Slashdot Mirror
Reddit Bans Far-Right Groups Altright and Alternativeright (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Social media site Reddit has banned two of the largest far-right "subreddits" groups it hosts, altright and alternativeright. The subreddits have been used in the organization of America's resurgent neofascist movement but the final straw for Reddit was the two groups' participation in what is known as "doxing": sharing private personal information without permission as a form of online harassment. The subreddits were specifically banned for breaking Reddit's content policy, according to a message posted by the site admins, "specifically, the proliferation of personal and confidential information." Reddit did not make it explicit which content infringed its rules, but it is believed to be attempts to dox the protestor who punched a white nationalist during a TV interview at Donald Trump's inauguration. Speaking to the Daily Beast, one Reddit moderator claimed that the ban was instead a result of its "record monthly traffic" (Reddit moderators, like the creators of individual subreddits, are all volunteers with no official relationship to the site's staff). "It's clear that Reddit banned us because we were becoming very popular and spreading inconvenient truths about who's ruining our country and robbing our children of a future," the moderator said.
They're going to ban them too, right?
If you think that "alt right" means "far right", you have no idea what kind of shitstorm the left is busily trying to summon by calling for assassination, coup, and terror.
See that "Preview" button?
If they think these people will go away, they're mistaken. Perhaps they feel they don't want to enable them by using Reddit's resources to organize, but, really, they were doing a huge service to the rest of society by keeping these posts out in the open where everybody can see them.
You can drive them all to locked sites on .onion services, but that is not in the public interest.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why yes, let's ban them, that'll show them. I'm sure they are disbanding as we speak.
Or Reddit just drove them underground, removing the possibility that their ideas could be challenged in an open forum. That's real smart, *golf clap*; why don't you try running for President next? I'm sure the US government needs your assistance in its follies.
I'm not sure how identifying someone who committed assault on TV is considered "doxing".
It's the fact that the moderators failed to clamp down on it, and even encouraged posting personal data that really forced Reddit to ban the entire boards, rather than just individual users.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"It's clear that Reddit banned us because we were becoming very popular and spreading inconvenient truths about who's ruining our country and robbing our children of a future," the moderator said.
The go-to response of the alt-right: we reject your reality and substitute our own.
And it is fascists anti-fascists. Because not only they are fascists, but they are also a semantic contradiction.
Don't take me wrong, the ban is perfectly justified, but it's always right-wing fascists who get punished. This guy had no right to punch whoever it was in the face, and this is not an isolated case. Even moderate trump supporters get constantly beaten up with no consequences. A young college girl got pepper sprayed while giving an interview at UC, and several innocent bystanders were beaten up by the anti-fascist crowd, which was destroying everything b/c they didn't like a speaker the Republican student association had invited. These people are dividing the country, and creating a climate of tension and violence way more than the alt-right.
The media coverage is ridiculous, and focus instead on actual fake stories of people who are pretending to be assaulted by Trump supporters, a claim, as far as I know, always unfounded. End of rant. Good luck America.
You mean the guy who fabricated tweets about Leslie Jones to try to make her look like a racist. Yes, he doesn't care about skin color at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nah, we're still here.
"Neofascist movement" to describe the victims of black-clad henchmen beating people in the streets over their political views? What the fuck kind of alternative reality does this asshole live in?
Also, much like your average Slashdot poster, they hate any change and pine for the halcyon days that never actually existed.
White nationalist?
White? What do they mean?
Also how is the skin color of that person relevant?
Because of racist SJWs and BLM people who think it's ok to attack white people?
Oh bullshit. If the white supremacists can't post on major websites, they don't get stronger. They get weaker, because the successes they've had in the last few years largely come from the fact that they've been able to hijack places like Twitter and Facebook. If they're stuck on their IP address accessed web forums or on places like Stormfront, they end up becoming what they were before, a circle jerk of racists.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where's Elwood Blues when we need him?
Their goal was to clean up their web site, not stop a "movement." They couldn't care less.
The groups were banned for doxxing political opponents. That is, sharing personal information (name, phone number, home address, etc.) This behaviour is explicitly against the Reddit terms of service.
The political leanings of the groups are unrelated to the ban (unless you assume a correlation between "alt-right" mentality and disregard for the established rules of a privately owned website)
This signature is false.
I remember someone even trying to prove Milo wasn't a racist because he likes to sleep with black man. It was pointed out that that would have made meant many of the slave owners in the American South weren't racists.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
While I prefer to challenge people like Yiannopoulos in public, in this case I can see a reasonable justification for not inviting him to speak.
The guy is a serial outer of trans women. At previous tasks he has held up photos of women attending those colleges, repeated their names and mocked them for being trans.
Such attacks are unacceptable and you have to prioritize the safety of students over the desire to offer them a chance to hear him speak.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It certainly did wonders for the Weimar Republic...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Whatever. You're still banned,and whining about secret 'persecutorial' motivations won't do anything to change that.
Stormfront will probably host you and not bat an eye. Why do you feel so deprived? If you wanted to stay on Reddit you could simply have stamped out the doxing problem and, you know, followed Reddit's 'pretextual' rules.
Reddit and Twitter have little influence on Trump / right wing voters. This kind of move just deepens the ignorance of progressives. Good luck trying to win elections that way.
The answer to free speech you don't like is more free speech. And who knows, if you engage in a discussion, you might actually learn something and change your own mind.
Here's the real inconvenient truth: the people in power only have one thing in common and it's money.
And they're doing all they can so that you idiots fight amongst yourselves instead of seeing that the rich are the real problem.
#DeleteFacebook
Far left = we should be the parent for the rest of the world and give everything to everyone else in the world even if it meaning causing harm to ourselves. "Kindness that can kill"
Far right = White supremacist, religious nuts, basically tribalism gone wild but in a different way
I'm in the middle (clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right): It's clear that good hard-working Americans are being taken advantage of by foreigners that have no interest in seeing America thrive. A lot of them just want to siphon wealth from America back to their home lands and they really don't like us at all and some would even invade us, slaughter us and take our lands if they could.
It doesn't mean I hate other people that aren't the same as me. Quite the contrary. It means I hate people that want to take my home away from me and my family at our expense. I was born here. They weren't. If they want their respective home land to be good, those folks ought to get busy and make it a place worth living instead of trying to take ours away.
I do agree with Liberals that if there were enough of everything to go around for everyone to the point that we could abolish the economic system and stop having to compete in survival of the fittest fashion that would be great. The problem is we're not even close to that and with the population growth, there doesn't seem to be much evidence we could ever accomplish that without some pretty serious technological advancement like food replicators and free abundant energy. Until then, it's the same as it always was: survival of the fittest
We'll make great pets
Given that people like Bannon and papers like Breitbart have been denounced as white supremacists and anti Semitic, it's obvious that the term has lost all meaning. Frankly, I don't care anymore whether people call me a racist or white supremacist; it's about as ridiculous as calling me a zoophile or cannibal.
Banning these people from Reddit only means that progressives will be even more out of touch with mainstream America than they already are. That kind of ignorance doesn't hurt Republicans, it hurts Democrats and progressives. You can't effectively advocate your point of view from a position of ignorance, or by demonizing the people you want to persuade.
Learn to listen, people, or keep losing.
You can't effectively advocate your point of view from a position of ignorance, or by demonizing the people you want to persuade.
Learn to listen, people, or keep losing.
Oh the delicious irony. Please bottle some of this, and send it to Donald Trump, he needs a good dose of it.
Where do you see irony? Trump and Republicans won the last election, didn't they?
Sure, "White Supremacists" can be blocked from Reddit, but what about the leftist nutjobs who believe that you should destroy other people's property and physically assault people with a different political viewpoint? I don't look at reddit as a rule, but I'd be willing to bet that extremist left wing groups exist on reddit and will not receive the same treatment as the "alt-right". That is true with Facebook and Twitter, so I assume it true on Reddit. Feel free to prove me wrong on that, I'll be happy to read about Reddit banning left wing nut jobs.
Frankly, if I had to look at who is worse right now I'd say it's the extremist progressive leftists who see no issues using violence against people simply because they have a different political view. In the last couple years, I have seen no valid reports of white supremacists out beating people. We have seen dozens of faked claims, and many of those have resulted in charges, but the "Right" has not been rioting and beating anyone. I have seen countless instances of leftists doing just that, and worse. Last night you have a young lady being interviewed on ABC punched in the face and pepper sprayed by one of these "oppressed" liberals. You have another pulled out of a car and beaten for no reason.
When you have a Government not prosecuting, or even arresting people, who are terrorizing people and preventing their free speech you will end up with a whole lot of violence from the other side. Hence you have a Trump supporter shooting an agitator at a separate rally after protesters started throwing bricks and rocks at people supporting the speaker showed up to counter protest.
People need to pay close attention to the rhetoric being used by the left right now. Sadly, the useful idiots really can't see the irony and hypocrisy in shutting down other people's free speech by committing physical violence while carrying signs and chanting slogans claiming the other side is fascist. They are claiming that words are violence, and a teacher who is an advocate for violent protests claimed that words from someone raped her. I wish I was joking, but both of those are factual. The claims that words are somehow causing physical harm is being used to justify violence against anyone not agreeing with (or bending over for) the leftists.
Trying times we are in right now, and in places like California I envision it getting worse before it gets better.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"Troll" doesn't mean "something I disagree with."
I wonder what we should call this new red scare against 'Nazi/fascist'. Orange scare perhaps? No, it's not right to punch a Nazi you vigilante maniac. What happened to freedom of speech?
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
You are so concerned about some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed... where were you when peaceful protesters on college campuses were getting hosed down with pepper spray by an agent of the state for a simple sit in?
Some of us are appalled by both events. That's the problem here, and what people on "the left" keep missing: there are plenty of us out here who aren't racists, who aren't misogynist, who think Trump is a disaster-in-waiting, but who are frankly sick and tired of the political climate where we're called misogynist racists because we simply disagree with your "progressive" politics.
You lost the election because of people like us. Instead of taking the lesson to heart, you've doubled down on it.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
It is always right to punch a Nazi. It always has been and it always will be.
So then, in the spirit of equality, it's always right to punch a communist as well?
I'm going to go out and a limb and say I don't think Trump won because majorities in the Rust Belt, or even in more traditional Red states, are a pack of white supremacists. Obviously there is that element (and up until Nixon's South Strategy, that element was more associated with the Democrats, or at least on the fringes like the Dixiecrats), but it sure looks to me like a lot of people were very pissed off (and not without good reason) at what they viewed as the Washington establishment, at a pack of elites who had grown so comfortable in their ivory towers that even if they wanted to help the average person on the street, were so detached that they wouldn't even know where to begin.
So, to put it in rather blunt terms, the notion that Breitbarts, Milo, Bannon, and ultimately even Trump himself somehow represent the New America is absurd, to the point where Trump has entered the presidency with the lowest approval ratings of any new President since anyone started measuring that. I really do get the impression that he actually has damned little overarching political support outside his base. At best, general support seems to be of the "monkey wrench in the machinery", as in "we sure hope he fucks up the Washington establishment", but there seems little evidence that most Americans believe he's going to be a great president. I simply think the Alt-right, like the out and out White Supremacists, are delusional on this point.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Even if he was a terrorist (and if you're going to start calling protesters who start swinging fists terrorists, then I'd suggest the word loses any meaning at all), that does not empower any group to try, convict and mete out his punishment.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How about the "Muslim scare", where anyone with brown skin is automatically assumed to be a dangerous terrorist, and that people who belong to a one-billion member religion that isn't even in and of itself homogeneous are all declared to be part of some "Muslim hoard" that's going to take over America and declare Sharia law (meanwhile, ironically, some Evangelical and Conservative Catholic hold positions that would be more compatible with Sharia).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating Milo faked tweets from her and then encouraged his followers to harass her on Twitter.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Reality:Many times more DANGEROUS and SCARY to be OUTED as a TRUMP SUPPORTED, than ANY MINORITY GROUPS right now. Here are just a few examples in the last few months alone.
1) White handicapped man beaten for MAYBE being a Trump supporter. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...
1a) abcnews deleted the story. http://web.archive.org/web/201...
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Woman wants a Trump supporter to move from his seat because she doesn't like Trump
3)Trump supporter chocked and beaten for hat . http://abc7ny.com/politics/man...
4) Homeless woman beaten for Trump support. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
5) Black woman Trump supporter harassed in NYC https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That kind of ignorance doesn't hurt Republicans, it hurts Democrats and progressives.
Identity politics is a cancer to destroy the economic left. The plebs were getting too uppity about all that income inequality stuff during Occupy Wall Street. Switch the focus from "income inequality" to "racial income inequality." Switch the issue of CEO vs worker pay to "gender pay gap." Now the leftists no longer want to smash the system, they just want to make sure enough people with approved skin color and genitalia have token positions of power, too. Think Hillary was going to "smash the patriarchy?" Of course not. She just wanted to run it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Do SJW have a long list of words, terms they want banned? Protect all celebrity marketing by ensuring only positive movie reviews can be found?
Can't we just keep this about Rampart?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Yes, Madonna is an ignorant loud mouth and what she said was deplorable. I won't buy her music or go to her shows. Mind you, since I'm more a Pink Floyd/King Crimson/Beatles/Rush kind of guy, the odds of me ever supporting Madonna in any way were pretty negligible. But this all looks whataboutery to me. The fact that Madonna is a ludicrous and nasty person doesn't make Milo any less ludicrous and nasty, though I'll state quite openly that I find the insanity at UC Berkeley to have done nothing but give Milo yet another undeserved medal on his chest, and I hold any rioter, regardless of ideology, in contempt.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I remember someone even trying to prove Milo wasn't a racist because he likes to sleep with black man. It was pointed out that that would have made meant many of the slave owners in the American South weren't racists.
Now now now, let's break this down. By the accepted leftist logic, penetrative intercourse is an act of violence inflicted upon the receiver of the penetration under any circumstances, whether there is consent or not. So it would make sense that Southern slave owners would be racist, as they would be the ones penetrating the slaves and therefore dominating them through violence, which is the standard modus operandi of a racist.
However, someone who hates black people would not voluntarily place themselves in a situation where they would be violently dominated by a black person. Penetrative intercourse is violently dominating by its inherent nature. Milo not only voluntarily allows black men to anally penetrate him, he lets them do so exculsively, and enjoys the act itself. This is not the trademark of a racist. Your argument might hold water (I mean, not that any of this is true but it's what leftists believe) if he were not the receiver but the perpetrator of the anal penetration, but he's made it clear on numerous occasions that he only allows black men inside him.
How do you explain this apparent paradox?
No, I don't think Breitbart is. Breitbart, by and large is just a aggregator with color commentary. I think Breitbart and its readership like to imagine they're very important, but even in this age of anti-MSMism, the big news outlets like CNN still dwarf Breitbart.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are you suggesting that people like you, who think that Trump is a disaster waiting to happen, voted for him because you were upset with an unrelated group?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There's little reason to argue with someone whom is diametrically opposed to what you believe reality to be. You cannot change their mind. At best you get pissed off, and waste your time.
When you realize this, you waste less time arguing with those you know to be morons.
It would also have proven that many black slave owners were not racist. Of course we know that isn't true. They were all obviously racist.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
So the chance that a guy might out a trans person is equal to smashing building windows, setting fires, and assaulting people?
I think the safety of the students was completely ignored when the police and local government let masked and armed mobs engage in violent insurrection specifically designed to curtail freedom of speech. That kind of attack is unacceptable in my opinion.
No need to argue. I understand that as long as you are getting your way you will support the means and you will find a way to justify it.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Nobody needs to listen to that horseshit. Fuck the legitimization of white nationalism. Breitbart publishes white nationalist material, and Bannon is complicit in it. It's still on their site right now.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
So a subreddit that bans people for having dissenting views is bitching that a private company banned their subreddit, ostensibly for their dissenting views? I wouldn't have any sympathy for them even if they weren't a bunch of fucking nazis.
Someone, please come up with a rationalization for how the subreddit's banning of dissent doesn't count because it's different when reddit does it.
... the gamergate candidate.
"If you look at what our Congress is doing for tech, it's failing. It's putting all of us in danger," game developer Brianna Wu told CNN, adding "It's so imperative that people of my generation, native to technology, that we step up and make our voices known."
Some of us, though we are aware of gamergate and reddit, just don't give a flying goddam rat's ass.
The big question: "Is Lindsay Lohan in rehab or not?"
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Re "Can't we just keep this about "
Thats the problem with censorship and a lack of free speech on sites.
Teams of SJW will soon find new topics to ban and report.
Blasphemy? Cartoons? Animated video clips about a faith or cult? Support for monarchies, Communist parties, investors, faiths, political leaders, dictatorships that request safe branding?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Could it be that some people thought that Clinton was worse in part because of the things mentioned by Zak3056?
Could it be that some people think an unknown is not as bad as a known bad?
FFS. Why is there no introspection to be had by the left?
... people who are committed to reddit do not fully appreciate how insignificant they are to those of us outside of reddit.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Banning these people from Reddit only means that progressives will be even more out of touch with mainstream America than they already are.
Well said. Even Obama made a similar sentiment and yet there hasn't been much introspection on the part of the left. Double down and isolate themselves has been the course.
I keep thinking that eventually the crazy will just scream itself out or the rhetoric will hit a point where no sane person would continue a fallacious, hypocritical, and dangerous position... For example "it's ok to punch a nazi". Yet, satire has become reality. I would be laughing if it wasn't so sad and pathetic.
Show me one statement I made which is not factual. When media cherry picks portions of a topic to fit an agenda, showing the rest of the topic is valid and correct. I'm not a Kelly Ann Conway fan, but that is exactly what her statement meant. Let me give you an easy example. The recent moratorium on immigration is touted as anti Muslim, racist, etc... ignores very basic facts.
Facts: The US does not run out and investigate people trying to enter the US. Like every other country in the world we rely on the country of origin to provide paperwork and validate status for any person trying to enter. The countries on the list are _all failed States_ who can not provide information on people traveling in and out of their countries with any reliability. Do you think there is any reliable Government agency in Syria or Libya who can validate that people leaving their countries are not criminals? (READ: That does not imply that everyone in a State is a criminal, it states explicitly that there is no way to validate the status of the foreign Government with any reliability.)
Given that set of facts most Americans (last poll was around 65%) understand why there is a travel ban and take no issue with it. Liberal media however won't provide any factual information on how immigration works, nor will them or the leftist politicians, explain the real issue. Instead, it's fear mongering opinions based on very little factual information.
I'm as critical and cynical of my Government as anyone you can find. At the same time, I will defend what is right when it's right. On this issue, and considering that the US is the largest target for terrorism in the world, I will defend them. Now if they had banned immigration from all 50 majority Muslim countries, or established religious testing (as some fear mongering liars have been attempting to claim), I would be fighting against the administration.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
She wasn't even a Trump supporter, she had on a hat that made fun of his MAGA slogan. She was presumably pepper sprayed because it looked similar to the Trump hats.
Trump won because he listened to what the majority of America was concerned about.
People don't want freedom. People want an echo chamber.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Please explain, if reddit/twitter/facebook allowed all right wing content, how would this prevent Trump from being elected. I'm not saying that I'm for the block, I just don't think that Trump's victory is related to whether social media sites censor him or not. If he's censoerd, it's big news and helps him. If he is not censored, he can publish his opinions and it helps him. To me it looks like these two balance each other.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
You voted for a racist. You are a racist, regardless of the rest of your politics.
I don't respond to AC's.
You learned that from your hero, Goebbels, right? If you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. Go to hell.
To kill a "bad opinion", you must discuss it and convince the other side by their own logical frame that it is a bad opinion.
The more you isolate and group people with a same opinion, the less likely it is to go away.
He won because he proposed extreme and simplistic solutions to issues people had, which will ultimately fail but not until after he has taken power.
Beware people who tell you that they have an easy solution to complex problems.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Once a site starts to ban its own users, many other users will have to try self-censorship to keep their accounts.
That gets boring and feels like work. Why stay on an interactive social media site if you have no free speech or freedom after speech?
As a site becomes more safe, more regulated by teams of SJW, more boring users will seek fun, interaction and content on other better sites that support freedom of speech.
The fun, desire for and enjoyment of real free speech does not go away when teams of SJW ban users and accounts on one site.
The site that had the SJW censorship will just be used as a safe space for brands, governments, faiths, cults and celebrities.
A bland safe space for marketing, brands, advertising and big government does not attract fun new users.
What will the teams of SJW like to ban next? Cartoons that would be considered blasphemy? Politics? No mention of Tiananmen Square and 1989?
Do SJW have a long list of words, terms they want banned? Protect all celebrity marketing by ensuring only positive movie reviews can be found?
The only people that like INGSOCJUS are the ones that practice it on others.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How about theTrump scum who just killed 6 people is a Mosque in Canada, an alt-right terrorist.
http://news.sky.com/story/cana....
Knock that one down, you dumb fuck.
Here's their new home: http://voat.co/v/identitarian
And here's an alternative even more dedicated to free speech: http://voat.co/v/alternativeright
Most of us in the alt-right movement hate violence, and just don't want whites to become a minority in EVERY last country.
He still won the majority of America, as opposed to the majority of Americans.
It is always right to punch a Nazi. It always has been and it always will be.
That inflexible level of thinking sounds very right wing and authoritarian to me. Hmm. Are you a nazi? Does that mean I can punch you?
You are so concerned about some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed... where were you when peaceful protesters on college campuses were getting hosed down with pepper spray by an agent of the state for a simple sit in?
Well, I was saying that was an abusive act that should be illegal. I'm saying that a woman stood being interviewed getting assaulted is an abusive act that is illegal.
And here you are saying Anit-fascist like its a fucking bad thing
Some people may be, but I'm not. I can't be arsed trying to differentiate the fascists from the cunts that pretend they're not fascists. I focus on actions.
Attacking someone for saying something you dislike? That is wrong. I don't give a flying fuck which side of the political spectrum you're on, stop assaulting people.
There's nothing about Trump in that article. You're not even fucking trying, this is pure fucking projection.
Get a grip on reality, your mental health is at risk here.
I don't know, as a jew, I think that antisemitism helped antisemitists to silence jewism for many years. Sure, it did not completely exterminate it, but it managed to silent it for pretty long. I think that sometimes brutality and aggression are also pretty effective. I agree that they are harder against a larger group, but I think the same is also true for large groups. How will you manage to convince ALL of them that they are wrong?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
You're biased, the right is just the same and get insulted very easily. Example: I've been told by a leftist that my ideology has facist streaks, yet I continued talking with her and we discussed peacefuly why this is so and why I still think that even if it's true it might be better than hers. Many right wingers would just immediately stop the conversation and cry about how leftists are shutting them up.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Trump won, because people voted against something. Do not confuse that with voting for something.
If you have the choice of having you left or right pinky cut of in a 'insurance settlement', it does not mean you wanted it cut of. It just means you did not wanted to cut off the other one even less.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Given that ooloorie doesn't appear to be a Trump supporter why are you demanding he does this?
Just fucking do it yourself if you feel that strongly about it.
There's no such thing as "ALL" when talking about humans, it's all percentages.
But if you manage to convince a big majority, you win.
But this is a bit hard on a "safe space for anti antisemitism" like the nazi germanyh was, where you could get "banned" for disagreeing or trying to discuss it.
Bottom line. It doesn't work any more.
It's the 21st Century, time to start having politicians subscribe to issues the populous moves as relevant instead of a hidden autocracy determining the direction of the establishment. Left and Right simply means 'other interests' where 20% dictate what happens to the other 80% of us. Where Left is supposedly attached to communists and Right supposedly attached to capitalists economic systems in a political environment designed hundreds of years ago twisted over time to ignore the constitutional foundations that keep society stable.
Perhaps it is time to upgrade our thinking about the two party system, and consider the left and right approach in the same way we look at if we prefer black and white movies over color movies.
The alt-whites are the opposite of the SJW. It's "the Right" coming to terms with their homosexuality and using it just as poorly as "the Left" has. From what I can gather SJW forget that their freedom of speech ends where my human rights begin, you can't make me use your gender pro-noun unless I like you.
What I see the alt-whites doing is attacking culture, which is just as bad, just different bad. I'm white, I like my culture, imperfectly it tries to include people and protect human rights. I don't mind people trying to change it however I don't think that destroying it is a good idea either.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
You're biased, the right is just the same and get insulted very easily.
No, I'm seeing the reality of what the left has been moving towards for the last 20 years. It's the same reason so many other people have dropped from the left moving either towards the center or right. It's the same type of crap that progressives have been pulling against anyone who don't subscribe to the prevailing groupthink. Google those names I listed above, see who are trying to stop them from speaking. It's not the right jumping up and down and burning shit, threatening people or doxing them either. Those on the right may take offense, but that's where it actually ends.
Many right wingers would just immediately stop the conversation and cry about how leftists are shutting them up.
And yet here we are having a discussion on something. Truth to a point? It is the left who are trying to shut down their speech. You notice what went on in Berkeley last night? Got those lovely antifa and marxist-anarchists destroying shit and all those anti-milo protesters right out there, cheering them on. How about the no platforming? Remember when the courts ruled that universities can't use security fees to stifle freedom of speech? That was because leftist universities would charge conservative speakers $20k-30k for "security" to stop them from speaking. When you get bored, watch this. And remember, that those are leftists attempting to silence dissenting opinions with violence and it didn't start last night, or last week.
The left need to get their shit in order.
Om, nomnomnom...
Shit, you guys should be HAPPY that we're digging our own graves here.
Well being a C-Libertarian, I am. Then again I'm not. You know why? Because politics requires dissenting points of view and a coherent opposition. The left(and progressives) decided to take crazy pills, embrace identity politics and intersectionality, say "fuck you" to everyone who doesn't bow to their agenda. And then when people decide they've had enough. They decided go absolutely bat shit insane and start down the path of violence. You know where that happened the last time? Right around 1988, with the conservatives and right. Took around 20 years to clean the shit out. So you guys can take your pick, clean up the mess while you've got a chance. Or let it fester and pretend it doesn't need to be fixed in which case it'll get much worse and when the necessary purges come, they'll be twice as bad.
The whole identity politics bit is pure cancer, and people all over the place have had it. Especially the whole race based pandering garbage, because *insert flavor of the month.*
Om, nomnomnom...
It is always right to punch a Nazi. It always has been and it always will be.
See Popper's "The Open Society" - basically you can not give unlimited tolerance to intolerance, or else the Nazis gain control and there is no more tolerance allowed.
At some point, you have to use violence to resist intolerance, and yes this does seem paradoxical. The point is that true Nazis are not amenable to reasoned debate (any more than ISIS), and I don't imagine many people here think we should only ever talk to ISIS and never use violence against them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't know, I admit that it is possible we have differing views because we come from different countries. In Israel's history, when our state was more communist-like, the left censored people much more. In the 70s it began relaxing, and now it's coming back to some extent as a pale copy of US's SJW.
Regarding antifa and marxist-anarchists, I agree that you are right about them, but where I live we have "Lehava" (Flame in english) an organization that just goes in the street and randomly beats male arabs who talk with female jews. In Israel antifa is roughly 30 people and they don't really do much except for writing in facebook. Our right winger parliament is suing someone for shitting on the israeli flag and putting it on youtube.
In other words, It's a matter of which country you are. I don't know, I fail to see any difference between the right and the left in this matter. Both, when they have enough power, begin trying to shut up the opposition.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
It's not the OP's definition, it's the federal government's.
(28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
"the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
The attack on Richard Spencer certainly seems to qualify. Swinging a fist is obviously "force and violence". The attack was clearly the furtherance of a social objective. i.e. intimidating Spencer to prevent him from expressing his views & opinions. Therefore, under the government definition, it could easily be argued that this assault was "terrorism".
I concur that the term is ridiculously broad, but that's "by design" so that the government can apply penalties to people(especially political dissidents) that would otherwise be disproportionate to the actual crime.
Remember the environmentalists who set fire to those SUVs in Oregon? In addition to arson, they were charged with "terrorism" because of the political/social motive.
You voted for a racist.
I did? That's news to me. I haven't voted for a two-party presidential candidate in over 15 years.
You are a racist, regardless of the rest of your politics.
Like I said: instead of listening to the message, you're doubling down.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
A "message" that we should go back to racial and gender discrimination is not a message I'm interested in, thanks.
I don't respond to AC's.
Aren't higher percentages harder to get when there are more people?
And your antisemitism example is correct but not the only one. That's why I feel that convincing people will usually not work, there are too many taboos. If you have criticism against feminism, you are a rapist. If you have criticism against nationalism, you are a traitor. If you have crticism against the jewish religion* , you are a nazi.
* - Believe me, I'm ethnically jewish, I live in israel, I can tell you that our religion is pretty sick and if any western country decides to abolish circumsision I'm all for it, despite the fact that it's "trying to eliminate a culture"
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
I'm not the one trying to excuse a man who runs a fucking white nationalist website. People have already seen whose side the nazis are on because Richard Spencer couldn't keep his heils in check. I am proud to note that my great-grandfather helped bomb those fuckers the last time. Go find some pills and a bunker.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Frankly, I don't care anymore whether people call me a racist or white supremacist; it's about as ridiculous as calling me a zoophile or cannibal.
Not if you hang around in groups who happily discuss the joys of fucking sheep and eating their neighbours.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I disagree. In fact, one generally learns little by only conversing with people they agree with. Even if you disagree with someone on a very fundamental level, you can learn quite a bit from a discussion with them - particularly on why they believe the opposite of what you believe.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The media coverage is ridiculous, and focus instead on actual fake stories of people who are pretending to be assaulted by Trump supporters, a claim, as far as I know, always unfounded. End of rant. Good luck America.
What about the story a couple days ago where a Trump supporter murdered some people because of his alt-right views
It's bizarre how I say "there is justification for not inviting him" and idiots read "rioting and arson are justified."
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The left is all about racial and gender discrimination, against white males.
While I prefer to challenge people like Yiannopoulos in public, in this case I can see a reasonable justification for not inviting him to speak.
He was invited by a student group at a public university and had every right to speak.
safety of students
Bull-fucking-shit. Students safety were threatened not by the speakers, but the intolerant assholes violently protesting against him.
Freedom of speech just means the government cant arrest you for saying it.
Maybe learn some shit before you open your mouth.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
If you voted for someone who you thought was a walking disaster you are a complete idiot and I really don't care what you think.
This isn't about the last election, this isn't about Hillary, this is about Nazis... This is about blatant out right racist assholes who should not be given the insane amount of protection that they are given. The KKK can parade around "openly" exposing death to tons of American citizens, people like you and me and they are protected for it but if a few black people get together to say "hey, how about you stop shooting us in record numbers" and they get beaten and arrested. That shit is fucked up... that is as anit-American as it gets.
These aren't people who are simply fiscally conservative, they are hate mongers, they would have huge swaths of Americans eliminated simply for the color of their skin, and if you support them, if you stand with the hate mongers, then you are just as bad as they are.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Are you talking about Stalinists? People who would have folks killed en-masse? Then sure, punch away. But if you are talking about Democratic socalists who believe that our social saftey net should be a little more secure and better protect the most vulnerable among us but do not preach that we should have people killed for their race or religion... no, those are not people you should punch.
Its really not that complicated.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Don't confuse "legal" and "right" .
It was once legal to own slaves and illegal to help them escape from their masters. It was never right to own slaves and it was right to help them get to freedom.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
A "message" that we should go back to racial and gender discrimination is not a message I'm interested in, thanks.
Again, you keep calling me a misogynist racist and you don't know anything at all other than "[I] didn't vote for HIllary Clinton and object to repeatedly being called a misogynist racist to the point that I reject your entire agenda."
Since you appear to either be a troll (I'll assume not) or simply want me to virtue signal, here you go: I think that judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of the skin is a pretty good dream, and we should all buy into that. I think the idea that women should be chained in the kitchen is laughable. I support gay marriage and gays in the military (and speaking of the military, I think that women being eligible for all combat roles is a long overdue change).
Put simply: I believe that PEOPLE should have every opportunity to do whatever it is that they want to do, regardless of sex, race, or creed, and everyone else should stay the fuck out of their lives rather than trying to tell them how to live them.
I DO have a problem with "safe spaces" trumping (no pun intended) free speech. I DO have a problem with throwing people out of school simply based on accusations and without any kind of due process. I DO have a problem with an executive branch ruling by fiat ("Dear Colleague") to enable the above. I DO have a problem when people riot because they think someone should not be allowed to speak (at Berkeley of all places!) I DO have a problem that when I say "all lives matter" I'm presumed to believe that black lives (or even blue lives) do not.
I'm assuming your next response will be to call me a racist again (I expect you'll key in on the last thing I said there). If so, don't bother. I won't be responding to you again. If not, hey, maybe you're one of the few rational people left in the world, and the two of us can have a nice conversation.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Its pretty clear that you don't know what a Nazi is. Perhaps you should read up on WWII and the Holocaust and get back to me.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Oh, so you're advocating punching people that are 90 years and older? Me, I'd hope that any crimes they've committed have already been assessed and appropriate justice served.
Just that, if you're using the term to mean anybody younger than that then you're clearly not talking about WWII or the holocaust.
Even in 1945 I don't think it would be appropriate to punch someone purely because they were a nazi party member. Which crimes did they commit, and how about applying some justice there.
Arbitrary violence is not justice.
Just moved to the South and am disturbed to occasionally find some racism here.
What makes this much, much worse is that the word "racism" is thrown around so very loosely in the national conversation that no one believes it when they hear it.
Why not just ban the doxxer instead of the whole sub-reddit?
... in which case all the conduct agreements of Reddit are out the window (i.e. I'm not going to follow Reddit anti-dox rules and get thrown into the slammer for aiding and abetting, etc).
If alt-right is gertting used as a blanket way to refer to Republicans and/or conservatives, is the government banned too?
It sounds a little ridiculous, but I'm wondering if that is what reddit is doing.
And no, I don't trust reddit to decide what is good and bad for me. It sounds like the "doxxer" was trying to apprehend a criminal
All this arguing over white nationalism. I think Africa needs more diversity. There aren't nearly enough white people in Africa. Any takers? Why are we not pushing that narrative? Why do so many think that it is inherently wrong to have a white majority country and yet so many are perfectly happy to leave black majority countries as they are and never once encourage white migration to black countries to shore up their lacking diversity numbers?
These are simple questions, why are they not asked?
Another point: In what world does anyone think that bringing all these poor people to the United States is going to help the status quo?, These people outbreed and create more poverty than we import so that we are making zero impact in their home countries while impovershing our own. How is that helping the rest of the world? This is obviously a plan to merely destroy the way of life in the United States and everyone who believes that we can import away all the poverty from the rest of the world by weakening ourselves into a country like the rest have destroyed... well, you are severely deluded. We will simply become an impoverished trash heap just like every other country and for whatever reason about half of this country claims to want that by the way they cast their votes.
If you voted for someone who you thought was a walking disaster you are a complete idiot and I really don't care what you think.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, I did not vote for the walking disaster.
This isn't about the last election, this isn't about Hillary, this is about Nazis... This is about blatant out right racist assholes who should not be given the insane amount of protection that they are given. The KKK can parade around "openly" exposing death to tons of American citizens, people like you and me and they are protected for it but if a few black people get together to say "hey, how about you stop shooting us in record numbers" and they get beaten and arrested. That shit is fucked up... that is as anit-American as it gets.
These aren't people who are simply fiscally conservative, they are hate mongers, they would have huge swaths of Americans eliminated simply for the color of their skin, and if you support them, if you stand with the hate mongers, then you are just as bad as they are.
I do thank you for the civility of saying "if" a lot in your post. Unlike the other guy who keeps calling me a racist, at least you have the courtesy to assume it's possible that I might not be one.
We agree entirely about the right to protest. It IS outrageous that people are being shot by the police without cause. It IS outrageous that people would be beaten and arrested for protesting that fact. But a lot of people aren't protesting, they're rioting. The comment that got me involved in this discussion (about "some hateful shit of a girl getting pepper sprayed") sums up my position neatly. I watched the video, the "hateful shit of a girl" says she's out there to make a statement, just like the protesters are, and she gives credit to the ones doing so peacefully... whereupon she is pepper sprayed by one of your nazi fighters who is on the side of the angels. Forgive me if I don't see them the same way.
As for the KKK, they're hateful shits and the world would be better off without them. That doesn't mean they don't have rights. Our principle of free speech is supposed to be based on the notion that "I disagree with what you have to say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Instead, we have people screaming that their safe spaces just can't stand up to words, but don't seem to mind beating people using those words. Again, who is the threat here? Because despite all the claims of Naziism (and I do agree that Trump could EASILY go in that direction) the only people I see being violent here are the ones that seem to be on your side of the divide.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
It's always right to punch a Nazi.
"It's always right to punch a Communist. It's always right to punch an SJW. It's always right to punch a religious nutjob."
Screw you. You are what's wrong with this country. When you hear something you don't agree with, you try to shut them down with force instead of having a rational discussion.
Apparently people can't support border controls now, because talking about it turns them into racists and nazis. But guess what? The majority of people in this country still want functioning borders and a social support system that hasn't been overwhelmed by illegal immigrants.
Occasionally, foaming at the mouth progressives may call someone a "racist" who actually is; that doesn't excuse their behavior.
No, you're the one lobbing baseless accusations at people.
You keep saying that. Where is the evidence?
Under Stalin no doubt.
There is occasionally racism in the North too. You'll never eliminate private racial discrimination. What we can do is demand that people have the same rights before the law, nothing more and nothing less.
"Troll" with no AC-posted comment, really? That's amazing. I don't have any sympathy for the guy; I just don't have sympathy for the guy who attacked him, either.
If the speculation is true and Reddit deleted subs in an attempt to protect the identity of a criminal from becoming known, that at the very least is a subject worth debating.
Is a "Muslim hoard" a place where someone keeps all their Muslims and won't share them with anyone?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The white nationalist shit is all over their site in plain view, so you must be one of those who think I should just laugh it off.
Here's a choice quote from this article:
Should the liberal tribe (and let’s not deny it any longer – that’s both the Democratic and GOP Establishments these days) do business with them? Well, the risk otherwise is that the 1488ers start persuading people that their solution to natural conservatives’ problems is the only viable one. The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values.
Sincere attempt to rationalize white nationalism LOLZ SO FUNNAY!
Under Stalin no doubt.
RCAF, but I can see how you'd make the mistake, since your understanding of history you actually have access to is already so poor...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Oh, no, somebody call the waaaahmbulance! Somebody is complaining about privilege!
And one of the primary inspirations for the Black Lives Matter movement is a cop killer and 'domestic terrorist' on the FBI's Most Wanted List, with a $2M reward on her head, according to the original founders and promoters of the hashtag and larger movement.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. A *attributed* quote from Assata Shakur is on their homepage and if you head over to Youtube, you can hear this very line being chanted in unison at dozens of different BLM protests. The women in question are widely considered to be the founders and coordinators of BLM and have given countless interviews and speeches on the subject, including one at TED (not even TEDx, but straight TED.)
But guess what? I don't assume that the majority of people who support Black Lives Matter are pro-terrorism. It's a tiny fraction. It's a tiny fraction that happens to be running the show, but a tiny fraction nonetheless.
And the same goes with the alt-right and actual racists and actual Nazis. Trash the founders all you want, but it's going to end very, very badly if the left continues to treat the entire movement and label as a monolith.
Seriously? You are taking an explicit warning against the dangers of the possible appeal to large groups of voters of white nationalism as supporting white nationalism? An opinion piece written by a self-described "radical progressive liberal" whose ethnicity is a mix of English-Pakistani-Slovenian? That's the damning accusation of white nationalism against Breitbart? And in support you link to a WaPo article written by a privileged WASPish sports reporter who is obviously every bit as thick as you are?
Obviously, your grandfather didn't fly for Stalin; obviously you are a pampered, ignorant North American, and that's why you didn't get my reference. Stalin and communist regimes loved accusing (actual) liberals of being fascists. Hitler loved talking about how racist US society was. Your unfounded accusations of fascism and racism against the US simply place you firmly in the ideological tradition of the extreme left and the extreme right, who love to mislabel themselves as liberals, but actually despise liberal democracy.
Not surprised. Reddit will protect criminals of all types, provided that they're leftists.
Some of them apparently think enough to protect the narrative on Slashdot by modbombing.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The stupid asshole went in front of the CIA, stood with his back to their wall of nameless but honored dead and whined about how nobody believed how big, beautiful, fantastic & historic his inauguration audience was.
But why do you care? Why does anyone else? Trump is an asshole and a dope. Even most of the people who voted for him seem to be very ready to acknowledge this. Anyone who is still bemoaning his character criticizing the brass on the Titanic as being insufficiently polished.
It's insane that this is still going on not only after the election, but after the transfer of power. It was beating a dead horse 6 months ago, but apparently we need to pulverized the poor equine into molecule-sized bits. Again and again and again, Trump gets the mainstream media and the left yelling over irrelevancies whilst multiple bigger issues (not all, but many) slide under the radar. This isn't a neutral thing that's happening here. Every minute wasted on topics like this is a minute that could've been spent on substantive criticism.
Some have branded him a genius for this, but he's exhibited such doltish behavior elsewhere that this is seems extremely implausible. And yet it keeps happening.
Maybe on this one, specific tactic Trump is a genius. Maybe his business dealings has given him good instincts about how to exploit certain psychological flaws related to the bike shed effect.
Now it seems like you're trying esteem-by-association, which is odd since you started off criticizing them with guilt-by-association.
I take it back. Lay off of the Adderall; I think you're having an episode of stimulant-induced psychosis.
I'm actually quite in the mood to find the good fight but this isn't even fun. You're too far off the mark of what I'm even saying for this to be interesting, sporting or at all useful to anyone.
Too bad you're forgetting what you're trying to prove isn't something TED would investigate.
The onus is on you to stop acting like a dumbass, stop trying to put words in my mouth, and put up or shut up re: the claims of these women, and/or their open admiration and promotion of the words of Assata Shakur, and/or the leftists who support BLM without bothering to find out what the movement (or the individual protests in that movement) is actually about. That doesn't make them *guilty*; it makes them *lazy* and a liability in the coming culture wars.
But why do you care? Why does anyone else? Trump is an asshole and a dope. Even most of the people who voted for him seem to be very ready to acknowledge this. Anyone who is still bemoaning his character criticizing the brass on the Titanic as being insufficiently polished.
It's insane that this is still going on not only after the election, but after the transfer of power. It was beating a dead horse 6 months ago, but apparently we need to pulverized the poor equine into molecule-sized bits. Again and again and again, Trump gets the mainstream media and the left yelling over irrelevancies whilst multiple bigger issues (not all, but many) slide under the radar. This isn't a neutral thing that's happening here. Every minute wasted on topics like this is a minute that could've been spent on substantive criticism.
Some have branded him a genius for this, but he's exhibited such doltish behavior elsewhere that this is seems extremely implausible. And yet it keeps happening.
Maybe on this one, specific tactic Trump is a genius. Maybe his business dealings has given him good instincts about how to exploit certain psychological flaws related to the bike shed effect.
Because he's not (yet) an Emperor and he didn't elect himself. Those of his supporters who claimed they were only trying to "shake things up" need to be reminded what they've done and we should NOT allow his behavior to become normalized or to treat him like some autistic savant.
The Republicans who opposed him - the "Never Trumps" were NOT Democrats or liberals - but who now kiss the ring also need to be reminded - I hope enough that they'll look past their lust for power & at the character of the president to whom they fawn.
Also, don't think that "beating a dead horse" has no impact; persistence often counts. Nearly all of the criticisms & "facts" that the GOP & rightwingnuts kept harping on about Obama were *entirely* fictional and they made 5 MILLION of his voting base vanish in just 4 years - and triggered the LARGEST EVER change of House seats in just TWO.
Of course voter suppression played a role but wasn't the only factor.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
You do jump quickly to these types of vituperative remarks
ACs are subhuman. You should get down on your knees and thank god you received any reply at all. Also, since there is near zero intellectual engagement here, snark is the only thing that's keeping me coming back.
None of the ones involved with BLM got elected president of a country with nuclear warheads.
"Trump is bad and a moron and a liar and I wouldn't be surprised if he were a rapist." Are you happy? Are you happy with your *life*? How old are you, seriously? As I said in my other reply, I think most intelligent people reach a stage where talking about how much the American right sucks loses all amusement or illusion of usefulness. The American mainstream right is a permanent reactionary force. They *can't* change. The left can.
Still, that truth (an old one st that, older than Godwinâs) won't make Black Lives Matter into any kind of official or organised group
Again with the idiocy. This is keeping me coming back as well, because it's such a dumbassed thing to say it's a little amusing. It's like putting a [citation needed] flag on water being wet. You offer no rebuttal whatsoever; you just say "that isn't proof!" Well sorry, I've already spent 15 seconds being your Google monkey today. That's 15 seconds more than most ACs get.
softball interview anything other than what it is.
You actually expect them to grill them on whether they're lying? Why doesn't the local news grill NASA about whether the moon landings are faked and the moon is actually made of overripe gouda? This is hysteria, an actual mental disease if you aren't in fact trolling. There's no reason at all to suspect BLM isn't centrally organized (plus a bunch of lazy retweeters and pundits who don't know any better, plus some percentage of independently organized protests who have appropriated the BLM label but have differing agendas.) You might as well claim that PETA doesn't exist as an organization for all the sense you're making. No, I'm not going to give you more proof, because it's not up for discussion any more than the Earth being older than 6,000 years is up for discussion. At the end of the day, you're perfectly free to stick your own head up your ass or not. This isn't even an argument.
Nearly all of the criticisms & "facts" that the GOP & rightwingnuts kept harping on about Obama were *entirely* fictional and they made 5 MILLION of his voting base vanish in just 4 years - and triggered the LARGEST EVER change of House seats in just TWO.
...
I'm trying to figure out how to reply "maybe it's sloppily-aimed rabidity like that" in a polite and gentle enough manner that you'll read this and understand that I'm anti-Trump as well and be able to process and at least tolerate what I'm saying.
The point is to rant about the things that matter, not the things that don't. Spending time about the character flaws that ultimately don't much matter helps Trump. People who are unsure about them look at the criticism on page 1 and nod with satisfaction, happy once they realize that the story is irrelevant or even utter nonsense. The world isn't burning after all! It's just silly liberals getting their panties in a twist over bullshit. Most of them don't continue slogging all the way to page 3 to see the stories on climate change or the SCOTUS. I've witnessed this sort of thing firsthand.
Not making a big fucking deal about his silly, stupid lies about the crowd is actually really, really important. It's not "normalizing" him; it's making room for the criticisms that actually goddamn matter whilst simultaneously making the anti-Trump position as a whole seem more serious and respectable to those who aren't paying close attention.
The 5 million missing voters is largely the result of differences on the left, not the right. This should be very obvious because there were even more missing voters (8 mil I think? I forget) compared to 2008. Loss of enthusiasm is a loss of turnout, even if they hate Trump.
If you don't know any former Obama supporters who went Trump, please find some and talk to them. I am related to three of them. (All female, as it happens.) Understanding their reasoning is the key to understanding why so many people weren't motivated to bother showing up, I believe.
In other words, It's a matter of which country you are. I don't know, I fail to see any difference between the right and the left in this matter. Both, when they have enough power, begin trying to shut up the opposition.
Possibly. But let's look at the UK, Canada and US. Are people on the right using no-platforming? No. Are the left? Yes. You're familiar with no-platforming right? Which is the idea that "particular ideas are dangerous, thus must not be spoken about in any form." Are people on the right the ones out there rioting and threatening people? The answer is no. Are those on the left doing so? Yes.
There are more people self-identifying as members of antifa in the US then there are devout KKK members(around 5k). In Canada, there are more people who are antifa members then there are FLQ supporters. Let's look at universities here in North America. Want to have an anti-abortion protest? Who's shutting it down? It's not people on the right. How about a talk about men's rights? Again it's not people on the right. Let's go to environmentalism. People on the right aren't trying to shut it down, or even protest it. Let's look at pipeline protests, or mining. There's no "right wing" groups or people trying to shut them down.
The reality is the pendulum is currently stuck on "left authoritarianism" most of the west hasn't seen the right in any form of power for nearly 30 years. And the left in the west are the ones currently stifling speech. Hell, look at what happened at Berkeley. If you're unaware in the 1960's the left-freespeech movement started there. The right held educational capital, forward to two nights ago and what do we see? The left attempting to shut down speech and that's not an isolated case.
Om, nomnomnom...
He sees no evil, hears no evil, speaks no evil, except on the left.
He is constitutionally incapable of it.
Thanks there oh anonymous coward, who believe that everyone to to the right of "authoritarian left" is in a right-wing echo chamber. You can't dispute or actually comment on the content of anything I've said, but like many on the left your first response is to label someone as "right-wing" as if it's a dirty word. Sorry, doesn't work anymore.
Om, nomnomnom...
When I can drive through the poor parts of your country and not see so many people who look lost. There will always be people the society lets slip through the cracks. The difference is the numbers.
And it's not even a question of the amount of money that is transferred from the haves to the have nots. It is how it is delivered and the outcomes.
Seriously? You are taking an explicit warning against the dangers of the possible appeal to large groups of voters of white nationalism as supporting white nationalism?
Haha "warning against" my ass. It's an argument that white nationalism in a nutshell is "not so audacious" and that it's the only alternative to genocide. Fuck that. And again you hand-wave away all the examples of typical Breitbart fare pointed out in the WaPo article. You know they used to have a section on the site called "BLACK CRIME" right?
An opinion piece written by a self-described "radical progressive liberal" whose ethnicity is a mix of English-Pakistani-Slovenian?
And Milo Yiannopolous is gay and Herman Cain is black, so what? He still wrote words that attempt to rationalize white nationalism. Uncle Toms come in all kinds!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Bullshit.
Yes, Master, we will all vote for wealthy white Democrats in the future, Master, because you have told us so, and as a straight white male, you are obviously in possession of superior intelligence, Master!
Again you disregard all of Breitbart's other run-of-the-mill white nationalist rhetoric, such as that highlighted in the WaPo article and that which can commonly be seen on their homepage at any time of day. But read this quote again. I've highlighted and annotated it for you:
Should the liberal tribe (and let’s not deny it any longer – that’s both the Democratic and GOP Establishments these days) do business with them? Well, the risk otherwise is that the 1488ers start persuading people that their solution [the "final solution" - genocide, is their eventual goal] to natural conservatives’ problems is the only viable one. The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values. [That describes white nationalism in nice words. An exclusive white nation ruled by, and in favor of, whites.]
Also I'm starting to suspect that you're 14 years old, with your gratuitous and almost random 2EDGY4MEBRO! comments.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And how is that different from the ideology of the American left, namely that each ethnic minority should live in "their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values"? The racism and segregationist tendencies in US politics and government originates from progressives, not conservatives.
Actual conservatives and liberals, in contrast, do not believe that government should promote multiculturalism; instead, the goal of government policies should be to encourage people to integrate into a single, mainstream culture, regardless of race or ethnicity.
No, you misinterpret that. You simply argue like an ignorant 14 year old, which is why people talk to you like that.
You seriously don't realize how infantile and ridiculous it is of you as a white American to refer to black Republicans as "Uncle Toms"?
I'm not American and not exactly white. I'm not calling him an Uncle Tom because he's a black Republican, but because he supports bigotry against himself (in speech, specifically).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Whoa what alternate reality are you living in where the American left pushes segregationism? Isn't it progressives who push housing programs that help low-income residents move into higher-income areas? Isn't it mainstream conservatives who push against and roll back these efforts?
Anyway, I'm addressing a bunch of distracting whataboutism, apparently based on fiction.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Progressives were at the forefront of segregation and scientific racism (e.g., here).
Who do you think razed the minority communities, destroyed families, and pushed African Americans into crime-infested housing projects in the first place? Was it laissez-faire Republicans? Libertarian small government type? No. It was, of course, progressives. The same progressives acting on the same impulses that cause them to implement eugenics and segregation half a century earlier.
Given how disastrous the last two major progressive attempts to help minorities through meddling with housing were, however, I think there is good reason not to rush into yet another such scheme. However, Republicans seem to be generally support housing vouchers, they just want to add work requirements for those able to work; why is that a bad thing?
No "whataboutism" at all. You accused Breitbart of being "white nationalist" and pointed to a specific article. That article, in fact, warned about segregationist tendencies being increasingly mainstream in the US, which is correct. Since you are evidently ignorant of the history, I also pointed out that it wasn't conservatives or libertarians that have been responsible for segregationist tendencies, but progressives; given the close historical connections between progressivism and fascism, that also is hardly surprising.
The way forward is to reject failed progressive policies and adopt a more traditionally liberal approach towards the problems of minorities, namely voluntary assimilation and integration regardless of race or ethnicity, motivated by economic self-interest.
Oh, yes, well, lets find you one on the many articles that do show him to be a Trump supporter.
Just one of many.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
I suggest you get a grip on reality, Trumplethinkskin.
No single strategy is going to turn the tide but to be reasonable about everything is going to cost the Dems, the left & liberals a LOT.
Despite the sound beating the GOP get in 2008, they turned the tables very quickly and the Dems have to do the same.
The disadvantage the Dems have is that many districts in Red states or states with GOP governors are gerrymandered up the wazoo and getting courts to examine and overturn those is very time consuming.
The Dems won't get control of redistricting until after the next census by which time Mango Mussolini and his cabal of liars, lunatics & enablers will have had many chances to do a lot of damage. Much as it galls me, following the GOP playbook of the Obama years may just be the way the game will have to be played for a while.
Or, you can play to lose, which is very noble.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If ignoring racists and xenophones makes me "out of touch with mainstream America", then so be it. But, I think you're wrong. Most of America isn't racist and xenophobic. The people in the middle seem to think that they're still the majority. Unfortunately for them, they're not.
I don't respond to AC's.
Oh now you've resorted to conflating today's progressives with those of the interwar era. I tire of these silly games.
No "whataboutism" at all. You accused Breitbart of being "white nationalist" and pointed to a specific article. That article, in fact, warned about segregationist tendencies being increasingly mainstream in the US, which is correct. Since you are evidently ignorant of the history, I also pointed out that it wasn't conservatives or libertarians that have been responsible for segregationist tendencies, but progressives; given the close historical connections between progressivism and fascism, that also is hardly surprising.
I have pointed out multiple examples of Breitbart's white nationalism including a specific article which clearly supports white nationalism and segregationist tendencies. Read this again real slow.
Again, I tire of your childish games, selective ignorance, and fact aversion. I have no further interest in speaking with you.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
And around and around in circle's you go, but can't dispute my original post. Let me know when you get around to that. Dispute the content of my argument, go on. also let me know when all those left-wing Hollywood ideologues, reporters and politicans who were cheering on the riot at UC Berkeley.
It's very telling at just how scared the left are when they try to make the discussion about the "substance of a person" and not the "substance of their point."
Om, nomnomnom...
"Resort to"? It's the same ideology: it opposes capitalism and favors equality of outcome, substitutes expert judgment for individual choice, and advocates race-based policies. Many of these people (e.g., Keynes, Wilson, Sanger) and their policies are revered by today's progressives. Wake up, man: that is what you promote.
No, you pointed out an article in which an author clearly warns about the dangers ("the risk otherwise is") of white nationalism, one danger being that much of their ideology may seem appealing to the masses. You yourself illustrate insidious these ideas are, being blind to your own deep-seated racism and disdain for individual liberty.
And when confronted with the fact that many minorities support conservative and libertarian causes and have no problems with Breitbart, you call them "Uncle Toms", particularly insulting given that you yourself are not black.
I have had no interest in speaking with racists and authoritarians like you at all. But the fact is that evil people like you have some political traction in the US, and Americans need to understand you and your arguments so that we can effectively oppose you. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of socialist, progressive, or fascist hellhole that you promote; that's what I got away from when I emigrated.
Well, you certainly are, as are many of Hillary Clinton's supporters.
Correct. Which is why Americans increasingly reject race-based government policies, divisive racist rhetoric, and immigration policies designed to increase diversity. That is, it's why Americans reject the policies of Democrats and progressives.
It's why Americans instead favor a society in which government treats everybody equally, doesn't patronize minorities, and bases immigration decision based on skill and the ability to contribute to US society.
Wow. I don't know how people like you get so twisted. I've been trying to figure that out for a long time, but I still have no idea. Best of luck to you. Hopefully, you'll have some kind of life experience that will help you get your head straight. Sounds like you have a lot of problems that you're not willing to admit to yourself.
I don't respond to AC's.
This isn't a symmetrical war. The Democrats have the youth (for now), intelligent people, and strong footholds in academia and the media. What they do NOT have are the ability to easily tap a huge contingent of far-left nutters for power or a proficiency with lies and hyperbole.
Don't go invading Russia in the winter. Being more proactive and confrontational than Obama means just that; using better tactics, not altering your ideology or truth standards or rationality. For instance, and this is just a small example, I spoke out repeatedly in favor of the Democrats openly supporting an electoral college rebellion. There was a perfectly reasonable case to make there and even if it failed, the awareness this would have raised might have led to eventual reforms. And I also think it would've been interesting if Obama had simply appointed a SCOTUS of his choosing, forcing the Republicans to sue and the SCOTUS to rule on whether "advice and consent" actually means that Congress can indefinitely delay matters. Roberts might have carried the day; who knows.
You can't beat the Republicans at their own game. Just play hardball, not shittalk. The fact that people like you seem to think that talking about Trump's inauguration crowd lies will do any damage whatsoever to him just goes to show what novices the left are at this.
Good thing you put "the left" in scare quotes, as Democrats and their sycophants are right-wingers. Current case in point: all the outrage from Dems over Trump's travel ban, Dems who DGAF when Obama was bombing them.
Simple: I started off as a Democrat and progressive in my 20s, then I learned a lot about history and politics and I grew up. And the Democratic party also changed, from an economically moderate, socially liberal party to a dysfunctional and bigoted collection of socialists, progressives, and crony capitalists. But don't give up hope, you may still outgrow your youthful and ignorant politics as well.
You understood my intent perfectly. "The left" is how they are labelled, but most people outside of the US do not think the US has a left wing. It was a convenient label (which is generally accepted in political debate in the US, regardless of whether or not it is accurate) and not a political statement, so I quoted it to indicate such.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?