as a whole. It's the same with gender.

      There is a biological and scientific basis for gender assignment, but not for religion.

    179. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Agripa · · Score: 1

      All martyrs have one things in common; they suffer the internet death penalty.

    180. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by kimvette · · Score: 1

      He also conflated "faggot" with "bisexual" since he obviously acknowledged you've fucked at least some women, even if "a relatively small number" of women. It just goes to show is intelligence level and his persistent cognitive dissonance.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    181. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      refusal to love your shitty gangsta lifestyle isn't the same thing as hate

    182. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my best friends became a neo-nazi a few years back. I watched him transition.

      He was ex-military, kind of an asshole (he defrauded the government quite a few times during his service and bragged about it), and a very talented artist. He was never really racist, but not a very responsible person; he would blame all of his troubles on something other than himself. He would listen to right wing talk radio all day long, and even attempted to radicalize his girlfriends with it (luckily they got away from him before it worked, he was also extremely physically and emotionally abusive). He was extreme enough to get banned from Stormfront, and then called them all a bunch of jews.

      Sometimes when life was going really well for him, he would have the clarity of mind to realize that it was all bullshit, he'd turn off the radio, have a beer, and enjoy life, and then he'd make fun of nazis with me. But as soon as his life took a turn for the worse, whether a completely random event or something he consciously chose to do and was warned against, he would regress back into identity politics, and all the bad things that happened to him were because of blacks and jews. Bigotry is a safe space for weak people, and remember all nazis are extremely weak both mentally and emotionally. That's why they are so prone to violence.

      I haven't talked to him in a long time, but I did learn he voted for Trump.

    183. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by MercTech · · Score: 1

      If they ban the far right they need to ban the far left as well. Or, you can let the totalitarian bigots fart out the mouth until they sound as ridiculous as they are. Banning someone because you disagree just makes them the victim and garners support for the nimrods with radical beliefs.

      --
      NRRPT/RCT
    184. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is not a protected class is a consequence of the time when Title VII was written. No sane person would bet on that lasting. Quite frankly if anybody actually brought a case before the court arguing that the civil rights act should apply to non-heterosexual orientations, it's practically guaranteed the court would find that the intent behind Title VII makes it impossible *not* to add sexual orientation as a protected class.

      The odds are utterly against them striking down the claim on those grounds. Now this may change - if Trump goes and puts one of those ultra-conservative judges in place who thinks he gets to legislate his personal moral choices from the bench (you know - the kind who claims they are 'originalist' [a contradiction in terms since nothing could be LESS in line with the original intent of the founders of the constitution than for the court to NOT apply it with a contemporary eye - a living, constitution was the intent and to treat it like a static document is the greatest deviation from intent possible], like Alito was) then the odds swing a bit. Not far enough that I would change my bet - it would still be a court with Roberts in the median chair. But there are good odds Trump will get to appoint at least one more judge in four years. RBG is a 78 year old cancer survivor. Two other judges are 80 or older. Then the picture changes.

      A court where the majority of the judges are homophobes may not find that orientation should be (and should always have been) a protected class - but while such a decision becomes likely it remains nonsense legally.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    185. Re:Fuck Twitter appeasement by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Except if they have the policy of not baking cakes for homosexual weddings, then they are evil and have no rights; right?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Call it what it is by Ryanrule · · Score: 2, Insightful

    alt-right = neo nazi white nationalist = neo nazi. certain trump cabinet members = neo nazi. facts are facts. own up to it,

    1. Re:Call it what it is by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      "alt-right" is a concept intended primarily as a smear tactic by the Hillary campaign. White nationalists are hand-in-hand with the liberals in adopting it as a label. Since it is completely undefined, you can use it as a smear.

            There's aren't any "white nationalists", KKK members, etc, in the Trump team, nor will there be. Both of these groups are utterly insignificant idiots, and have been denounced and denigrated time and time again by Trump and anyone else in his circle

             

    2. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The best way to get people to "own up to it" are to let ideas and viewpoints be freely expressed. Hateful ideas will be seen (by most) for what they are and dismissed. Twitter is a private service and does not owe anybody the right to tweet. Oftentimes, however, it's best to let the fools diminish themselves by their own garbage.

    3. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "alt-right" is a concept intended primarily as a smear tactic by the Hillary campaign. White nationalists are hand-in-hand with the liberals in adopting it as a label. Since it is completely undefined, you can use it as a smear.

            There's aren't any "white nationalists", KKK members, etc, in the Trump team, nor will there be. Both of these groups are utterly insignificant idiots, and have been denounced and denigrated time and time again by Trump and anyone else in his circle

           

      You know we have videotape and records right? A ten second web search yielded this information

      Trump himself is a hero to these people. What you think anyone is really buying the crap about trump being concerned about obama's birthplace? No, it was a transparently obvious attempt to delegitimize the first black president from the very beginning and it lasted just long enough to do what it needed to do. At the time Trump accused Obama of playing the best con in history, which was a bit of insight into how Trump thinks. He was lying of course, but I think even then he was thinking of playing the best con in history.

      Sure on some level trump is likely racist, but mostly he is for Trump and is more than willing to deal with any racists that come along, as long as they support him. It is the same with Putin. We know Putin is a murderer. Too many of his enemies turn up dead. One even from polonium poisoning, but lead poisoning is the usual reason.

      We also know he had a campaign manager with major Russian ties. We know they bent over backward to get him elected, though to be fair it was probably more to prevent Hillary. We know that he is bending himself in a pretzel to say that all of our intelligence agencies are stupid and wrong, and only he is right on russia and of course now Trump is appointing Russia's best friend in the most important position he has.

      I wonder if he is afraid of his own polonium poisoning, or if there is actual marching orders. Heck, we even know that Trump is ignoring almost all of his intelligence briefings.

      His decisions will cause deaths. All presidents decisions do. His uninformed decisions are bound to cause a lot more, but he is just too busy to do the damn job. Disgusting. Seriously, can you imagine Romney or McCain refusing to be kept up to date on threats?

    4. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin'ed right off the bat.

    5. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Get a grip. Trump has not remotely denounced white nationalists. The last youtube ad they ran was a straightforward white nazi dogwhistle.

      The 'alt-right' term emerged, essentially from the alt-right itself. Spencer popularised the phrase, and even had a website called "Alternative Right".

      You don't get to blame your identity on your foes when people decide your identity is toxic.

    6. Re:Call it what it is by Sartr · · Score: 0
      You do get to anonymously whine and cry about it though! Waaaaah!

      Hey Emperor Trump! I've got another one for your gulags!

    7. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even CNN says Trump has denounced white nationalists...

    8. Re: Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit fuck off marxist shill troll

    9. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mostly correct but it's not a Hillary campaign tactic.

      It's a president putin funded russian internet troll propaganda tactic to show the "rise of the far right" is a real thing instead of made up bullshit.

    10. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are the ultimate arbiter of truth in this world?
      Or you have some crystal ball that lets you see into Trumps true thoughts?

    11. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complain that he doesn't denounce it. He denounces it. Then you complain he "didn't mean it".

      Are you still wondering why people look at the Left as a bunch of whiny, spoiled children who were poorly raised?

      By the way, when are Obama and Clinton going to denounce the violent rioters in Portland and other cities? Yeah, thought not. Poor losers, they are, taking the high road when they think they're winning, and showing their true colors when things didn't turn out their way.

    12. Re:Call it what it is by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get a grip. Trump has not remotely denounced white nationalists.

      Why should a president denounce any group of people? What good would that do? If it's not illegal why alienate people unnecessarily even if you strongly disagree with their ideology? Is this how you work to build the legitimacy of your office and country?

      Trump has said a number of times he does not support nor does he seek the support of these groups. Obviously it will never be quite clear enough for race baiting media perpetually pushing racial narratives to enrich themselves.

      The last youtube ad they ran was a straightforward white nazi dogwhistle

      The code word / dog whistle is a magical device granting the invoker unlimited power to invent whatever connections fit their predetermined narrative.

      If Trump loves the KKK or whatever your claim is your probably much better off convincing others by providing direct credible evidence to support your claims. It's fricking Trump shouldn't be that hard.

    13. Re:Call it what it is by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the most vociferous homophobes are people with homosexual tendencies.

      Likewise, in my experience, the most vociferous anti-racists are people with racist tendencies.

      Look in the mirror.

    14. Re:Call it what it is by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Why should a president denounce any group of people?

      Because...

      Trump has said a number of times he does not support nor does he seek the support of these groups.

      Yet he appoints a white supremacist to his team. And politicians have a habit of saying one thing and doing something different, a habit which Trump promised to break.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't parse a politician's statements word for word like you can when reading code (ironically.) There's a number of classic documented examples. Traditional family values = no gays. States' rights = Let us pass Jim Crowe-type laws. Welfare queens = undeserving stupid lazy black women always getting knocked up.

    16. Re:Call it what it is by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 1
      If you are referencing Bannon then as Ben Shapiro says

      I’ve been as critical of Steve Bannon as anybody in the media. I was the first critic of Bannon because when I left Breitbart in March, I specifically named Bannon as a nefarious influence at Breitbart, by name. And yet, I was forced last week to defend Steve Bannon. I think that he’s a terrible person. But because the left can’t just say, “This is a guy who made way for the alt-right, which is quite terrible, and he’s doing a real disservice to the nature of the country by doing so.” The left had to accuse him personally of racism and anti-Semitism, and they had to overstep. This is the big mistake.

      If you think Bannon is a threat then drop the bullshit white supremacist accusation and start to analyze what his plans for the nation are. Keep repeating that accusation over and over again like a lot of people on the left and you will reap what you sow. Have you ever wondered why Bannon wears this accusation like a badge of honor? Because he knows that it is bullshit and it simply discredits those who are repeating it.

    17. Re:Call it what it is by greythax · · Score: 1

      And this is somehow, even worse. What you are suggesting is that Bannon wasn't a racist (i.e. knew that was wrong) and yet willfully made his website an alt-right platform. Knew it was wrong, did it anyway. Honestly, I think you are probably right. I think the terrible thing about this cabinet in the making is less that it is filled with tepid racists, but rather men who will DEMONSTRABLY do anything for personal power, even violate their own beliefs.

    18. Re:Call it what it is by SmokeyRobot · · Score: 1

      men who will DEMONSTRABLY do anything for personal power, even violate their own beliefs.

      You just described 99% of people in power in today's world. In my opinion, this is exactly how both men and women.reach the highest seats of power. I mean do you really believe Hillary Clinton enjoyed spending time or watching her husband spend time with someone like Jeffrey Epstein? Her and Trump were both compromised and surrounded by people who do the same. In some regards I think if you have no dirt on you, you wouldn't be able to make it in the highest levels of power.

  3. "White Nationalist" is racist term by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The term "White Nationalist" is meant to evoke the term "Nazi" mixed with "KKK".

    But really it's neither of those things. A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally.

    When put that way it doesn't sound scary (or even unreasonable) at all. A nationalist can still want to work with other countries, can still support legal immigration - it simply means they adopt the doctors credo "First do no Harm". That is why the chattering news must paint the term with a racial brush, to frighten children or the weak minded...

    Note they never call out "black nationalists" even though there are plenty of them... that would be racist after all! But it's OK to try and evoke hate for people based on color when they are white.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spencer wants to create a nation of just white people. That's what is meant by the term.

    2. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ on a bike. You are indeed an ignorant fuckwit.

    3. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally.

      What else has every US administration done since the dawn of the Republic? Does a "real" nationalist require that a nation doesn't do any deals for any reason with anybody, leaving war as the only option for all conflict resolution and sun blocking full body suit the only option for going outside in the world depleted from its protective ozone layer?

      Note they never call out "black nationalists"

      Obama was characterized as a nationalist by our local media, making him a black nationalist.

    4. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should keep doing this in places where people can sample your semantics and safely deconstruct them.

      You should call yourself a 'deprogrammer' and tell the people you think you're trolling that they're affected by a blue pill worldview.

      You should continue to pull the wool over your own eyes until it hurts you and you realize you've been used the whole time and warnings like this one weren't trying to pull you back to your previous ignorance; rather they were telling you to think for yourself instead of replacing one set of fake beliefs with another set that are actually a lot stupider.

    5. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what do we call all the black americans on Twitter, calling out to kill all white people?
      - black nationalist?
      - african-american nationalist?
      - oppressed?
      - victims of systemic racism?
      - under-priviledged?
      - black lives matter member?

    6. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Informative

      A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first

      White nationalist doesn't mean a nationalist who happens to be white and I think you know that. It means they are promoting a white nation, which historically has meant KKK-style antics. Black nationalism is different because, as a minority, they had to separate. There was never a black KKK that went around lynching white people.

    7. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either "Nationalist" doesn't mean what you think it does, or it does and you're just being disingenuous about it.

      Hint: "nation" is not synonymous with "country".

    8. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      In Chicago we call them leaders of the black community. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Obama's church is one of them, "destroy the white enemy".

    9. Re: "White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he doesnt you propaganda spouting ass

    10. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

      > A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally

      Right, that's what a "nationalist" is. A (race) Nationalist is a *fundamentally different term*, however. It means someone who wants a nation to support a race in some manner, often by sorting people by race. That's why modern nationalists (with no racial preference) often identify themselves as civic nationalists, in case the term "nationalist" is misconstrued.

      I've seen the general meme you are throwing around in a few places, and I wonder if it came from a chan or a discord, maybe some lolplot. Or maybe it's just an honest misunderstanding that a lot of folks ended up with somehow. A White Nationalist, or a Black Nationalist ultimately wants to establish a nation based on some (often modern and ahistoric) understanding of a people or race. That's why that racial adjective is there: it is not saying "a civic nationalist who is (race)", but instead talking about someone who often wants to sunder an existing country in some fashion, and is often only a few steps away from stuff far more horrifying than that.

    11. Re: "White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His deeply inflammatory world view involves an all-white "ethno state" where races are segregated through peaceful "ethnic cleansing," though he has been quoted before as saying that it could be bloody.

      From http://abcnews.go.com/US/white...

    12. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "White Nationalist" is meant to evoke the term "Nazi" mixed with "KKK".

      True enough. Though it's also meant to keep some distance, since they can't quite embrace association.

      Still, it is meant to get the right sentiments across. That's also why the Aryan Brothehood, Volksfront and other's exist as White Nationalist movements.

      But really it's neither of those things.

      False enough that any truth to the statement is minimal. It is very much similar to both entities, and any difference is like claiming Burger King and McDonald's aren't each other, so Krystal's isn't either.

      They aren't the Anti-Masonic party either, but they are on the same path.

      A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally.

      Sorry to have to inform you of your error, but the definition of nationalist is not mere simple identification with a nation, even formation of one, but has acquired the meaning of an association with pretensions of superiority and domination of others groups.

      Don't like it? Too bad, the world shapes the meaning of words without your input, and the various white nationalists have created that meaning by their own usage.

      When put that way it doesn't sound scary (or even unreasonable) at all.

      Yes, if you define something an non-offensive, it doesn't sound scary, we're all aware of the concept of euphemism. And its deceits. So who do you think you're fooling? Your mom? No, she knows you're full of crap.

      A nationalist can still want to work with other countries, can still support legal immigration - it simply means they adopt the doctors credo "First do no Harm".

      Nope. Nationalists as extant do not want to work with other countries, except so far as expelling their own unwanted to deal with, only support immigration from those who meet their approval, which is based on prejudices, not merit, or any neutral value, but preferential treatment based on notions of superiority ascribed to certain groups by mere character.

      This especially includes white nationalists.

      That is why the chattering news must paint the term with a racial brush, to frighten children or the weak minded...

      Of course, you can't admit to the above, which is why you must disguise it under a brush of respectability, and claim that anybody who doesn't toe your line, is the flawed one.

      Note they never call out "black nationalists" even though there are plenty of them... that would be racist after all!

      Except when they do.

      On the other hand, you aren't calling out any "white nationalists" any at all. You're defending and excusing them.

      I bet you can't even denounce Dylann Roof. Wade Michael Page. Frazier Glenn Cross. Buford O. Furrow.

      But it's OK to try and evoke hate for people based on color when they are white.

      This is the line that White Nationalists use when they want to convince us that they're the persecuted victims.

      But can you say these guys are up to no good???

      I dare you to try.

    13. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Ly4 · · Score: 1

      So what do we call all the black americans on Twitter, calling out to kill all white people?

      a) Just as repulsive as Spencer.

      b) If (and only if) they are advocating for a separate race-based nation, then you can call them black nationalists.

      c) On Twitter? It's likely that you can call many of them Russian.

    14. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have evidence of this? What exactly did he say that indicates this? I have no idea who this guy is, but it seems every time someone is accused of being a white supremacist, KKK-founding, racist nazi, there's never any proof except maybe some ancient, taken out-of-context phrase that could possibly be misinterpreted into having some semblance of being proud of his ancestry (which is apparently only a crime for white people).

      More than likely, this guy just speaks out against the Left's agenda. They hate that because they expect everyone to just roll over without question, so they immediately turn to labelling that person with the usual barrage of cliches.

    15. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google: "Richard Spencer Ethno State"

      You could also listen to this interview: http://abcnews.go.com/US/white...
      or just read their synopsis:
      His deeply inflammatory world view involves an all-white "ethno state" where races are segregated through peaceful "ethnic cleansing," though he has been quoted before as saying that it could be bloody.

      Even more links are available through the guy's Wikipedia page.

    16. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by bongey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah , not a formal group, but just walk down a mile on any Martin Luther King Dr, in any city as a white person at midnight. Something will happen to you.

    17. Re: "White Nationalist" is racist term by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      It is too late for me to dig through these quotes to demoronize the unicode. I apologize, but slashdot is the real culprit.

      âoeWe triggered the world,â Spencer told âoeNightline.â âoeI think itâ(TM)s good to trigger people a little bit. When you get triggered it means that youâ(TM)re shocked, you thought something that you havenâ(TM)t thought before. It means that you have an open mind and you can start to see the world differently.â

      âoeI think the alt-right has gained a great deal of ground, precisely because we are provocative,â he added. âoeAnd precisely because, to use bad language, we donâ(TM)t give a ---- on some level.â

      âoeIf someone had told me two years ago that Donald Trump would be the alt-right hero and he would be president, I would be like, âWhat ridiculous movie are you talking about like this is not real life,â(TM) but it is real life,â Spencer said.

      He told Mother Jones magazine that âoeHispanics and African Americans have lower average IQs than whites and are more genetically predisposed to commit crimesâ -- a pseudo-science argument of white supremacists which has been widely discredited. But Spencer called it âoean empirical fact.â

      âoeWhen you study, say average intelligence say around the world, and you keep getting the same answer, at some point you are going to have to look towards genetics as a cause,â Spencer said.

      âoeI think the current paradigm weâ(TM)re living under is going to lead to blood and tears,â Spencer said. âoeI don't know exactly what is going to happen but yes I do think that if there is going to be a major crack up⦠predominantly on racial lines.â

      âoeI see myself as mainstream,â Spencer said. âoeI'm trying to normalize racism⦠I'm trying to normalize my ideas, our ideas of the alt-right, yes. I do not want the alt-right to be a fringe movement, I want the alt-right to be a dominant movement.â

      Those are the actual quotes from the article. I see: fluff, fluff, fluff, fact, fact, prediction, fluff. Notice that the part about the all-white ethnostate isn't in quotes. That means that either Juju or Victoria wrote it, not Richard Spencer. Maybe he really feels that way, maybe he doesn't - but there is certainly no evidence along those lines here.

      Now, I'm alt-right, but all that I know about Mr. Spencer comes from what I read here, and I think someone else that I read called him a clown once. Based on that, I'm going to say "attention whore" and "has the right enemies".

      As a rule, I don't spend much time on attention whores. Right or wrong, their ideas, if they have any, are usually recycled from better thinkers and writers. On the other hand, when the press, the SPLC, and college students all universally hate someone, I figure they are worth looking at.

      Also, when the press tells me that someone is a very bad man, but the important quotes are not from that man, but are about him, I start to wonder. Usually, that means that the press is in a panic about the ordinary and reasonable things he says, and not about the crazy things he may or may not think or say. By the way, this was Trump's last 18 months all over again. Endless hours of talking heads telling us that Trump is bad, no video of Trump actually being bad.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    18. Re: "White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to around 6:25 in the video.

      That part of the video is quoted in another article by JuJu Chang:
      . . . Richard Spencer had just told me with a smile on his face that I would not be allowed to live in the all-white ethno-state he envisions for the future.
      "You could have your own ethno-state," he offered ...

    19. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Right, because of the poverty-crime connection. not because of idealogy. You really don't see the difference?

    20. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooooo, scary. "Something" will happen to you.

      Yes, I walked down MLK Dr. at midnight, and yes, I'm white. "Something" did happen to me: I posted on slashdot that you're an idiot.

      Here it is: You're an idiot.

    21. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - you might realize how foolish you are to be so scared of people who look different than you.

    22. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck did this get moderated insightful? What racist garbage.

    23. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this get modded up? What racist garbage.

    24. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation?

    25. Re:"White Nationalist" is racist term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm white, and I do it quite often. Sometimes in Memphis, TN even! It's amazing the things you can do in life when you're not caged by irrational fear.

  4. Multiple account troll reinstated. FREEDOMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is surely the hate speech our founding fathers died of dysentery for. CAPTCHA : REREAD

  5. Fuck you by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    God damn you are one stupid ignorant mother fucker aren't you? Now it is clear why everything you post pisses me the fuck off. You're a god damn nazi sympathizer!

    1. Re:Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm white and not a globalist, then I'm a "white nationalist"?

      lmao. Who said progressives control the culture anyways? stfu

    2. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking retard I'm German

      So you admit to being a Nazi, then... All right, how many Jew skin lamps do you have, and how many negroid skulls do you use as ashtrays?

    3. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol us destroy ourselves? As you let hundreds of thousands of muslims into your country who not only refuse to assimilate but rather are planning on conquering you piecemeal?

      Have fun with that shitcock.

    4. Re: Fuck you by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. You mean, bring over some bondage gear? Yes, your leather cladded freaks will instill such fear! Hail Sodomy!

      Yes, all you Germans are fat, perverted freaks and a threat to no one. No one is afraid of you. That's why your country is overrun, and they rape your women like animals! You're all cowardly, sick fucks!

    5. Re: Fuck you by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, quite literally once war is declared, I will hunt down and shoot all the idiots who support a fascist America.

    6. Re: Fuck you by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Retard your post reflects why America has gone to shit and Germany alone is the dominant democracy that will defend the world's peace.

    7. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either you're trolling or you're just a complete fool. I'm not sure which.

      Like it or not, youre not the dominant democracy. Germany is the largest economy and the most powerful nation in the EU. But you're not the world's dominant democracy. India is by far the largest democracy in terms of people, and has the potential for significant economic growth. In terms of political and economic power in the present day, the United States is still the leader and it's not all that close.

      You've repeatedly objected to hate speech while mixing in slurs and calling for violence in your own posts. You've also mixed in a lot of anti-American rhetoric. That looks a lot like trolling.

      Then you have yelling at people and cursing at them, which again looks like trying to incite angry responses. Again, this is activity that looks a lot like trolling.

      Maybe you're not a troll, but you've certainly lost it with some of your posts.

    8. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Germany can't defend the world's peace, fuckwit. It barely has enough military to defend itself, let alone the rest of the world. Germany has no capacity to project military or political power besides in the EU. If China invaded Vietnam, or India invaded Pakistan, they wouldn't be worrying about what Germany thinks. No, they'd be worried about whether America would step in. Germany alone can't stop aggression.

    9. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Don't Germans have to keep their guns at a gun club? How will you shoot people when you don't have guns?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    10. Re: Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they'll beat us to death with dildos and bongs. It's a shame that all of the Germans with balls were killed off in the last world war.

    11. Re:Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool rant but what's your argument?

  6. They're invoking the KKK by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because these groups have been hitting the dog whistle so hard you'd think they picked up a coaches whistle by mistake.

    And we called out Black Nationalists in the 70s. They mostly calmed the hell down and stopped being racists. The White Nationalists didn't do that when they were called out. They doubled and trippled down. Mostly because they're being used by a wealthy elite to win elections and stuff state legislatures with pro-corporate anti-worker politicians. That's what pisses me off the most about racism. It's just an excuse to give everything to the 1%.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear fucking hear, on a global fucking scale.

    2. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe because the blacks had nothing and but had a huge homeland in reserve, while the whites have something to take and they have nowhere to go

    3. Re:They're invoking the KKK by quantaman · · Score: 0

      because these groups have been hitting the dog whistle so hard you'd think they picked up a coaches whistle by mistake.

      And we called out Black Nationalists in the 70s. They mostly calmed the hell down and stopped being racists. The White Nationalists didn't do that when they were called out. They doubled and trippled down. Mostly because they're being used by a wealthy elite to win elections and stuff state legislatures with pro-corporate anti-worker politicians. That's what pisses me off the most about racism. It's just an excuse to give everything to the 1%.

      But Trump is standing up to the 1% by filling his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      because these groups have been hitting the dog whistle so hard

      And there you have the complete admission that there are no racists statements. The term "dog whistle" is the left's term for racism when there is no racism. They can't find it, they can't point to it, it doesn't exist, so its statements that no reasonable person would find racist but for some reason is obviously racist.

      4 years ago the DNC adopted the strategy of ignoring the white working class. I have see the strategy papers for their elections. It was all going to be about getting every possible minority that isn't white voting for them. Since that time, EVERY policy that isn't a DNC policy has been labeled "racist", see rsilvergun's comments. It worked so well for them in fact, Trump won 3 states he shouldn't have.

      Time to cool off on calling EVERYONE who disagrees with you racist. Or keep it up, there are still a few DNC seats in Congress they can lose. If the DNC platform is "vote for us or you are a racist" I fail to see how they will ever win an election again, and from your comments I see you are currently sticking with it.

    5. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the "white nationalists" are people who are suffering from a slow-motion genocide. The progressives are very blatant about their intent to destroy Appalachian cultures. Remember that "clinging to their guns and religion" comment by Obama? Yeah, that's a very explicit call to genocide.

    6. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the nerve to talk about the 1%? The Left are nothing but puppets dancing to the tune of the globalists, acting as obedient little soldiers attacking any who oppose the globalist agenda of open borders and a pussified, disarmed populace who is too scared to stand up to anything. That the globalists are raging, hardcore neocons makes the whole situation even more tragic.

      Face it, your views are not your own. You've been very successfully programmed. You are parroting everything the elite-controlled MSM is feeding you.

    7. Re:They're invoking the KKK by aristotheron · · Score: 1

      you have no idea what you're talking about, why are you being modded up for this kind of worthless comment?

    8. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And we called out Black Nationalists in the 70s. They mostly calmed the hell down and stopped being racists.

      And then they came back in vogue again with Black Lies Matter. Their ideological guru is Assata Shakur, a convicted cop-killer from the Black Liberation Army who fled to Cuba.

    9. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:They're invoking the KKK by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's what pisses me off the most about racism. It's just an excuse to give everything to the 1%.

      From my point of view it's the anti-racism that's the excuse to give everything to the ruling elite. The Democrats split people into every category of minority imaginable and tell them that the majority wants to oppress, enslave or kill them. Joe Biden telling blacks "the Republicans want to put you people back in chains!" I had gay friends on FaceBook freaking out after the election because the left and the media has convinced them a Trump administration is going to round up everyone who isn't straight and put them in camps. The only way to prevent the evil Republicans from murdering everyone who isn't a straight white male and legalizing rape is to vote Democrat. And then both Dems and Republicans will argue for years about trans bathroom rights but when it comes to trade deals and regulations that enrich the elite and give more power to the government they're lock-step. Pass that shit in the middle of the night 99-1 no problem.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:They're invoking the KKK by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      But Trump is standing up to the 1% by filling his cabinet with Goldman Sachs executives!

      One guy who worked there 15 years ago. Hyperbole much?

      Also, I would think someone with high-level banking experience would be good for Treasury. Who would you pick?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:They're invoking the KKK by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you're either an idiot, or a bigot, or both.
      and so are the mods who modded you up.

      something doesn't require the use of an explicit slur to be racist.

      just a few examples of dog whistles, proving they do indeed deal with actual racism and bigotry:
      -when talking about Islam, using Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, for the reaction anything Islamic gets from people on the right
      -in 1956 Georgia changed their flag, adopting the stars and bars in response to the growing civil rights movement. this is what it looked like before 1956: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia...
      -Ronald Reagan calling for "States Rights" mere minutes away from Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists were shot and killed in 1964 by racists who also believed in "states rights", where people in the south still thought segregation should be handled as a "states rights" issue (indeed, the main one) and not at the federal level. the phrase even calls back to the civil war itself, where the states seceded over their "states rights" to have slavery.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:They're invoking the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we have a perfect example of the person who responds to dog whistles and doesn't realize he is nothing but a useful idiot. Why is it always the bootlickers who pine about individual freedom, when their every action is a frothing rant against individual freedom? Are we in 1984 now?

  7. Re:fuck you too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You demonstrate ignorance each time you post here.

  8. Re:fuck you too by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    You are pretty good at demonstrating idiocy, so what does that say? This element is dangerous and must be dealt with violently and aggressively.

  9. New Song to MAGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our Flag held high! We march in step together..we march for Trump, we march for the USA. For our comrades that BLM has shot at..they march in peace, within our ranks with us.

    Clear off the streets, the Trump battalion marches , our streets are free, march if you have the cash.

    For our comrades we will march in step together, we march for Trump, we are the 1%.

    -Sung to the tune of "Die Fahne Hoch" written by Mr. Horst Wessel.

    1. Re:New Song to MAGA by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      That is funny, but all these Americans will have to google those terms to understand. Strict meaning is this: Trump is using the same dangerous rhetoric that Hitler used after he stopped being an army provocateur and started his nationalist group.

  10. and it should be by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There are several reasons to give it back:
    1) first amendment rights in America really need to apply for this. The idea of the internet is that it is no different than speaking publicly.
    2) it is far better to know what this WT is up to. And the only way is to have him record it on a freely available medium, such as twitter.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:and it should be by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      While I do not agree with your first argument as twitter is a private company/service that just happens to be popular, I couldn't agree more with your second argument.

      Letting these idiots speak their mind is the only way to know who they are and it allows arguments other than name calling to show the errors of their ways. This may not influence them, but it sure as hell will influence those reading or listening to them. And if it doesn't, then we know who they are and can take steps if and when they get into any positions over others and act on that racism.

      Racist views should be in the sunlight for everyone to understand their idiocy. Unfortunately, even a bling squirrel finds a nut but that is a price that needs to be paid.

    2. Re: and it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can think of now are squirrels wearing rings and gold chains.

    3. Re:and it should be by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      2) it is far better to know what this WT is up to. And the only way is to have him record it on a freely available medium, such as twitter.

      You can know what he is up to from his posts on Gab and other social media designed for Nazis. I'm sure you don't believe that Twitter should be forced by law to let this guy have an account.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:and it should be by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      1) first amendment rights in America really need to apply for this. The idea of the internet is that it is no different than speaking publicly.

      That's right. And part of the idea of free speech is that I do not owe you a soapbox to stand upon.

      2) it is far better to know what this WT is up to. And the only way is to have him record it on a freely available medium, such as twitter.

      Let him run his own blog, like everyone competent.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:and it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck is Gab "designed for Nazis"?

    6. Re:and it should be by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      This may not influence them, but it sure as hell will influence those reading or listening to them.

      When Jesus trolled the Pharisees he wasn't trying to convince them, or change their minds. They knew they were liars and thieves. Jesus led them into rhetorical traps that exposed them. His target was the crowds, who would see the buttmad Pharisees and wonder, "who is this man who says these things?"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    7. Re:and it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Platforms that don't censor my political opponents = Nazi."

  11. Wow by dohzer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow... when Trump wants something done, it really does get done!

  12. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Have they? Not saying the KKK is cool, but you have a pretty loaded comment hear, that I don't think holds up under the smallest amount of scrutiny.

  13. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Sartr · · Score: 2
    How many have they killed in the last 20 years?

    Compare that number to the amount killed by Muslim extremists.

    Realize you are terrible at math.

  14. Right to free speech by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ban the motherfucker for TOS violation and deny him the audience that feeds his hatred of everyone and everything else.

    Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred.

    We've learned in the last few weeks that the mainstream media is quick to mislabel something as bigoted and other related labels, so long as it promotes their position. To get to the truth you have to actually find the statements some person was saying, and then determine for oneself whether they're bigoted or not.

    (And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)

    And further, asking whether Trump was bigoted caused people to post entirely non-bigotry quotes as "proof" of his racism. Mexico isn't a race, he was specifically referring to criminals, Islam is not a race (it's a culture), and so on.

    It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.

    Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump. It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue. I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?

    It's estimated that there are less than 50,000 white supremacists in the entire country, and less than 1000 of the tattooed, nazi-ish, violent types that you see in a Banshee episode.

    Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.

    Instead, it's all about racism. Voting for Trump was a hate crime.

    Thirdly, the left really *really* doesn't have any good sense of priorities when it comes to human rights. Apparently anything goes, so long as it promotes their agenda. This twitter thing, and the quote above, is a good example of that in practice.

    We don't allow twitter to hire only whites (14th amendment &c), or only men (19th amendment). We don't allow twitter to refuse services to gays or older people or the poor or veterans, because that would be a violation of their rights.

    Why do we allow twitter to violate first amendment rights?

    No one is required to give you a public forum, the saying goes, but Twitter *is* a public forum.

    And finally, recall about a decade ago how ISPs would turn over subscriber information to the government on request without a warrant. The government thought that was OK because the ISPs were free to refuse, and it wasn't a violation of our rights because it wasn't the government doing it.

    If we let companies censor our speech, then the same situation will happen. The government can "request" something be censored, with a wink and a nudge, and it won't be the government doing it.

    We're rapidly losing our free speech rights.

    And it starts with leftist idiots like the OP above, who thinks it's OK to violate that right, so long as the ends are virtuous.

    1. Re:Right to free speech by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Wrong. White nationalist relates the Hitler cultivated groups in Germany. They deserve only destruction.

    2. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goal of the KKK is to have a whites-only society. The only way to achieve this goal is violence, because non-white people have to be removed from that society. Therefore, the ideology inherently promotes violence, which cannot be met with reason.

    3. Re: Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first amendment also prevents forced speech. The government can't force you to engage in any particular speech or type of speech. If Twitter doesn't want certain types of speech on their site, that is their first amendment right. For example, a Christian baker can't turn away a gay couple on the grounds that the couple is gay. The baker can, however, refuse to bake a cake that has a particular message on it that he or she finds offensive.

    4. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The goal of the KKK is to have a whites-only society. The only way to achieve this goal is violence, because non-white people have to be removed from that society. Therefore, the ideology inherently promotes violence, which cannot be met with reason.

      The KK-who? They've been in decline for many decades. There's nothing there, just a few thousand. The biggest impact the KKK has on modern society is use of them as a boogeyman. You sound uneducated, figure out what's really going on.

    5. Re:Right to free speech by Serge_Tomiko · · Score: 3, Informative

      It has nothing to do with Germany. The closest example would be Israel. Would you say Israel deserves destruction for wanting to have a country just for Jews?

    6. Re:Right to free speech by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      Yes, the Israeli Nationalists are wrong, and are responsible for all of the security problems facing Israel today. Israel needs reform because it is abusing its citizens.

    7. Re:Right to free speech by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So a nation with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian elected leaders is all about repression and abuse. One that has mosques, synagogues, and churches all mixed together. Go 100 miles outside of Israel and see what it's like to start a synagogue or church. Tell us what it feels like as the sword cuts through the back of your neck...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Right to free speech by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Yes

    9. Re:Right to free speech by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And? So? What is the point? A man shouts a highly incidiary phrase (allahu ackbar) at a religious site that was crowded with people, and he's shot? That's sign of repression? I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I'm going to shoot you!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?

      You're a moron. The fact is that Israel is pretty much the ONLY place in the Middle East with ANYTHING resembling freedom of religion, speech, and personal actions. Go try to just carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia and find out what happens...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Right to free speech by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      I bet you speed read that for confirmation of your bias on reading the headline. Did you notice the man was a local, repeat visitor? An Israeli citizen? That the site also hosts a major mosque? I bet not. Did you notice that the "guard" was a less trained new recruit temporarily posted to the site? I bet not. Retard.

    11. Re:Right to free speech by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Did you know that Israel has a 70 year history of its neighbors denying its right to even EXIST? That it's been under terrorist attacks for decades? That accidents and unfortunate issues happen, and that because of ONE action you claim the entire nation and defunct? What do you say when an ISIS or PA terrorist blows up a few dozen people at an Israeli market - good for the terrorists? You're an idiot. And a racist one at that.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Right to free speech by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      You asked "what reforms" so I gave an example. You are a retarded faggot.

    13. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would deny a country the right to exist if the UN just declared that part of my country now belonged to a new country that did not exist before.

    14. Re:Right to free speech by jrumney · · Score: 1

      a highly incidiary phrase (allahu ackbar)

      Do we shoot Christians for proclaiming "Hallelujah"? "Allahu Akbar" is only highly incendiary if you ignore all the times that non-terrorist Muslims use it in everyday contexts.

    15. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't suppose you can see the irony in your posts where your advocate for policies that are typically associated with dictatorships and totalitarian societies. Censorship, broad labelling of opposition, elimination of anyone who doesn't agree with your views, etc.

    16. Re:Right to free speech by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The fact is that Israel is pretty much the ONLY place in the Middle East with ANYTHING resembling freedom of religion, speech, and personal actions.

      Resembling, yes. But there? Nope. You have freedom of religion so long as you follow one of two YHWH-worshipping sects...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Right to free speech by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did you know that Israel has a 70 year history of its neighbors denying its right to even EXIST?

      The Jews were never more than a racial minority in that region, they got kicked out, and they got reinstalled by force.

      accidents and unfortunate issues happen, and that because of ONE action you claim the entire nation and defunct?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      One action? You're hilarious.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re: Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government can't force you to engage in any particular speech or type of speech.

      I'm glad we can count on your support for bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings then.

    19. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Eh. 6/10 for trolling. Not inflammatory enough to be someone who actually believes this tripe.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    20. Re:Right to free speech by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Wrong. White nationalist relates the Hitler cultivated groups in Germany.

      No, they don't. Hitler divided people into Germanic vs everybody else. US "white nationalists" like Spencer relate to the racial categories American progressives have been putting Americans into for decades: "Caucasian", "African American", "Native American", "Asian", etc.

      They deserve only destruction.

      Nobody deserves "destruction". But the racism pushed on Americans by progressives and Democrats certainly deserves strong rebuke. It is fundamentally wrong and evil to attempt to categorize people by race or treat them differently based on their race.

    21. Re: Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump.

      White Nationalist is the term adopted by the groups themselves, to establish their identity and try to cover over their association with the White Supremacist and White Power movement.

      It lets them keep the identity they want (namely being White) while claiming to only be for separation or cohension, rather than strict dominance. Some of them even tacitly claim thst all races should be kept apart.

      Would you like some pointers to their own descriptions of themselves? Would you also like to see their endorsement, even affectionate attitude towards Trump? Trump, like yourself, probably needs to see what they are. Some people's affirmation is a bad thing.

      It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue. I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?

      Why are you so frequently making false complaints about being victimized by the left? Is it because you're so ignorant of the extant "White Nationalist" movement that has identified itself by that very term, or are you just confused because you think you're white, and you think you're a nationalist, that people MUST be talking about you, or criticizing you on those same terms?

      That sounds like your own problem, as you don't and won't understand that people aren't talking about you, and that you don't even understand what they do have concerns about.

      Of course, there may be things to criticize about you, whether it is whatever you conceive of races, or what you mean by nationalism. But you're a bit vague on that subject, all you mentioned was a bit about trade agreements, which isn't much to go on.

    22. Re:Right to free speech by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump

      That term has a very specific meaning.

      White nationalist: National identity is linked to race, i.e. you can't be a real American if you are not white.

      White supremacist: White people are superior to all other races.

      "White nationalist" isn't an insult, it's just a description of some people's beliefs. Of course, some people would find it insulting or feel embarrassed to be described that way. To be clear, Trump isn't a white nationalist, although he did appoint a white supremacist to his team.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you know that Israel has a 70 year history of its neighbors denying its right to even EXIST?

      The Jews were never more than a racial minority in that region, they got kicked out, and they got reinstalled by force.

      Since when are Jews a 'race'? In the antiquated field of 'racial studies' Jews were considered to be 'Semites' who in turn were members of the 'Caucasian race'. Having said that, 'race' is a concept with extremely limited and ambiguous scientific meaning if it even has any meaning in a scientific sense given the low genetic diversity in humans and the extremely diffuse genetic boundaries between the so called 'races'. Personally I think we can consign 'race' to the trashcan of history, the concept has been thoroughly obsoleted by genetics.

    24. Re:Right to free speech by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Since when are Jews a 'race'? [...] Personally I think we can consign 'race' to the trashcan of history, the concept has been thoroughly obsoleted by genetics.

      Ah, but the Jews have been kicking out anyone whose mother isn't a registered jew for thousands of years. If anyone can be said to be a race, it's probably them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Right to free speech by swb · · Score: 1

      Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.

      I think both the Democrats and Republicans have been promoting a false reality for so long that its deviation from reality in everyday life for most people just became so obvious that they no longer had any credibility.

      I'm torn on whether it had to be Trump (or someone nearly identical to him) or whether a more conventional politician who also eschewed conventional thinking could have accomplished the same thing. Given the success of Bernie Sanders I'm inclined to think that it was just a question of when, not if, someone else would have cracked the facade. Yet part of me thinks it really took a person willing to ignore all the rules, with all the brashness, hostility to the status quo and wealth of Trump to pull it off.

      It remains to be seen whether Trump's actual policy implementations will back his electoral rhetoric. While I think his cabinet appointments have been really uninspiring, I also wonder if his mode of governance, like his campaign, will be so different that trying to judge his appointees by conventional standards of Presidential governance is misleading. I wonder if he will end up being a strong top-down manager and the people he appointed were picked not for their own political views but for personality, loyalty and a willingness to attack the bureaucracies they represent. They won't be guiding Trump's policies as much as tools for his personal implementation of them.

    26. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when are Jews a 'race'? [...] Personally I think we can consign 'race' to the trashcan of history, the concept has been thoroughly obsoleted by genetics.

      Ah, but the Jews have been kicking out anyone whose mother isn't a registered jew for thousands of years. If anyone can be said to be a race, it's probably them.

      Like I said, 'race' is about as relevant to modern science as phlogiston.

    27. Re:Right to free speech by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Yes, kick them out! Let's not allow any arabs in Israel, and heaven forbid they get into the Knesset. Oh wait... Now, let's boot those "evil jews" from Israel (a historical land for them) - where do we send them? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Iran? Hey - those countries refuse to even recognize their right to EXIST, let alone live there...

      Google search shows dozens of mosques and churches in Israel. Google search flat out states "no synagogues" and "no churches" in Saudi Arabia. But that's OK, let's continue to demonize the only thing that's close to a fully open society in the Middle East because "JOOOOS!"

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:Right to free speech by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Race" has no scientific definition and can mean pretty much anything shared amongst a group which they did not actively seek to bring upon themselves in order to identify as. It can stretch to some superficial similarities in genome, to shared tradition, to shared culture, to religion. So yeah, "Islam" can be a race, as can "Mexican".

      Also, your first 3 sentences can be ignored as they are based on absolutely nothing but your assumptions. The generalisations they contain inherently preclude them from being logically sound. Which is not surprising as you then went on to try to defend a bunch of racist muppets. Yay you.

    29. Re:Right to free speech by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Did you know that Israel has a 70 year history of its neighbors denying its right to even EXIST?

      The Jews were never more than a racial minority in that region, they got kicked out, and they got reinstalled by force.

      Gotta be careful with those "absolute" words. Never is a mighty long time.

      You need to remember that the Jewish people started off in that region. They were nomads, and they were quite large. They tore up all of the societies in that region thousands of years ago.

      Imagine civilizing the tribes around you and creating a city... and then imagine a million dirty nomads moving to the area just outside of your fresh city walls... and they are intent on sacking your city, killing all combat age males, and taking all of your virgins and valuables.

      That was the Jews. They wandered all across the Middle East raping and pillaging all civilizations in the region. They did indeed have a prior claim to that land as they were the ones who destroyed all of the previous civilizations to take it.

      And then, everyone got annoyed with them and purged them from the region. And now, they are back. Messy.

      Not trying to say they have a legit claim, just that the history of the region is a bit more involved than you seem to think.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    30. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, fuck slashdot mods for modding up this shit.

      "Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred."

      followed by...

      "(And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)"

      See a problem there? But its slashdot, TLDR poster gets a +5 informative while conflating about 5 separate ideas into an incoherent argument.

      Only "50,000 white supremacists in the entire country". If by country you mean Tennessee... Whats the unique hit count on stormfront? Are you kidding me....

      Fuck right off out the debate then you willfully ignorant clod if you're going to defend this neo-nazi piece of garbage while swinging in the dark.

    31. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred.

      Then you haven't been paying attention.
      The fact he uses prettier language and doesn't resort to spittle and invective doesn't change who and what he is.
      And that is a neo-Nazi racist.

      He is "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States".
      He has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing”
      He dreams of a "new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all white Europeans".
      He backs creation of an Aryan homeland.
      He thinks that “At the end of the day, America belongs to white men.”

      We've learned in the last few weeks that the mainstream media is quick to mislabel something as bigoted and other related labels, so long as it promotes their position. To get to the truth you have to actually find the statements some person was saying, and then determine for oneself whether they're bigoted or not.

      And so far you're 0 for 20.

      (And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)

      Yet you feel qualified/compelled to give an opinion implicitly defending him not two sentences earlier.

      And further, asking whether Trump was bigoted caused people to post entirely non-bigotry quotes as "proof" of his racism. Mexico isn't a race, he was specifically referring to criminals, Islam is not a race (it's a culture), and so on.

      Again: then you haven't been paying attention.

      Also, excusing "mere bigotry" because it's not "racism" under the limited concepts of the English language... doesn't change the fact its still bigotry

      It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.

      What academic sense would that be?
      Fake "studies" that minorities are less intelligent, more prone to crime, etc?
      this is a BS complaint.

      Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump. It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue.

      No, it accurately describes who and what they are: Racists who want a 100% ethnically white European country. who want no minorities present, or if they are, to not be endowed with the same rights as whites.

      I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?

      First answer why you support the legalized marginalization of minorities (evidenced by past comments in support of various conservative ideologies), and then you'll have your answer.

      It's estimated that there are less than 50,000 white supremacists in the entire country, and less than 1000 of the tattooed, nazi-ish, violent types that you see in a Banshee episode.

      at least one, and likely two, orders of magnitude off.

      Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.

      No he got elected because we use an undemocratic system, a system that ensures ~half the country (or rather half the population of each state) has zero voice in the election, a system that was obsoleted the moment political parties were created, that was meant to ensure wealthy land owning elites would always have an un

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    32. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      "I can't be racist, I have a black friend."

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    33. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I'm going to shoot you!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?

      Yes.
      Or at the most be detained and interviewed... and not summarily executed.

      You're a moron. The fact is that Israel is pretty much the ONLY place in the Middle East with ANYTHING resembling freedom of religion, speech, and personal actions. Go try to just carry a Bible into Saudi Arabia and find out what happens...

      Sorry, no.
      That statement only reveals your own ignorance about the entire region.

      The area is not represented just by Israel, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia much as ignorant people like you would like it so. Picking Saudi Arabia is basically picking the most extreme example of restrictive government. It's no more wholly representative of all ME countries than Dylan roof is of all white people. Israel is fairly free...if you're Jewish. If you're not, you face a separate and unequal existence similar to the Jim Crow south, or apartheid South Africa.

      That makes you the moron.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    34. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Also, no that is not a highly incendiary phrase. (again: reflection of your own ignorance and bigotry)
      It literally translates as "God is great" or "God is the greatest."

      It's instead a rather common religious invocation in Islam used in various contexts as roughly equivalent to:
      -"In Jesus name we pray" in formal prayer
      -"Praised be his name", as in giving thanks
      -"Amen" as a response to someone else
      -"Lord have mercy" as a response to a stressful or unexpected happenstance
      -etc

      therefore, your example with the police officer would be better written to be less ignorant as thus:

      I guess I can have a policeman a few feet away, turn to you, point my finger and say "I believe in God!" and expect the policeman to do nothing, right?

      To which the answer is still: Yes.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    35. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      now youre putting words in peoples mouth and then accusing them based on that strawman.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    36. Re:Right to free speech by dywolf · · Score: 1

      did slavery and the systematic persecution of blacks and other minorities never happen in your world or something?
      cause last time I checked it wasn't liberals or progressives who first people into those categories.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    37. Re:Right to free speech by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      cause last time I checked it wasn't [...] progressives who first people into those categories.

      I didn't say they did it "first", I said they have been "doing it for decades". Since the 1960's, American institutions keep track of "racial" classifications of employees, customers, debtors, renters, students, etc.

      did slavery and the systematic persecution of blacks and other minorities never happen in your world or something?

      While progressives like to confound the two, slavery and 20th century racism are quite distinct phenomena. Since the beginning of the 20th century, racial classification, segregation, persecution of racial minorities, and eugenics have been driven primarily by progressivism, both in the US and in Europe. Pre 20th century, these modern political categorizations make less sense, but it was still Democrats that favored slavery and racial categorization and Republicans that opposed slavery and racial categorization.

      Democrats like to maintain the myth that party labels magically switched due to the "Southern Strategy", but in reality, both Democratic and Republican policies have been fairly consistent throughout US history, with Democrats making racial distinctions and Republicans advocating for equality under the law regardless of race. What changed was that Democrats figured out how to sell their racial discrimination as a supposed benefit to minorities.

      liberals or progressives

      The people who call themselves "liberals" in the US are not actually politically liberal, but instead are either progressives or democratic socialists. So, it's best to avoid using the term "liberal" altogether.

    38. Re:Right to free speech by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That was the Jews. They wandered all across the Middle East raping and pillaging all civilizations in the region. They did indeed have a prior claim to that land as they were the ones who destroyed all of the previous civilizations to take it.

      That is essentially the history of all land, though not everyone who was killed had a civilization we'd consider worthy of the name. They weren't the first and they probably won't be the last to kill everyone in that particular region.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be super far left, as a canadian. Everyone is the same, love everything, all that.

      Then I decided to actually "walk the walk" and live in Baltimore.

      Now I have seen the truth I hate the black communities barbarism beyond my ability to put in words. I loathe you. You absolutely are sub-human. Black people convinced me of this, not white people.

      Now there aren't even any white people left there to blame for your shitty way of life.

    40. Re: Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats like to maintain the myth that party labels magically switched due to the "Southern Strategy"

      No magic to it, merely political reality and changing circumstances. Just as the politics of Jackson were no longer pre-eminent for Southerners when they decided to embrace secession, so the label of Democrats was shed once the national party started repudiating the Southern racist conservatives as their coercive demands became more unpalatable. But those bigots, they happily transitioned to the Republican party which began shedding its own liberals even more. They'd been ignoring them for years, it was never popular in the party itself, which never ever really wanted to work for the people's interest.

      Only in fairy tales is magic necessary, but I understand the right-wing believes in a lot of those.

    41. Re:Right to free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.

      What would "race in an academic sense" be? Biologically the concept of human races is not tenable. The only place where "race" exists is in racist ideologies.

  15. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, its just that you don't follow the news very well.

  16. Re: And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    got any proof that isn't out your ass?

  17. BuzzFeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we were against Fake News.

  18. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The KKK has killed more people in the us than any Muslim

    Yes, easy to say that any group of meaningful size has killed more people than any single person, regardless of religion.

  19. Re:White Nationalist? Was Trump Suspended? by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Double-tap, it works for the toilet too.

  20. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Convenient list that ignores 49 killed in the name of Islam in Miami. That attack ALONE outstrips all those the Guardian totals up over 14 years as attributable to the KKK and white nationalists. They have an agenda, obviously, and because it goes along with your own agenda - you champion it. Even though it's missing GROSS chunks of attacks (San Bernardino anyone?)

    Also interesting that the total starts AFTER 9/11 - giving a few thousand head start to the Islamic terrorists... But then, to offset that, you'd have to go back to the KKK in the pre-civil-rights movement, when it was the DEMOCRAT ENFORCEMENT wing with proud member Robert "sheets" Byrd and Fullbright (BilL Clinton's idol) leading the charge against those uppity black folks...

  21. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    A gay muslim isn't an Islamist. Try again you fucking idiot.

  22. Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think it's damned scary how so many people try to define "Free Speech" as only the speech they want to hear, words with which they agree, while anything even mildly offensive or challenging to the their world view and preconceptions is quickly labeled hate speech, or racism "loud mouth thugs" who should be banned from social media. And it's not just the overpampered snowflakes who think this way, it's also many of the adults in education and the media, as well.

    1. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      There is no obligation for a firm to provide a platform for communication counter to its brand.

    2. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can be regulated. Twitter is essentially acting as a common carrier.

      More than that, the government enforces contracts. A contract that turns a person into a slave is unenforceable. Should a contract that limits speech be the same?

    3. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      while anything even mildly offensive or challenging to the their world view and preconceptions is quickly labeled hate speech, or racism

      The guy is a Nazi. We have pretty good evidence that leaving Nazism unchecked leads to bad outcomes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the Left's speech starts getting censored by large, private entities, I'm sure we'll see you posting the same defense of them on /.? Right? Right??

    5. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically we have no control for that experiment. No one left Nazism unchecked, so we really don't know what it would do.

    6. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There's a reason why the ACLU provided legal representation to the American Nazis when a lot of other people wanted to shut them up.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      "The guy is a Nazi."

      That's just a label that people like you apply to others in order to deny them a forum. Exactly the way people use "Racist!" and "Racism!". Have you ever bothered to read anything written by Richard Spencer, or do you just read the out-of-context quotes which attempt to make him look bad? Have you ever listened to anything he has to say, or do you only listen to what the MSM say about him? Trump's appeal to the so-called "alt-right", apart from his immigration policy, is his reaction when the media tried to use the magic R-word to discredit him. Rather than fall all over himself apologizing like most people, Trump did what should have been done long ago and basically ignored the professionally offended.

      "We have pretty good evidence that leaving Nazism unchecked leads to bad outcomes."

      What "evidence" would that be? You mean you have ONE observation? Meanwhile, we have numerous historical examples of socialism and communism leading to the slaughter of tens of millions of people, typically the citizens of nations where this ideology takes hold. Still, we don't see determined efforts to ban commies from social media. We don't see PayPal shutting down their accounts. Nor do we see people using protest or violence to prevent commies from meeting, speaking or demonstrating. Why not?

      The main '-ism' to be scared of is and always has been "authoritarianism". It doesn't matter if it's nazism, communism, socialism, monarchy or even "democracy". Too much power in too few hands is at the root of all of these historical horrors. All of the murderous authoritarian regimes have another thing in common as well. They always stifle free speech and political dissent.

    8. Re:Free Speech threatens me ... so ban it? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      That's just a label that people like you apply to others in order to deny them a forum.

      No, that's how he self-identifies. When you're throwing up heil Hitler salutes and screaming Heil Trump, and you're a white supremacist and anti-semite, it's a pretty good indication that you're a Nazi.

      What "evidence" would that be? You mean you have ONE observation?

      One observation where they killed millions upon millions in ovens using poison gas. Yeah, that's pretty compelling evidence.

      All of the murderous authoritarian regimes have another thing in common as well. They always stifle free speech and political dissent.

      Twitter is not a government regime. The nazi guy can go over to Gab and march around all day long. He's got Reddit. He's got 4chan. He's got voat. All the places where he can feel safe among other white nationalists are open to him. But he can't come into my house. And if they so decide, he can't come into Twitter's house either.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  23. An example by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    What else has every US administration done since the dawn of the Republic? (re: putting residents of the U.S. ahead of others)

    I can't give you examples off the top of my head for past administrations, but Obama has decided that Iran should really have nuclear weapons and proceeded to make sure they have enough money and a nuclear program to make it happen. Given how they feel about the U.S. I'd say it's about five years before we start literally reaping the benefits of that choice.

    In no way can arming Iran with nuclear weapons be considered putting even the people of the world, ahead of, well, anyone...

    Obama was characterized as a nationalist by our local media, making him a black nationalist.

    But I'll bet they did not use the term "black nationalist", now did they? That's exactly my point, adding a race qualifier to "nationalist" is inherently racist, no matter what race you choose to use.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:An example by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

      but Obama has decided that Iran should really have nuclear weapons and proceeded to make sure they have enough money and a nuclear program to make it happen.

      Unlike Ronald Reagan, who just gave them the fucking weapons they wanted so they could use them against us.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The terms are not really used here in Europe like that, due to historical reasons. Although nationalism is sometimes confused with right wing policies, or xenophobia, the term doesn't really pop up that often. If Spencer really wants to create a nation of white people like some other AC wrote above, i.e. a population with the few, similar genes for controlling melanin production, the more fitting term would be white supremacist which is understood quite similarly in both sides of the pond.

    3. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't give you examples off the top of my head for past administrations, but Obama has decided that Iran should really have nuclear weapons and proceeded to make sure they have enough money and a nuclear program to make it happen. Given how they feel about the U.S. I'd say it's about five years before we start literally reaping the benefits of that choice.

      In no way can arming Iran with nuclear weapons be considered putting even the people of the world, ahead of, well, anyone...

      LOL, I bet believe all sorts of other right-wing fantasy stories too. Tell me, do you believe Obama is secretly shipping warheads to Iran, or is it going to be through Putin? Maybe they'll blow up the Superbowl.

      In reality, of course, the deal was agreed to by a multitude of nations, and you'd have to believe all of them were snookered by the deal, which is a pretty tall order.

      But I'll bet they did not use the term "black nationalist", now did they?

      If you want people accusing Obama of being a Black nationalist, seek and ye shall find.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/26/obamas-black-nationalism/
      http://www.patdollard.com/the-rise-of-violent-black-nationalist-groups-under-obama/
      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/30/economic-progress-is-more-effective-than-protests.html

      That's exactly my point, adding a race qualifier to "nationalist" is inherently racist, no matter what race you choose to use.

      What kind of point is that? Do you also want to point out that a Cheeseburger has cheese on it? That an HDTV is HD?

    4. Re:An example by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      the more fitting term would be white supremacist

      I agree with that, the fitting term for Spencer himself seems to be "white supremacist". Indeed, by definition he cannot be a nationalist if he does not want all of the people in the nation to be part of his plans.

      But the deal is that they are calling him a "white nationalist" in order to tie a bunch of people to him, that are in no way racist themselves.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you call it when Jews want to create a nation of Jews? Jewish supremacist?

    6. Re:An example by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing "nation" with "state". You are not a member of the Cherokee nation, unless you are related by blood, regardless of the fact that you share a government and a territory with them. However, you and the Cherokee are both citizens of the United States. Two different things, although they frequently overlap.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    7. Re:An example by jcr · · Score: 1

      the fitting term for Spencer himself seems to be "white supremacist"

      Nope. That's just what the left is trying to paint him as, since "racist" is a label that few people dare to investigate, let alone refute.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try investigating Spencer. It's easy, there are even a bunch of links on his wikipedia page.

      After that, please come back, and tell us why you think the term 'racist' would not apply to him.

    9. Re:An example by jcr · · Score: 1

      You're making the accusation, so the burden of proof is yours, snowflake.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have trouble finding wikipedia?

      But that's a lot of info, you'll likely just try to hand-wave it away. So, let's get your opinion on something specific: http://abcnews.go.com/US/asian...

      Around the 6:25 mark in the video, there's the part the reporter wrote about this way:
      Because Richard Spencer had just told me with a smile on his face that I would not be allowed to live in the all-white ethno-state he envisions for the future.
      "You could have your own ethno-state," he offered ...

      How, exactly, is that anything other than racism?

    11. Re:An example by meta-monkey · · Score: 0

      Unlike Ronald Reagan, who just gave them the fucking weapons they wanted so they could use them against us.

      Reagan was a mixed bag, but everyone since him as been a neocon or neolib, which are basically people who think the purpose of government is to exercise their morality and reshape the world to match their ideals (while enriching themselves, natch), rather than simply serving the interests of the people. A nation of the people, by better people, for their morality, rather than of the people, by the people, and for the people.

      Take, for instance, illegal immigration. There is no reasonable argument by which the government ignoring the laws enforcing the border is in the best interests of your average American citizen. The illegals take jobs from our poorest and most vulnerable citizens, they settle in poor communities from which our poor cannot afford to leave and take them over (culturally or physically), they commit crimes that would not have occurred if they hadn't been here (crime rate is irrelevant), they bring drugs. This is not a good deal in any way for American citizens. Now, the real reason the establishment likes illegal immigration is because it provides a cheap labor force over which they have leverage. Get uppity about the shitty wages and working conditions and you'll get deported, Paco. But the establishment media and politicians sell this scam to middle America as "moral." It's wrong and evil and racist to not want the illegals, to not want to pay taxes for social services for them, to not want the crime and lawlessness.

      The government has to make a choice: do what's in the interests of the citizens and enforce the law (protect border, deport illegals) or do what's in the interests of the elite and the foreigners (leave border undefended, sanctuary cities, etc). Same thing for the foreign wars, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. The nationalist says "please do the thing in the interest of the citizens, not the foreigners, thanks." Nobody's done that in America for a long, long time.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, rather than go straight to the source, like maybe a speech from Richard Spencer or an article HE has written, you give us garbage that has been passed through a MSM filter with their helpful instructions telling us how we're supposed to think?

      Even the bloody Wikipedia article is full of links to other Wikipedia articles and the footnotes are overwhelmingly made up of links to "mainstream" news sources. Look at them: AP, NYT, Slate, Rolling Stone, WaPo, The New Yorker, Mother Jones, etc. How exactly is this an "example" about Spencer?

      I loved this part from Wikipedia:
      Views
      ----------
      According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

      The very first sentence describing SPENCER's "views" is the "view" of the SPLC telling us about Spencer's "views"? Ha!

      At long last, down in footnote #20 (19 was a video) they actually have a link to something directly from Richard Spencer:

      http://www.npiamerica.org/the-...

    13. Re: An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reasonable argument by which the government ignoring the laws enforcing the border is in the best interests of your average American citizen.

      Except there are. First is expense. Costs that would be borne by the average American citizen can easily violate their interests. Second is the laws being unreasonable. The attitude that the law must be mindlessly followed is a pernicious one, but very dangerous. Third is the laws being counter-productive. They actually foster many of the complaints you brought up.

      Now you could make the assertion that that means the laws should be changed, but that is just pointless quibbling. People do want to reform those laws, but can't because of intransigence that opposes any modifications.

      Now you may not agree with these positions, but that doesn't make the arguments unreasonable.

    14. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to expose yourself to more information than you're getting, because your assessment of the Iran nuclear deal is woefully inaccurate, to the point of folly.

      Iran is FURTHER from getting nuclear weapons than it was before the deal. It will remain further, too, because the deal is enforceable and is being enforced. The alternative was to let sanctions expire and get nothing. Instead, we got an invasive inspection scheme, all of their nuclear material, a huge portion of their centrifuges, and international buy-in and support.

    15. Re: An example by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      First is expense. Costs that would be borne by the average American citizen can easily violate their interests.

      Wrong. The US spends over $110B each year providing services to illegals. Pretty sure we can defend the border for less than that. The cost is also largely irrelevant, as the most basic task of government is "defend the border from outsiders." The first government was two cavemen saying "okay, we'll take turns watching the cave entrance, and if anybody who's not us comes inside, throw this rock at them." There's lots and lots of bullshit the government can stop spending money on before we can't afford basic border defense. At that point you no longer have a country or a functioning government.

      Second is the laws being unreasonable. The attitude that the law must be mindlessly followed is a pernicious one, but very dangerous.

      Moralistic bullshit.

      Third is the laws being counter-productive. They actually foster many of the complaints you brought up.

      Counter-productive to what? The average citizen wants to be left alone to work a job, raise a family and enjoy their life unmolested. In no way does allowing the economic migration of at best indifferent and at worst hostile aliens help in that endeavor. Illegal immigration helps businesses that want to exploit cheap labor, and it helps democrats who want to replace Americans with a more compliant slave class.

      The corporations that own the government and own the media are pissing on you and telling you it's raining. News flash, friend: that ain't rain.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    16. Re: An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The US spends over $110B each year providing services to illegals.

      Sorry, but FAIR's accounting was as flawed as the corn ethanol one, like that study, which left off the food value, they neglected to factor the economic gains.

      Pretty sure we can defend the border for less than that.

      Apparently not, if we haven't. But no, you still have to establish the costs.

      The cost is also largely irrelevant, as the most basic task of government is "defend the border from outsiders."

      Nope. The most basic task of government is to serve the people, and costs are always relevant. That you wish to dismiss them with such a handwave is demonstrating that your own argument is the unreasonable one.

      The first government was two cavemen saying "okay, we'll take turns watching the cave entrance, and if anybody who's not us comes inside, throw this rock at them."

      You should stop making up analogies like this, just becaue you think some random concept you can imagine makes for a good argument, does not mean it serves that purpose. Especially since it relies on a faulty premise, thst because something was a way, as you contend (though that is entirely imaginary on your part) , does not mean it should stay that way. So you fail either way.

      Analogies are useful tools for some purposes, but poor for others.

      There's lots and lots of bullshit the government can stop spending money on before we can't afford basic border defense.

      I would argue that there are lots of things that the government could do first, that would be more effective, but then you haven't defined basic border defense. However, I contend that you are not arguing for that, but rather for some other level of border control, far beyond the basic. There are lots of ways the government could uselessly expend money on border security, as well as exceed the limits of propriety.

      At that point you no longer have a country or a functioning government.

      Nope. The point when you don't have a country or functional government is when neither is recognized or effective at all. This is not the case, however, so a moot point.

       

      Moralistic bullshit.

      Moral imperative that is a foundational principle of this country.

      Counter-productive to what?

      To achieving the well-being of the citizens which you expressed concern for.

      The average citizen wants to be left alone to work a job, raise a family and enjoy their life unmolested.

      The average citizen wants lots of things, but this anarcho-communist idea is very much not true, it is a pipe dream.

      In no way does allowing the economic migration of at best indifferent and at worst hostile aliens help in that endeavor. Illegal immigration helps businesses that want to exploit cheap labor, and it helps democrats who want to replace Americans with a more compliant slave class.

      Even leaving aside your above premise being false, what if you have it backwards, that making immigrants illegal results in both more indifferent and hostile immigration and more opportunity for the exploitation of a class of untouchables.

      And your partisan bias is showing.

      The corporations that own the government and own the media are pissing on you and telling you it's raining. News flash, friend: that ain't rain.

      News flash: they're the ones that benefit from you being upset at the illegal immigrants, racial underclass, urban poor, and Irish.

      They've been selling that since the Know Nothing party, and you've been drinking the lemon water.

      I bet you love the aftertaste.

    17. Re:An example by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Reagan was a mixed bag, but everyone since him as been a neocon or neolib, which are basically people who think the purpose of government is to exercise their morality and reshape the world to match their ideals (while enriching themselves, natch), rather than simply serving the interests of the people.

      I hate to break it to you, but a) Ronald Reagan was a textbook neoconservative and did not serve the interests of the people.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody's feeling a bit threatened - apparently everyone in the media is out to get you. Do you need a safe space for your own racism?

      As you know, many of those links you are decrying contain direct, obviously racist quotes from Spencer himself. I even gave a link to one that has a video of Spenser himself making such comments.

      Not enough for you? Here, have some vile statements straight from him:
      https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/783479660784922624
      https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/733354730139848704

    19. Re:An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you, but a) Ronald Reagan was a textbook neoconservative and did not serve the interests of the people.

      I personally think he was great when he nuked the dinosaurs, and did us all a favor by saving the world from not having Hitler in it.

      Also, Trump is the Prince of Wails.

    20. Re: An example by dywolf · · Score: 1

      The US spends over $110B each year providing services to illegals

      completely made up number.

      Moralistic b---.

      Reality. It's why prosecutorial discretion is even a thing.

      In no way does allowing the economic migration of at best indifferent and at worst hostile aliens help in that endeavor.

      Because they totally don't just "wants to be left alone to work a job, raise a family and enjoy their life unmolested" like everyone else...right?
      your bigotry is shining through.

      it helps democrats who want to replace Americans with a more compliant slave class.

      seriously, your entire post is so ignorant I have trouble knowing where to start.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    21. Re:An example by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Reagan was a mixed bag, but everyone since him as been a neocon or neolib, which are basically people who think the purpose of government is to exercise their morality and reshape the world to match their ideals (while enriching themselves, natch), rather than simply serving the interests of the people

      Neither neocon nor neolib has anything to do with what you said.
      I doubt you know the meaning of either based on your usage.

      a neocon is a conservative leaning, mostly in terms of foreign policy, democrat.
      a neoliberal supports 19th century style laissez faire capitalism. ie, conservative/libertarian fiscal policy (ie, it nothing to do with liberalism)

      There is no reasonable argument by which the government ignoring the laws enforcing the border is in the best interests of your average American citizen.

      They haven't been.

      The illegals take jobs from our poorest and most vulnerable citizens

      They don't.

      they settle in poor communities from which our poor cannot afford to leave and take them over (culturally or physically)

      They don't do that either. Also slightly racist.

      they commit crimes that would not have occurred if they hadn't been here (crime rate is irrelevant),

      Nope, they don't do that either.
      Also, your racism switch from slight and implied to overt.

      they bring drugs

      Nope.

      Get uppity about the shitty wages and working conditions and you'll get deported, Paco.

      All the more reason to allow them to work openly and for the same wage as the rest of us.

      It's wrong and evil and racist to not want the illegals, to not want to pay taxes for social services for them, to not want the crime and lawlessness.

      Depends ont he reasoning used. So far, youre has been racist .
      Immigrants and immigration have only ever improved the economy of the country.
      Also, they don't use social services (and certainly not to that totally made up number you used below of 110B), but they DO pay taxes in for services they cant use.

      Nobody's done that in America for a long, long time

      Rank and utter ignorance.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re:An example by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Gotta disagree here pope.

      the neoconservatives were democrats who held more conservative leaning foreign policy views, beginning around the mid 60s, ie, the vietnam war and stopping communism. the term is still used some now and then, but it largely was a phenomenon that had died out by the mid 80s, especially with the increasing homogenization of each party (nowadays we more indicate someone is "hawkish" and its still somewhat different from the views neocons held). (the mid 80s also saw another group, the Reagan Democrats, but those are again a different and shouldn't be confused with the neocons, even though there may be some overlap.)

      technically Reagan wasn't a neocon.
      he was once a democrat, but his conversion to conservatism came about from associating with Earl Dunckel, who was the GE public relations man Reagan worked with while traveling around the country as a GE spokesman speaking to various workers and bosses around the country. Though in time Regan's conservatism became even too extreme for the corporate culture of GE.

      more info here: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    23. Re: An example by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You have no arguments and the political insight of a child. You should really stop talking about it. Please don't vote either.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    24. Re: An example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no arguments and the political insight of a child. You should really stop talking about it. Please don't vote either.

      Oh man, there goes YOUR credibility. Guess you'll be boycotting Star Wars AND their cereal.

  24. To the contrary by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Not sure how it was not obvious, but I am more against nazis and racism than you are.

    In fact your stance against me and the points I raise means you are inherently racist, sorry to say.

    Perhaps if you reflect internally over the course of some years you might correct that flaw in yourself, but I highly doubt it. How do you feel about Israel for example? I feel it's a fine upstanding country; your more than obvious feelings about it, well they tell us all we need to know about you being closer to a taxi than you will admit to yourself.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:To the contrary by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. You're wrong and still a fucking idiot. To your question, Israelis are good people, Israel as a state needs reform for better representation of all citizens and a stable position not ass-kissing the right-wing ultra-orthodox.

  25. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Bartles · · Score: 2

    That article is total shit. Is says things like "groups like the KKK", and " people aligned with the KKK". I'm not even certain that the KKK has actually killed anyone since 9/11. Also the claim was the KKK, not racial extremist groups. Would you consider a Black Panther murder the same thing? I would, but most of you SJW idiots wouldn't.

  26. Re:It was the white nationalist block by Kreplock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually it was Hillary Clinton's infamy and unfitness for office that elected Donald Trump, in a close contest of infamy and poor fit for the job. Trump outperformed Romney in non-whites across the board. Dems could have run just about anyone but Clinton and taken the office. But no.

  27. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Bartles · · Score: 1

    The FBI certainly didn't think he was gay. You must like reading all that fake news we keep hearing about.

  28. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    You must be some autistic little fucktard.

  29. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    faggot

  30. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Only a faggot like you uses gay dating apps and has multiple boyfriends. Even if you convert from your heathen ways and kill people it doesn't change the fact you are going to hell.

  31. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Are you joking?

  32. So.,.. Twitter says everything on their forum? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    The first amendment also prevents forced speech. The government can't force you to engage in any particular speech or type of speech. If Twitter doesn't want certain types of speech on their site, that is their first amendment right. For example, a Christian baker can't turn away a gay couple on the grounds that the couple is gay. The baker can, however, refuse to bake a cake that has a particular message on it that he or she finds offensive.

    You are saying that Twitter considers everything anyone says on their forum as being said by Twitter?

    You're trying to confuse the issue. That's a swing and a miss.

    1. Re:So.,.. Twitter says everything on their forum? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The Supreme Court ridicously stated a free functional advertising spot they let people pay them for was on a license plate was the state speaking, and so the state could restrict it (unlike, say, bus side advertising).

      Thus did the State of Texas speak loudly in favor of the Penn State football team.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:So.,.. Twitter says everything on their forum? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      You seem confused.
      I suggest reading it and understanding it before misstating it as you have.

      http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  33. Robert spencer isnt a white supremacist dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its like the other propaganda saying the infowars guy is an ex kkk leader. This is rudiculous.

  34. Censorship did kinda work... by quantaman · · Score: 1

    I think the average person has always been a little more racist than the mass media. I don't think this was deliberate censorship, it was just the fact that to work in mass media people tend to be relatively smart and well educated, and as you add education a lot of the ignorance that feeds racism goes away.

    Now that social media has reached the masses all that unintentional censorship is gone and ignorant views and arguments are getting a lot more air.

    I don't think that censorship is the answer but we need to recognize that it was effective.

    The real solution is to explain to the masses the thing that took the elites years of advanced education to figure out, that racism is wrong.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  35. Everyone in the USA needs to wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Guys like Soros & globalists like him have 1 agenda - to divide & conquer us. United we stand, divided we fall.

    APK

    P.S.=> That IS the "real deal" here & this country's being HIT @ every conceivable angle - they do NOT want Constitutional Republics out there, get it folks? If not, dig deep enough, you'll get it... apk

  36. "so called alt-right movement" by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Informative

    The "alt-right" was developed as a term to describe groups of conservatives who are not mainstream conservatives or establishment Republicans. As a classification term, it didn't imply racism- it encompassed several different groups of thought. I'm not sure how it was turned into a "movement", despite all these groups not really identifying as such, but I know that if you change "a classification for non-mainstream conservatives" into "a movement that accepts neo-nazis", you've totally redefined the term. Probably with the purpose of painting the non-mainstream conservatives with a neo-nazi brush, despite there being a decent number of the former, and only a handful of jackhats in the latter.

    Regardless, it is done, and it happened super fast and recently. Already, the non-racist conservatives who are not mainstream have begun rebranding themselves to make plain that they are not "alt-right", because now the term just means "neo-nazi".

    1. Re:"so called alt-right movement" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already, the non-racist conservatives who are not mainstream have begun rebranding themselves to make plain that they are not "alt-right", because now the term just means "neo-nazi".

      The Nazis killed fewer people than either Stalin or Mao and fewer still than have been killed in the name of Islam. Is there any rationalisation for how the term 'nazi' could be more of a pejorative than 'communist', 'leftist' or 'islamist'?

    2. Re:"so called alt-right movement" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The alt-right movement came about when the internet allowed a number of smaller groups to first develop and then band together. It really gained traction when Andrew Breitbart died and Brietbart News started giving alt-right bloggers more legitimacy by elevating them to the status of "journalist".

      While some of the groups who can be considered part of the alt-right were not originally part of the far right, the echo chamber created by Breitbart and social media pushed them further and further from mainstream conservative views.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:"so called alt-right movement" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that "Alt-Right" has become associated with racism is pretty simple: the primary difference between them and the traditional right is that they are openly racist. Otherwise, they'd just be libertarians, as that's what their non-racist positions boil down to.

      If the paint fits ...

    4. Re:"so called alt-right movement" by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      No, it's a key. You know about the any key? Hit any key to continue?
      Well this is the right key. Just hit alt and right.

    5. Re:"so called alt-right movement" by dywolf · · Score: 1

      apparently you are unaware that the term was created by Spencer himself to refer to people such as himself and those who thought like him: people who care about white identity, white nationalism, etc.

      thus, your point in invalid, and racism was built into the term from the beginning.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  37. Re:fuck you too by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    The white man isn't going anywhere!

    That's for sure.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  38. Re:David Frum is a maroon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    This is just another loser crybaby democrat calling for more censorship.

    David Frum is not a democrat. He was a writer for National Review and a speechwriter for George W Bush. He is a lifelong registered Republican.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  39. Twitter isn't the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... if you don't like their policies, boycott them. If you don't white nationalist souche bags, ignore them, mock them, or otherwise reveal them in shaming ways.

  40. Re: KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The KKK espouses views intended to engender hate and does not explicitly discourage violent acts. It's disingenuois to imply the KKK is faultless when it obviously supports an agenda that promotes, among other things, genocide.

  41. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    He fucking called the police during the shooting and claimed allegiance with ISIS. Whether he WAS a member of ISIS or not, he certainly was motivated by them (per his own fucking words) and used that as justification. But then, fuckwits like you choose to ignore what the facts are, what people actually say, and make shit up so you can continue your fucking SJW world-view.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  42. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Faggot go learn something not on your fucked up fox news or alt-right web ring.

  43. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Start with 2,996 on 9/11. How many have the KKK killed in the last 15 years?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  44. Re:White Nationalist? Was Trump Suspended? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    In many countries, you'd be guilty of a hate crime for talking about double-taps to people (insinuating assassination). Pot - meet kettle!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  45. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    I posted a link to CNN with the statement and claim; are YOU now claiming that CNN is alt-right? Try educating yourself. You really, really need to learn to read and think on your own before posting again...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  46. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Retard try reading the shit you are posting, it is all irrelevant bullshit.

  47. Let me know when they remove leftists. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Twitter has gladly helped criminals, abusers, and racists - as long as they were leftists. Some of them even have the ear of Twitter's Ministry of Truth & Safety department.

    When we start hearing of people on the left get removed from Twitter (permanently), then they might have some shred of legitimacy.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In particular, a large majority of the people on Twitter who call for outright genocide are feminists: see #killallmen and #killallwhitemen. Judging by Twitter, one would say that feminism is a more hateful movement than, say, neo-nazism.

    2. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Which "criminal", "abuser" or "racist" with the ear of Twitter's Trust and Safety Council are you referring to? There list of members is here, for reference.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Look for these hashtags: StopPatriarchy, KillAllWhiteMen AllMenAreRapists KillAllMen

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You know that most of them are just false flag ops, and the few that are genuine are just jokes.

      The "kill all men" thing came about because someone pointed out that many modern games are all about killing dudes and rarely have female soldiers, ironic hashtag #killallmen, but MRAs don't seem to care because they don't really care about such things until a feminist points it out. The fact that it exploded and was taken seriously by MRAs kinda proves their point.

      Also note that Twitter's rules won't prohibit such messages anyway, they only care about threats against individuals and harassment.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      So if Twitter rules don't prohibit such messages, only against individuals and harassment, it would be okay to say "Kill all black people", "white power" etc. - none of those are against a single individual nor harassment.

      And just looking up those hashtags doesn't look all too much of a joke, people are taking these hashtags serious in the form of <complaint about a white person> "kill all white people".

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Let me know when they remove leftists. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So if Twitter rules don't prohibit such messages, only against individuals and harassment, it would be okay to say "Kill all black people", "white power" etc. - none of those are against a single individual nor harassment.

      Yes.

      If it extends to "BLM protest down town tonight #killallblackpeople" then it gets a bit more complicated because that sounds like incitement. No need to question me about it though, courts have been dealing with this stuff forever and there is plenty of case work to examine.

      "kill all white people".

      Do you have any specific examples? I'd be happy to report them to see if they get banned.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  48. It's called Twitter. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    N/T

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  49. Being not-leftist. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only violation that matters is not being a proper leftist according to Twitter.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Being not-leftist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did twitter become the sole means of political expression? When did twitter become exclusively a political discussion platform (in 140 fucking characters or less, no less... attention span is part of the problem here). Where is a a good political analysis essay to be found on twitter?

      Like what the actual fuck man?

      So by your determination, my totally non political account that I use to promote my hobby youtube channel (lets say basket weaving, or rock collecting) is in violation for not being "a proper leftist" and will therefore be banned?

      Get some perspective man. It's fucking twitter. Twitter. For fucks sake, give your head a shake.

  50. People that Twitter protects and loves. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Twitter loves and protects those people.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  51. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Got it. You're an idiot who's fully embedded in his own ways. A waste of space. Sucks to be you!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  52. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Jzanu · · Score: 0

    Retard. Idiotic fucking retard.

  53. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off Russian troll

  54. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    Remember Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and a member of a terrorist organization.

  55. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me point out at the moment that what you are talking about could easily be construed as defending the KKK. If you're willing to defend the group most famously associated with black lynchings, which has never in any sense repented for that abhorrent behavior, well, you seem to have chosen a side.

    We as a nation are approaching a violent climax. The writing for white conservatism is on the wall: you will be a minority in 2040 at the latest. I am afraid that you have picked the wrong side of history, but you know, you're such a colossal asshole that I don't really mind what happens to you.

  56. dog piling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what dog piling is and I don't want to know - it's bound to be unpleasant.

    1. Re:dog piling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like this.

  57. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone critical of fox news calling people faggots, this Dark Aeon is coming quicker than I expected. Keep up the good work...faggot.

  58. Re:It was the white nationalist block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it was Hillary Clinton's infamy and unfitness for office that elected Donald Trump, in a close contest of infamy and poor fit for the job.

    Well, you're right it was close, but don't tell Trump. He thinks he won HUGELY! HUGELY! He's still convinced it was the biggest ass-kicking in electoral history.

    It isn't. So maybe you should call Trump up and tell him.

    Trump outperformed Romney in non-whites across the board.

    It's still being argued, but a 2 percent gain? Color me unimpressed.

    Dems could have run just about anyone but Clinton and taken the office. But no.

    A hypothetical we can't test, like it or not.

  59. Speaking of most people who lived through WWII by raymorris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    > Racist bigots never magically disappear. Unfortunately, almost all of the people who fought in WWII are gone now, or they'd tell you

    They'd tell you "n*ggers sit in the back of the bus." Most people from WWII would have told you that black people people shouldn't be allowed in restaurants where white people eat. The majority were "racist bigots". That didn't change by whooping their ass, as fun as that might have been.

    1. Re:Speaking of most people who lived through WWII by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They'd tell you "n*ggers sit in the back of the bus."

      They were also the generation that gave us the Civil Rights movement. For a lot of the people who fought in WWII, it was something of a wakeup call regarding racism. Now, of course there were still a lot of Southern racists who were probably 4-F and started up Klans and such.

      But yeah, the people who fought in WWII and their kids made some big changes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Speaking of most people who lived through WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a lot of the people who fought in WWII, it was something of a wakeup call regarding racism.

      Sweet summer child.

  60. Karl Popper by Xenographic · · Score: 2

    > These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.

    An odd statement. If you go back to read up on Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" he justified his intolerance of intolerance by pointing out the fear that such people would resort to "fists or pistols" instead of debate. And so he justified his idea by the right of self-defense.

    In other words, anyone who is inciting or committing violence should not be tolerated.

    Source

  61. Newspeak. "altright" is the new "hacker" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the 1970s and into the 1980s "computer hackers" were people who spent excessive amounts of time trying to discover all the cool stuff they could do with these new home/personal computer things and with microprocessors. This was when BYTE magazine was in its heyday and carried Steve Ciarcia's hardware articles that covered all sorts of cool hardware people could build for themselves and assembly code for all sorts of clever "hacks". While there were certainly people who were "hackers" who also did illegal stuff (there are people in ANY group who do illegal stuff) that was not part of the definition. Then came the movie "War Games" and lots of press articles that all pushed the idea that "hackers" were dangerous introverted antisocial computer criminals, and SHAZAM! the term was re-defined.

    With Republicans in Washington DC and New York claiming to be "conservatives" in every election cycle but then never doing a single damned thing that was conservative, Republicans and conservatives outside the DC-NYC corridor started calling them RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and since the press pretended those people were "right wing" the right wingers outside the corridor started calling themselves"alt right".... and this was when Bannon of Breitbart referred to Breitbart as the home of the alt right. During the 2016 cycle, the Clinton team decided to trash that label and pushed the theme that "alt right" equated to skinheads and Klansmen etc and THOSE vile idiots eagerly adopted the label because they're a tiny pool of attention-seeking dirtbags. Journalists, being 90%+ Democrat, did as they always do: reported DNC talking points as "journalism", thus totally transforming the label.

    Originally, "Hacker" had nothing to do with criminal, and "alt right" had nothing to do with racism. The modern press are far more impressive at re-defining words than even Orwell could have forseen.

  62. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you not seen enough of this jzanu fool's posts to realise he's an irrelevant, self-loathing child? Don't waste your time trying to correct his ignorance. He's beyond repair. Oh, and he's a closet homosexual who can't come to terms with his own sexuality and lashes out by calling others "faggots" and "retards".

  63. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    I would think many gay Muslims become very religious, just like many gay Catholics become priests.

  64. Buzzfeed is smearing Spencer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By describing him as a "white nationalist", they're trying to make us believe he's a nazi. That is unmitigated bullshit.

    What Spencer does is report on the politically incorrect facts of radical muslim crimes and their religious motivation. Go have a look at JiahdWatch yourself. You might learn something.

  65. Re:David Frum is a maroon by jcr · · Score: 1

    Frum is a Ruling Party propaganda minion. He happens to have chosen the (R) brand of the Ruling Party, but he's utterly interchangeable with his (D) counterparts like that scumbag, James Carville.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  66. saw him interviewed yesterday: both absurd & s by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

    White nationalist Richard Spencer talks to Al Jazeera

    He starts off by objecting to being called a White Supremacist. He says it's a "slur".

    He also says he isn't a neo-nazi or the KKK.

    He then goes on to say that "America is a white country".

    He decries the idea of a black James Bond that was discussed a few years ago.

    He says:

    "You could call it 'the great erasure'. It is a radical transformation of the 'white wall' and because this is happening, because we feel it. Everyone feels it. That's why the alt-right is powerful, because it's so true."

    "They should be afraid because we are changing the current paradigm."

    He says white males are under-represented in Silicon Valley, which is a point which may hit home to me. I'm not sure if it's true but I'm pretty sure they're not hiring black people in record numbers either.

    But that's okay because he hates all immigrants.

    Some excerpts from that interview:

    "We just have to say 'This is not your country'"

    "'This is ours. You are not us. This country is for us.'"

    "Only Europeans could be the first ones to go to space. Only Europeans could build something as magnificent as...as..uh...uh...St. Paul's Cathedral or St. Peter's Cathedral. Only Europeans could engage in the kind of scientific discovery that we engage with."

    "Only Europeans can be like this."

    "Being an immigrant - I mean - it's kind of pathetic to be honest. You know, you're kind of like shuffling off from your own country and you're just entering another one and you're just kind of taking advantage of what other people built, just washing up on our shore. Give me a break. I wouldn't be proud of a nation of immigrants."

    What I find "scary" about this is that I know many people will buy into his rhetoric. Look, I'm all for clamping down on immigration and the abuse of the H1B system but this guy is a wannabe Hitler. (Goddammit, I just Darwin'ed my whole post).

  67. Read and Learn. by jcr · · Score: 1
    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  68. i do not like supreme asses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in any but this story is not what it seem at least the reasoning. the press release at least.

  69. Re:It was the white nationalist block by jcr · · Score: 2

    Bullshit. They wish there were enough of them to swing an election, and I'm sure that the left wing wishes that's why Hillary lost so that they could cling to their precious moral superiority hobbyhorse, but wishing doesn't make it so.

    Trump didn't even get as many votes as Romney, and Romney was up against the most popular democrat since JFK.

    He won, because the Democrats nominated the only crook in the country who could lose to him. Feeding Hillary's black hole of an ego instead of choosing a viable candidate is the biggest mistake they've made since firing on Fort Sumter.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  70. Re:It was the white nationalist block by jcr · · Score: 1

    Bernie might have lost, too. I've heard that the Republicans had a pretty massive opposition research portfolio on him.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  71. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I clicked on your link, halfway down the search results I see an estimate of less than 100 since '95. I think you might be the one that hasn't been following the news.

  72. Unban Milo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said.

  73. Re: It was the white nationalist block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump didn't even get as many votes as Romney, and Romney was up against the most popular democrat since JFK.

    You must be out of touch. Trump is currently at 62.9 million, 2 million over Romney, 3 million over McCain and .9 million over Bush in 2004.

    Of course, according to Trump, it's a landslide. Of Epic Proportions. JFK, btw, had 303 electoral votes and barely more than 100k votes over Nixon. One of the smallest margins in electoral history, and several states were close enough they were miscalled at first, including Hawaii and California. Obama had leads of 10 million and 5 million. With 365 and 332 electoral votes. Even throwing in the 15 votes for Harry Byrd, Kennedy is behind.

    I think you may want to reapprise your assessments.

  74. Racists gonna race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racist.

  75. Re:It was the white nationalist block by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Did you know that Clinton got more votes than any man in history? She's the most popular candidate EVER!

    Or maybe it's just that there are more citizens now, more of them came out to vote in some areas, blah blah blah. And let's not forget Russia's influence.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  76. Milo by kmf · · Score: 0

    @nero ?

  77. Can neo-Nazism evolve into something legit? by swb · · Score: 1

    Let's go the full distance here, give the devil his due, and presume that by and large the constellation of alt-right groups are all an ideological outgrowth of neo-Nazism.

    My question is can such an ideology ever evolve into a more or less legitimate political ideology?

    It strikes me that what's generally referred to as "Democratic Socialism" seems to ultimately be derived from Marxism and other extreme-left political movements, yet nobody makes the association between Democratic Socialism and Stalinism, Maoism or other extremist Marxist ideologies. By and large Democratic Socialism ditched the worst parts of its ideological origins, baked in democratic legitimacy, a highly regulated market economy but retained many socialist economic principals and social programs. It's mostly seen as a legitimate political movement except by fairly small group of hard-core ideological capitalists.

    Could "neo-Nazism" do the same -- disavow the worst of its original ideology, the anti-Semitism, the explicit racism and white supremacy yet retain the nationalist elements and message that promotes a vision of promotion of specific national interests and cultural values, back democracy as a source of legitimacy and an economic philosophy that is constrained by its nationalism and then be seen as a legitimate political ideology?

    IMHO, this looks like what a big part of the "alt right" seems to be trying to accomplish. It remains to be seen whether this is a real attempt at reforming right-wing nationalism or merely an attempt at re-branding without abandoning its worst values.

    1. Re:Can neo-Nazism evolve into something legit? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Could "neo-Nazism" do the same -- disavow the worst of its original ideology, the anti-Semitism, the explicit racism and white supremacy yet retain the nationalist elements and message that promotes a vision of promotion of specific national interests and cultural values, back democracy as a source of legitimacy and an economic philosophy that is constrained by its nationalism and then be seen as a legitimate political ideology?

      No.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Can neo-Nazism evolve into something legit? by swb · · Score: 1

      Because you say so, or because its adherents have no meaningful interest in doing so, or that nationalism has an inherent regressive quality that always results in mass racism?

      You could say the same things about Social Democracy, though -- its adherents may secretly favor outright communism or that it also has an inherently regressive quality and will always tend towards communism or enveloping socialism.

      I don't follow the alt right or understand its many facets that well, but I do get the impression that to the extent you can call it a "movement" that it has started to accept the notion that Nazi-style white supremacy and overt racism are self-defeating aspects only embraced by the furthest fringe elements, and that the only way to advance itself is through disavowal of those ideas.

  78. Hate is OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On Twitter just ask Trump.

  79. Screw Twitter... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 0

    I flushed it like the TURD it is, the second they started banning people over speech...

  80. Re:David Frum is a maroon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    He happens to have chosen the (R) brand of the Ruling Party, but he's utterly interchangeable with his (D) counterparts

    So, you're saying he's not a true Scotsman?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  81. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    I'm not even certain that the KKK has actually killed anyone since 9/11

    Oh well that's all right then, they're practically Christ-like.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  82. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Yes, what I'm talking about could be construed as defending the KKK if a person has a vested interest in pushing the "America is racist!" meme. Rather than fret about the KKK (which WAS bad, back when Robert "sheets" Byrd was in it), let's concern ourselves with an ACTUAL group of people not just intent on killing one "race" in America, but ALL Americans. Islamic terrorism a real thing, it's killed thousands in the US over the last 16 years. Yet some would rather obsess over the KKK and the past than face the evil of today and the future.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  83. The thing you people don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the price of living in an open and free society is having to put up with things you personally find offensive. Identity politics liberals have been trying to make the whole world a safe space where no one is offended by hurtful words or ideas. While the desire to protect others who are being mistreated unfairly is admirable, this has been pushed too far triggering a backlash and eroding the principles of a free society in the process.

    While leftists were patting themselves on the back for having "eliminated" racism from their carefully sanitized media feed, real racism went underground to fester and *grow unchecked* for a generation only to pop out like a pimple on prom night in the form of Trump and the alt right.

    Leftists have been telling religious types for decades that "you can't legislate morality" while simultaneously failing to understand how it applies to them. You can't make racism, misogyny, etc disappear by restricting speech because these are personal beliefs, ie morality, and harassing bakers who refuse to make gay wedding cakes and getting people fired from their job at dominos pizza for expressing racist opinions on facebook isn't fighting racism it is making it stronger by making these people free speech martyrs and eroding respect for differing opinions which is a cornerstone of a free society.

    Sure prevent people from denying others fundamental basic life needs like housing and healthcare based on discriminatory beliefs, but one single baker or delivery driver out of dozens of other possible options isn't denying gays or blacks cakes or pizzas. It is just about making yourselves feel good about shouting down views you find offensive and it is destructive to society as a whole, because you make it easier for them to do the same to you when they get power as they now have.

    For the same reason you don't allow people to post job ads or for rent ads that say "No N*****s" it is also wrong to post job ads and for rent ads that say "No Racists". And before you say that hasn't happened remember people were loudly calling for Peter Thiel's removal from Facebook over his support of Trump. When you legitimize discrimination based on personal or political beliefs, no matter how offensive, you legitimize discrimination. Period. And when power changes hands, as it inevitably will, you will want a strong cultural and legal tradition protecting dissenting opinions.

  84. Good for thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A person believing in the elimination of people to bring about a nation ruled by religious zealots is banned forever, investigated and possibly blown up.

    A person believing in the elimination of people to bring about a nation ruled by racist zealots is banned temporarily, given media time and their rights are argued for.

    Those who terrorize one are condemned while those who terrorize another are given a chance.

    Not saying either is right as they are both horrible imho but it's just an observation.

  85. Leader of what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More accurate headline would be "Twitter Reinstates White Nationalist Attention Whore's Account". Spencer isn't the leader of much of anything. I also doubt "nationalist" is a good term for someone who thinks the EU is a good idea.

  86. Re:David Frum is a maroon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, he is, for the ruling party, both factions, which are absolutely interchangeable, because that is what they do, one keeps the seat warm for the other. And he wants censorship to protect them.. Don't be a fanboy, let's get rid of them all.

  87. Re: KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet some would rather obsess over the KKK and the past than face the evil of today and the future.

    The KKK is an evil today, you seem like you don't want to face it.

    You'd probably do better if you tried a different tact, like concern about the identification of all right-wing extremism with the KKK, as it is under many names and terms.

  88. Re:David Frum is a maroon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Yes, he is, for the ruling party, both factions, which are absolutely interchangeable, because that is what they do, one keeps the seat warm for the other.

    That's what I said. Frum can't be a True Scotsman because he opposed Donald Trump, who is the King of Scotland.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  89. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who exactly made you the judge on these matters?

    Let's dig up his corpse and ask him "Hey, bro, you swore Allegiance to Islamism. You claimed the attack in the name of Islamists. Islamists applauded and took credit for the attack, and you literally called the media during the attack to tell them that you were doing it in the name of Islam. But... you know... some insanely butthurt liberal shitbag named "Jzanu" says you're not Islamist and the attack wasn't terrorism because he ingested so much mercury, that he's actually begin to trust the main stream media's interpretation that you were just a victim of Republican bullying. Care to comment on that?"

    What do you think his ghost will say? Besides a big, fat "FUCK YOU"?

  90. You don't know what a Dog Whistle is, do you? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    not in this context anyway. Google it. Go on. I'll wait.

    And you're using a classic Karl Rove technique (whatever you are accuse the other side of being). Are you a paid professional troll (Russian perhaps)? If not then one of them got to you and you're parroting their arguments without realizing it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  91. In other news by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Twitter is STILL around? Who would have thought that?

  92. Re:It was the white nationalist block by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lies, damned lies and statistics. Did you know that Clinton got more votes than any man in history? [...]Or maybe it's just that there are more citizens now

    But it's not even that, because she got less votes (2016: 65,762,564) than Barack Obama (2008: 69,498,516). (on both occasions, by a hair; 2012: 65,915,795)

    Even if, after all this recount business, she got some more votes she would still fall short of Pres. Obama's current record. Not that getting the most votes ever means anything (particularly in the face of a continually-expanding population.)

  93. White Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    twitter is gay
    hitler was right about everything and dindu shit
    tech industry is uber cucked
    whites are the master race

  94. Re: KKK is an Terrorist Organization by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Personally I see the Black Lives Matter organizations as more of a threat to society than the KKK. I see the alt-left out rioting and destroying property and beating people who didn't vote how they wanted as a bigger threat than the KKK. I'm looking at what the groups are doing today, and over the last few years, rather than 100 years ago.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  95. Re:KKK is an Terrorist Organization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He most certainly was gay. One of my friends in FL had had "encounters" with him before. He was an extremely repressed, self-loathing, homophobic right winger, doing what extremely repressed, self-loathing, homophobic gay right wingers do pretty often. I wouldn't be surprised if he had sympathies for ISIS, they are the epitome of right wing political groups.