Jump to content

General American Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Boy oh boy do I have a lot to say. Expect a reply soonish, I'm going to need a LOT of time to comb through a bunch of the BS that Templar posted.

 

Plus, introduce some more ideas we've been dancing around yet haven't directly stated.

Share this post


Link to post
In response to Templar Knight's post:

 

 

source.gif

You put it succinctly.

BS? More like total ownage m8.

What is it with reactionaries and posting insubstantial replies like this though?

 

This isn't really pertaining to any inherently political issue I guess but I've noticed an overbearing attitude with a lot of the conservatives on here that a debate is treated as some sort of battle to be won, where victory is that "ha, gottem" moment at the end. In reality the entire thing is an attempt at mutual understanding and education. A wall of text isn't "total ownage", it's just something a lot of folks don't have the energy to bother to reply to. Treating discussions like this as some sort of fight for dominance is a really shallow approach and brings out all sorts of dishonest behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Well if reality is this crazy, why not embrace the madness?

 

Also it's not like Lefties don't do it too, if not worse.

And this is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. You're not accepting blame here, you're just pushing it on somebody else.

Show some humility and treat this like an actual discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Alrighty, wow, took awhile to reply to this but ready now. Had to stop by the Antifa headquarters, they gave me a black mask and complimentary copy of the Communist Manifesto

 

Anyways, let's jump right into why Templar's long wall of text is about a pound of meat surrounded by 5 pounds of cotton.

 

Let's start with the most interesting part (for me) that pretty much gives away Templar's entire motive/position/any chance of me actually thinking he's trying to resemble anything balanced: His youtube list!

 

Wow Temp, you chose some A-class material to choose to consume, basically all the people you listed range from "barely right of center" to "self proclaimed fascist". Though you do say you "lean" towards alt-right media, so at least we know where you're coming from. So i'll just mention some of the people "I" watch, just so you can get a good idea of where i'm coming from, I owe you that much at least: some of my favorites are Jim Sterling (https://www.youtube.com/user/JimSterling), hbomberguy (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClt01z1wHHT7c5lKcU8pxRQ), Contrapoints (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNvsIonJdJ5E4EXMa65VYpA), Shaun and Jen (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ6o36XL0CpYb6U5dNBiXHQ), supperbunnyhop (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWqr2tH3dPshNhPjV5h1xRw), TJ1 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCajw8zd6DPpXOuF6d22Fjkw), Malmrose Projects (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC32gaW8WaRhqmShrQ_ltqSA), and Claudia Brown (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQlNT2xADrXblBd1Tz1Fjzg) so in case you can't tell or can't be bothered to click on the links, pretty left leaning. Now, i do watch a couple of other general knowledge channels like Kurzgesagt (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q) or humorous channels like SovietWomble (https://www.youtube.com/user/SovietWomble) and hey, Ross Scott but i'm assuming you know who that is already.

 

Anyways, normally i wouldn't do this because it's rude, semi-counterproductive, and distracting, but hey, since you're such a free speech fan, I'm gonna go through a lot of these one by one and talk about why they really really aren't worth you time. Isn't free speech nice? Seriously, real talk, you can do better Temp, buddy, pal even if I don't agree with your political leanings, some of the guys you've chose aren't A material, more like C or D. So i'll just list the ones that are pretty dang bonkers, assume the ones i don't mention are...fine. Nothing really bad about them, just, fine.

 

So because i have nothing better to with my evening but argue with strangers, let's start with the the man who thinks he's really smart, but isn't, (though this applies to many people) Sargon of Akkad. Wow, a grade-A powerhouse of intellectual debate and thought. He's so open to the sharing of ideas and openness of discussion. So much so that he tried to BAN ALL SOCIAL JUSTICE COURSE for, wait for it, indoctrinating your children. No joke, he actually tried to do that, oh and by "Tried" I mean he made a petition that got about 80,000 signatures: https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities Boy, for someone who's so fond of free speech Temp, the first guy you listed tried to BAN THE TEACHING of an entire subject. Literally trying to silence people he didn't agree with (you know, the college kids and professors who hold all the power in this country). But more than that, more than once, he's been caught being REALLY REALLY lazy with his research, I'll just leave a video link that YOU won't watch but other people may:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU also, take this as you will, but people have been saying for quite awhile Sargon is a "useful idiot" for fascist recruitment.

 

Next up is Tim Pool. So, let's start with the basics. From the way I see it, Tim-boy paints a world where the "mainstream" media (except for fox news) is dishonest, conservative ideas are under attack via censorship, the "lefties" are growing more and more violent, and to top it all off feminists are starting a civil culture war, trying to divide the US! Wow, seems like something out of a distopian novel, you know, a fantasy....because it is. Most of his videos are your standard reactionary, overblown, taken out of context, scaremongering tactics you see a lot of on conservative channels. The same topics are hammered out again and again, and i've seen the same thing from at least a dozen other conservative media in general, from fox news to rebel media. What i just said about Pool, could apply to a lot of the channels listed by you, even some of the ones I consider to be "ok".

 

Lionel Nation: Well, what i said about Pool applies to here too, except he seems to be leaning more towards the bizarre ideas of Stephan Molyneaux (who i'll get to) regarding masculinity and the destruction of "western values". Plus, he seems oblivious to the obvious mistakes that our president is always making, which is a whole thread unto itself. It's almost like he's deliberately trying to amp up the mistakes and faux pas of people who don't like Dirty Donald. Almost....

No matter, if you're looking for someone who'll paint the world as dangerous for conservative values, while attempting to claim trump will cure cancer (hyperbole), and has the credentials of winning an award that isn't connected to politics so he seems more legit (an Emmy)

 

But anywho, let's move onto Lauren Sutherland. So, here's an interesting case of what i wanna call "the monolith of femminisim" because that, along with subtle traditional conservatism, is exactly what Lauren seems to be railing against more than anything else. To be fair to Lauren, most of the people do this, but she was really the first person that it stuck out to me on. So, to put it simply, she only really seems to showcase the people who are very emotional and on the extreme ends of the feminist spectrum. Along with that, she seems to also fearmonger about "the immigrants", which uhhhhhhhhh...well i'll just leave this video right here talking about why her main defense (the great replacement) isn't really a thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8

 

Now, we move from racist to.....oh boy Paul. Joseph. Watson. boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. So, aside from the fact that he works for INFOWARS which is just....holy cow, everything that comes out of infowars is off the wall nutters. Let's talk about...boy where to start huh? I could talk about how he's just....wrong about so much? How he thinks that he's constantly under attack from censurers but...really people are just calling him out on his BS. It seems like he understands like...what's the level above "skin deep" when it comes to issues. Many of his videos have a very light understanding of a topic and then when you dig deeper it turns out everything he was saying was just....incorrect or blown way out of proportion? And finally, his most recent (and personally most hilarious fuck-up to date) the soy thing he had going for awhile. I would go through it, but there's 30 minute videos explaining why the idea that soy feminizes people is utter garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU

 

Ahhhh Stefen, man who ruined Peter's name, Molyneaux. Without going into his attempts to re-write history, downplay the genocide of Native Americans, and very weak grasp of the roman empire he seems to love so much, Stefen is just....bizarre when it comes to women. And i'm not talking normal, IRL bizarre, I mean really bizarre even for the internet, which is saying A LOT. So, for anyone curious about how just...weird his views are, I'm going to link to his "Truth about Wonder Woman" video, where he tries to prove that wonder woman is anti-male and trying to make the claim that it's trying to portray men as nothing but either violent, cruel, beast or disposable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEr4VwCV-E4 There is no better critic of Stefen than an outsider looking in. I will say he at least SOUNDS nice to listen to, seems intelligent, but then when you look at his arguements, they melt at the slightest examination.

 

Black pidgeon Speaks: A lot of what i said before applies now, but with a spicy dash of unapologetic racism and Islamophobia. I'm gonna leave this here because i really don't feel like repeating myself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_YEe7jLVc

 

The Great Work: Never heard of it before today, but really just seems like a fanboy of all the other people you listed

 

Oh, and The Golden One. Alright, right away i'm just gonna get it out of the way that out of all the people on this list he's the one i'd most want to take me from behind and ravage me all night long and afterwards we can cuddle while i brush his golden locks out of his face....as long as he doesn't have any pillowtalk because HOLY COW THIS GUY IS AN ACTUAL FUCKING FASCIST

 

and no joke I'm not just saying that, his massive pecs and Adonis-like figure doesn't distract me from the fact that this guy is an actual, self-proclaimed fascist who thinks "Cultural Marxism" created by the Jews is trying to destroy western culture and identity. Like, do i need to say any more? He actually has a video titled "The Jewish Question" which OH MY GOD. This guy's a straight-up, not even trying to hide it, Nazi.

 

Friggen hell, that took longer than I thought. So much so, i'm gonna get to your actual talking points tomorrow, I'm meeting up with some anarchists later tonight and we're going to rob all white children of their candy and give it to black welfare queens. So i got a busy night ahead of me.

 

Catch you all later.

Share this post


Link to post

Right, so I have been meaning to get around to this, but considering as I felt like I had my ass handed to me on a platter, I took a hiatus. (Yes, feel free to quote that and take that out of context. It is sarcastic. Also this entire string of sentences in parenthesis are sarcastic.) And, as much as I'd love to use a bunch of "reaction images/gifs", I actually attempt to spend my time finding things that actually prove my points. Now I'm here, and I guess it's time for me to argue those points.

 

There is a difference between speaking and disrupting.

 

Are you saying that its okay then for a ton of robe-wearing Klansmen or say, a whole contingent of uniformed Nazis to storm a leftist speaking event of any kind and do the same (to use an extreme example)?

 

I don't see it as productive. It mostly only leads to conflict, and nobody really learning anything except becoming more ideologically disposed towards one side or another they likely were already leaning towards.

 

I attended, personally, a teach-in at my old University that was on a subject full of people I disagreed with on their opinions, but whom made up the majority of attendants. I didn't start shouting in the middle of the fucking event and stopped them from even outlining their views fully. I waited, I waited until the end, formed a question for the Q&A (which took a while, considering I felt pretty intimidated in the room I was in, and I had to think about how to pose it without getting yelled out of the room, but I did it nonetheless), and walked out after I got a response (the response was BS, especially from Academics, but that's another story).

 

But I point out the Yaron-Sargon event specifically, because they were actually discussing (because they heard them chanting outside) how yes, Antifa does have a right to protest their talk, if they so desire, but that so long as they allow for them have it, it doesn't matter for Free Speech. Both can exist at the same time, the problem becomes when the one tries to literally stop the other (which is also why its important to have Police or security keep the two at least minimally separated, yet they haven't in various situations). Lo and behold, not even 5 minutes later, they burst in, storm the stage, try to pick fights with numerous people in the audience, pull a fire alarm, chant all over the place, set a bull-horn to siren mode, and have to be forcibly evicted by both administrators and security.

 

You pull a fire alarm, its almost guaranteed you're shutting down whatever event is going on, or at least significantly disrupting it to the point where they cannot continue as planned. Anti-GGs did it to us all the time, and I know Antifa's chapters do it fairly often as well.

 

1:I say "formerly" because I'd say GG is basically dead at this point, or at least dead in terms of any sort actions it may do, KIA still exists, but that's basically it. That's all I mean by it, my opinions on it haven't really changed, so much as I've moved on from it, as have a great many of its former supporters.

 

But oh boy, you had to bring up the Wikipedia page, and the exact reason why I do not trust Wikipedia, if I didn't already because I was educated as an historical researcher that one page has shown me why you never trust Wikipedia.

 

Do you know how many edits that page has gone through? How Wikipedia had to freeze public edits on it because it became a literal tug of war between two sides of the same story with hundreds of edits back and forth every single day? Have you any idea of the chat logs of the various appointed maniac editors who have controlled that page over time and how much shit is on that fucking page that is so poorly sourced, it'd be a fail if it were submitted to a University for analysis. The page pays token homage to the movement's concerns, and instead gives full and almost complete supremacy to the accounts of its "victims" and how we're basically the progenitors of all that is evil on the Internet. It is entirely one-sided, and almost entirely uninformative of the reality of what happened. They don't acknowledge the victims GG's opponents made, they don't acknowledge the actual ethical concerns that were raised, nor do they even acknowledge the efforts GG took as group to control the Trolls, because that would harm their narrative of how we're the devils that need to be exorcised by their patron saints and angels who cannot possibly do anything wrong. I understand I'm using dramatic language, but then the Wikipedia page blows the whole thing as much out of proportion.

 

They also refuse to acknowledge the FBI report that pretty much fully exonerates the movement, is publicly accessible, and goes into quite a large amount of detail on the harassment allegations.

 

". . .Difficult for commentators to discern their goals and motives" my ass, they refused to even talk to us or do any research beyond the "victims" accounts, which is basically what you'll find of almost every single MSM account of us, if they even talk about us at all. And the few that have actually talked to us, like Brad Glasgow, are shunned for having fucking talked to us! Fuck, Milo, back when he jumped in to bolster his own career but at least he pretended to care about us and actually gave the movement some coverage, he got fucking death threats sent in his mail with dead rats stabbed with a razor.

 

It was that page that inspired me to get off of my fence and actually do some digging into GG and its past, because I could not fathom how the page could possibly be accurate. And what I found kicked me off of my fence.

 

2: You've yet to prove to me that I'm wrong about how the Antifa I've been seeing is somehow not the real Antifa. There's a big difference from egg-pictured one-day old accounts claiming to be GG supporters throwing throw-away harassment at individuals on Twitter, and chanting, black bloc uniformed, officially organized flag-bearing chapters of Antifa (all conveniently flying the same basic Antifa flags, too). Prove to me I'm wrong then.

 

I will extend an olive branch in that I will say that I base my observations based off of all of the Antifa organizations or chapters I have seen, but they seem to be pretty fucking consistent across the ones I have witnessed.

 

3: Show me a recording of Trump actually saying Haiti, or African countries were shitholes, and the context in which he said it, because I've yet to see anyone show it. Fuck, they can get recordings of everything else he fucking says because the White House is so fucking leaky, yet magically the Washington Post cannot produce one for that OR the time he supposedly said the N-word. Boy, that would be fucking compelling evidence of him being a racist wouldn't it? Yet where is it? And how he is xenophobic towards Muslims? They're not a race, BTW, anyone of any skin colour can be a Muslim, the fact that many are of Arab or Asian ethnicity doesn't mean shit. His "Muslim travel ban" that the Supreme Court ruled was no such thing? The single most ineffective "Muslim ban" in history because it didn't even include the top five biggest Muslim majority countries on Earth in it and doesn't even specify Muslims as being the only ones banned?

 

Plus, in terms of witnesses to the "shithole" comment that is pretty much entirely hearsay, I've only heard one Senator say it happened, versus three other people who claimed to have been in the room when it happened at the exact same time, and claim nothing was said. But again, they can find recording of every other fucking thing he's said, magically the Washington Posts gets this one apparently through "an Anonymous tip".

 

Otherwise no, I don't think he's a racist or a bigot. He runs a very nationalist and nativist platform in many regards and is crude and crass, but he's no racist. I have more evidence of Hillary being a racist with her "hot sauce" comment she made back in the election.

 

But I must say, that's a very simplistic definition of Nazi. Yes, racial supremacy and hierarchy (quite detailed ones, actually, they even categorize Whites in tons of levels) does go hand-in-hand with Nazi ideology, but not every racist is inherently a Nazi. Racists existed long before the Nazis. Why is Trump apparently a National Socialist, and not merely a Racist, if that's what the argument is? He's yet to even propose racist legislation or anything that would divide US rights into a hierarchy based on race, funnily enough, groups like BLM seem to want just that (maybe not the hierarchy part, but certainly racial segregation of rights). But this definition is even stranger when looking at other figures who aren't even racist and yet are called Nazis by Antifa. Then again, I suppose the definition of racist itself has shifted quite a bit if some people are thinking a less than 100% score on Black Panther's Rotten Tomatoes score indicates Racism, but that's another story.

 

4: So fucking what? The original Nazis and Fascists identified themselves as Leftists and Socialists and as being distinctly different from Conservatives, yet most Leftists won't own up to that embarrassing fact of history. Or the fact that most Communists refuse to acknowledge that almost any singular Communist regime has caused more human suffering than all Hitler did himself and his Third Reich, and that Communism as Marx envisioned will never happen, yet you don't see so many Communists being automatically disregarded, do yea? In fact Neo-Communism seems to be booming, last I checked.

 

5: Are they? This whole argument started around the fact that there's no shortage of Antifa violently opposing anyone they so much as think is a Nazi. Are you saying that this is somehow not the case, and my original points on arguing were correct and is the norm? Because it certainly doesn't look like it. It looks like they, or other Far-Left groups, at best, pressure and intimidate people into not even having debates at all.

 

I've also seen this same thing pulled by Far-Left speakers, by the by. So turnabout is fair play, man.

 

If this isn't the case, please kindly explain to me what the fuck I've been witnessing on countless campuses and Free Speech rallies in the US, Canada, and Europe the past few years. Hell, even explain to me the most recent one I saw and how that somehow matches the fantasy you're peddling.

 

Well, yes, disruption is a gray area, but ask yourself this: Is the group disrupting the discussion advocating the supremacy of one race or sex/gender over another? That, lies the difference between Antifa and Nazis in such circumstances. While, yes, one can argue that Antifa is also largely a feminist movement, the entire goal of feminism is to have women on equal terms with men. It's not about bringing men down to the level of women. Also I still have no evidence that Antifa is responsible for any murders. Since no one feels like going back to check on things, let me just quote this again.

 

Even if you don't believe in some of these, I'd be interested on learning how you think Snopes, which fact checks extensively, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which specifically monitors hate groups, get statistics wrong. I would also like to see proof that these aren't true.

 

Additionally, take a look at this and tell me you don't find it to be far worse than what you claim Antifa does.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

 

 

Also, how do they "identify" as leftists? They only cared about the working class, or at least appeared to, while they silently culled the Jewish population.

 

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

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

 

 

How do you know that he DIDN'T say that? I am taking it with a grain of salt, but considering the multiple other things that he has done, it is really rather mild. This is a man willing to argue over Twitter, with someone with access to nuclear weaponry. And yes, despite how petty it is, and how unlikely a nuclear war would be started over it, it's still a stupid idea.

 

Anyways, time for a compiled list of things Trump has managed to do that is, at least ethically and socially, questionable.

 

[] Has allegedly sexually assaulted multiple women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations (And is additionally creepy, in that he owned the Miss Universe/Teen USA/USA pageant and was alleged to have walked in on women dressing on multiple accounts, as well as personally asking them who they think is hot. Also related: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html )

 

[] Has indications of pedophilia. (He wants to bang his own daughter, did you guys seriously forget about that? Additionally, as I said, he owned Miss Teen USA, where he was alleged to have walked in on women dressing, with some occasions apparently also involving Miss Teen USA.)

 

[] Has been shown to be largely ineffective at assisting hurricane-inflicted Puerto Rico, and additionally criticized the Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, while he was at a Golf Resort. You can also check his twitter if he hasn't deleted it, or if these aren't enough sources for you.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-puerto-rico-trump-mayor-20170930-story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/30/us/politics/trump-puerto-rico-mayor.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/us/san-juan-mayor-trump.html

 

[] Speaking of golf, let's take a look at how he famously criticized Obama for taking golf vacations, but then proceeding to do it himself.

 

http://trumpgolfcount.com/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/10/who-plays-more-golf-donald-trump-or-barack-obama/

 

[] Has been donated $30+ Million in total by NRA for his pro-gun stance, much of which was obtained during his campaign. He has promised legal gun age would be increased to 21, in lieu of support for gun control, but has, since writing, backpedaled on such promises.

 

https://www.romper.com/p/how-much-did-the-nra-donate-to-trump-hes-been-loyal-to-the-organization-since-his-candidacy-2748576

https://www.romper.com/p/transcript-of-trumps-las-vegas-response-shows-it-was-measured-but-lacking-2745188

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/us/politics/trump-gun-control-national-rifle-association.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17109798/trump-gun-control-proposal-betsy-devos-parkland-nra

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/377987-white-house-insists-trump-not-backing-down-from-nra

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns/in-bow-to-nra-trump-throws-gun-purchase-age-to-states-courts-idUSKCN1GO1OC

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-arm-teachers-gun-purchase-age_us_5aa5c57ae4b086698a9f0828

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parkland-david-hogg-trump-nra_us_5aa6950ce4b087e5aaec5149

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/trump-pressure-nra-gun-control-parkland

https://thinkprogress.org/sarah-sanders-trump-school-safety-plan-79bf62348734/

 

[] Has had a significant amount of people in his administration linked to Russia. While this may not personally indicate Trump, it is still a very questionable issue within itself. Additionally, he appears to be taking a stance against such investigation.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/democratic-memo-gop-fbi-trump-campaign-423446

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-comey-testimony-htmlstory.html

 

[] Has opposed "Sanctuary Cities", most likely because it's composed of immigrants, blaming them on the "increase of crime", despite the fact that crime rate is actually lower in these cities. Additionally, the economy is actually shown to be stronger in such cities.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/02/trump-administration-threatens-sanctuary-cities

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/08/4-big-things-to-know-about-sanctuary-cities-and-illegal-immigration/?utm_term=.1165e64df6b0

And before you say "I noticed a glaring error in your article, it says Obama deported more than the previous presidents", please, look at this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.a7c974821896

 

-----

1: Its been mishandled in that they fucked up when they first started doing research into it and presenting it. The Environmental Sciences debates have been going on for a long time, arguably since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but didn't really kick into gear until the 50s and 60s after the Atom bomb tests, huge devastating wars, chemical agents like Agent Orange, etc. Back then, you had scientists and researchers put forward theories and arguments based on very limited data. They understood the urgency of what they were studying, but the reality of studying the Climate is that it takes a LONG time to get adequate data on it that Science demands. Science already takes a long time to generate data and knowledge on its own, it does so by design so as to try and generate the most accurate depictions, descriptions, and statements about reality that it can. But they jumped the gun, and turned out that a lot of their early arguments and theories were innaccurate or blatantly false not by intention, but because they didn't possess the full picture. We arguably still don't possess the full picture of climate data, and its no guarantee we ever will (though I believe we'll get a lot of it, certainly). I'd argue it was mishandled so badly that it created a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome in many people on the subject.

 

It certainly hasn't fucking helped when modern situations like Al Gore do the exact same thing, and his data was decades later. Boy was it a fucking joke when Kilimanjaro was covered in ice a year after the date he claimed where none would ever be on it again. THAT sort of thing, doesn't fucking help the issue of making people believe its actually a serious issue, and that we're primarily responsible for it.

 

2: There is a difference between peer review, and trying to incite public action on a subject without fully knowing the whole picture, man. The 60s were the age of activism in many respects, including early Environmental and Climate activism.

 

3: Of course, but the problem is two fold: The Public (for better or worse) has basically come to expect that Science should work as fast as everything else, with Scientists having repeatedly come under pressure of Governments and public bodies to put forward information faster, even though they may not have ironed out all of the kinks in the data, such incidents risk promoting skepticism of Science in general, which has been happening increasingly over the decades. And secondly, because it has been proven on several different ocassions that Scientists will often bend to the whim of whoever pays them, because they've become basically partnered with government agencies (seriously, you don't see many Nikola Teslas or Thomas Eddisons anymore) rather than any objective pursuit of knowledge and truth, and thus can and have falsified or pushed certain data over others (even environmental data both hiding and overexaggerating cases in the past). Its basically creates hurdles in how science traditionally works, and why its not 100% believed by everyone anymore. I don't like it, but it is reality.

 

4: The debate is not that Carbon emissions did not go up during the Industrial Revolution, that is very much provable, its as to whether or not our contributions even have that big of an effect or not in the face of longer climate trends or factors, or that they will actually have the effects that some have predicted.

 

In fact, if we want to talk Carbon emissions and why the whole goal to lower emissions by a significant degree is basically impossible, China alone produces more C02 than the entire world did at the point of the peak Industrial Revolutionary era, not just Britain or a single nation of the period, but the entire world. The point where even your graph admits where it all went awry. Doesn't matter what the rest of the entire world does, China is still making up the difference for the rest of us.

 

So you found a graph that says otherwise by measuring C02 volumes as opposed to actual temperatures, of course its likely to say the amount of carbon is up, search up 10,000 year trends in Climate data graphs and you'll see a bunch that describe the situation I'm talking about. Plus, its compelling enough that Historians are basically telling how there was a Medieval Warming period, and a "Little Ice Age" at the end of the Medieval Period (hence why there was widespread famine, nobody could grow anything that long, tons of historical accounts remark on it). There's even the Young Dryas Period during our early Hominid days which arguably allowed for us to expand out across the world as the climate became warmer.

 

5: If they are so easy, why isn't it self-evident that every country takes them all? I've not even heard of Canada delving into any of these initiatives on the kind of scale necessary for this sort of thing, and we're running Federal and Provincial governments that are all about Environmentalism (or claim to be) AND we have the enormous space for it since most people don't want to leave the GTA or Vancouver and Montreal areas. The most we've been talking about is carbon taxes and a few boosts to green energy production.

 

More to the point, how many of these things would you need to off-set our current output and our continued growth? Even if they work well and were cost-effective, and we had the available space for all of it, you're still left with billions of tons of solid Carbon that needs to be put somewhere. Plus a still increasing population that is heavily reliant on heavily fertilized food production that causes a lot of pollution on its own. These methods also don't deal with methane production or levels, another gas that is basically right behind C02 as a greenhouse gas, though I already know a method for that: Replace Cows and other livestock with insect protein. Because that's something that's sure to be adopted readily across all nations even faster than this stuff, right?

 

The Algae bit is gonna cause problems since research into genetic modification is being tip-toed at best in many cases, but yea I knew about it years ago.

 

Even more to the point, all of our efforts come to nothing if a Supervolcano goes off, or tons of other Volcanoes go off during a period of intense volcanic activity (which has also happened several times in the Earth's history). Not that I'm a fear monger about Yellowstone, but it is a reality if we're talking carbon and climate change.

 

So would you rather science just doesn't talk about the data until 20 years later when it's already too late? Objectively, scientists should work with the general public to iron out any flaws in the data. Also, apparently "An Inconvenient Truth" was cited as very accurate, with few errors. While, yes, he might have personally made some outlandish claims such with Kilimanjaro, he at least tried to stay accurate to the data he was given. Arguably, not the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome, at least pertaining to the movie itself.

 

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

 

Please cite sources that previous reports were exaggerated or underestimated. Because these things happen all the time in science, someone notices it and says, "Hey, this doesn't look right." and then they see what went wrong. It's again, peer review.

 

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/

Please, tell me how NASA has messed a computer model up, something they've worked with for the past 40 years.

 

 

We've been genetically modifying things since the agricultural revolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4

 

Although Volcanoes are very volatile, there is no evidence showing that Yellowstone is due for a major eruption, nor that there would be "global eruption".

 

-----

1: I never said they didn't. You're the one acting like Antifa is different, my argument is that they're two sides of the same coin. I'm not impressed if I see an Alt-Right group of whatever description doing the same things.

 

2: Really? Because that hasn't been the trend I've been seeing until lately when they finally got tired of being pushed around and especially silenced. Funny how the feed-back loops work for this.

 

3: N/A

 

4: I don't entirely understand what you mean on the question of Germany/America comparison. Explain? Off the top of my head, I would say that Germany most definitely is going WAY further than practically any country to remedy its history. You cannot even show Swastikas on any media in that country for any reason, even if you're depicting Nazis as the most villainous and unsympathetic people imaginable, you cannot use their classic symbol to identify them in any media. I don't know of many other cases where that kind of situation has occurred anywhere on Earth.

 

Is it though? I'm talking about a theoretical situation of total Free Speech, wherein literally nothing is barred from being said in public (I don't necessarily think it will ever happen, but I was referring to what my ideal solutions or theories for solutions would be). There is no such thing as Hate Speech of any variety, and threats don't matter unless you have reason to suspect that they're credible through the suspected individual's actions. People have the freedom to basically say anything they want to each other, no matter how crude or how sophisticated, just not do anything they want to each other. Trolls make fun of the current situation of this all the time by testing one's tolerance limits to get a rise out of people. Philosophically speaking, if you're to take seriously what everyone today says in language conventions seriously, you'd think everyone was throwing death threats at each other constantly, and that the internet was full of genocidal maniacs of all varieties. The film "Twelve Angry Men", while being quite old, demonstrates this idea of intent and meaning versus literalness very well when they discuss what "I'm gonna kill you." can mean, depending on the situation. Its why context matters. Its why you can have debates on tough subjects while knowing its not going to go anywhere in terms of intent beyond the debate or discussion.

 

What I meant by a double standard is how you can have a situation where two statements can exist at the same time, basically arguing the same thing in principle, yet elicit different reactions. On my genocide example. I know for a fact that you cannot post up anything publicly regarding say, IDK, Jewish genocide or Holocaust and promoting the idea in a serious manner that can be linked back to you, and not be immediately charged with a hate crime in many different nations. However, I have also seen people who unironically call for white genocide, yet face hardly any repercussions, certainly not Hate speech charges. These statements are both effectively the exact same thing, both are calling for genocide, we have internationally agreed (supposedly, I studied Rwanda so that assumption is tenuous) that genocide is supposedly universally bad in all circumstances it occurs and that advocating for it is bad, yet one elicits a different response from both the public and law enforcement than the other in the same country depending on who they're referring to. THAT is the kind of double standard I'm referring to.

Again, it matters with what the groups as a whole are doing. Antifa hasn't murdered anyone as far as we know, and yet there are multiple crimes attributed to the Alt-Right. Perhaps it's a fact that the Alt-right has existed far longer, but perhaps not by the same name, although not as an "Antifa" group, except probably in WW2, but that's different considering we were in active war with two fascist countries. Japan was a military dictatorship, although not too far off from fascism. And there was still racist motivations against Japanese-Americans, and a fair bit towards German and especially Italian-Americans, but not quite to the extent that Japanese-Americans suffered, largely in part to the latter 2 groups having significant immigrant numbers, especially not in the pacific coastline where an exclusion zone was placed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Italianism#World_War_II

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment#United_States_2

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_the_United_States#World_War_II

 

Y'know, I just can't seem to put my finger on it, but today's events are similar to something else that happened around 60 years ago... Almost as if there was an oppressed minority in the South of the U.S. (in general) peacefully trying to gain freedom in a largely violent, conservative society... Which coincidentally, such conservatives also Threatened, Harassed, Doxxed (The equivalent of what happened, but in modern reference.), Murdered, Bombed, and to this day still attempt mass shootings because of their beliefs.

 

-----

Well, that depends on your definition and how broad you want to see it. The USA most certainly would be, if the Constitution hadn't given the rural communities and states a measure of equalizing political power to counter the Urban centers being the only places politicians would need to appeal to. The coastal areas or top 5 major cities of the US would dictate the elections every single year without fail, pretty much, if that had been the case. Instead, you have a case where a party and candidate needs to at least try to cater to a wide swathe of the country and the wide demographics across it, if they want to have any hope of winning. And you have an electoral college that CAN (never has, to my knowledge) overrule the peoples' decision if a candidate is objectively unfit for rule (though that risks causing civil war if it ever were to occur in such a situation and would arguably be a tyrannical move in and of itself). Now, the US could arguably be better at this, they're not perfect since its still basically a two-party system with most of the country not being swing-states, but its still a better system in principle than many.

 

Many Democracies that don't have the controls the US has arguably already are, all it needs is a political system where one merely needs to covet the support of a very specific demographic or area that is larger in power than the rest, and you technically have the rest under a Tyranny of the majority because they can effectively be ignored. Our current global political climate in general is disposed towards ignoring various voices in different ways for various reasons.

 

Canada we have close to such a system. The only thing that really stops it is the fact that Quebec and Ontario never agree on anything. They're still the two major Provinces that dominate Canadian politics, with good reason, half of the country lives between Windsor and Montreal, but it remains that you're in a situation where a Politician could effectively ignore a large swathe of the country, and only cater to the specific areas. The Maritime provinces, 4 whole provinces of Canada, can be effectively ignored if one merely caters to Alberta alone, I believe. Quite literally in our system some votes literally matter more than others in terms of representation in Parliament, how is it that 2 elections ago, the Bloc Quebecois could have somewhere around 50 seats in Parliament with roughly 10 million votes, and yet the Green Party only has 1 seat in Parliament with over a million votes? The answer is due to the concentration of those votes in particular pockets of the country, creating situations where, on paper, one's votes matter more than others. Proportional Representation isn't the answer though on its own, because that would be literal mob rule or tyranny of the majority in a different direction, though it would create more variety in Parliament.

 

Lots of Democracies have this problem, some naturally, others by design because of poor fore-thought on how democracies would change over time. I'd argue a more effective system that would encourage voter interest would be a Hybrid system, kinda like the US but different. Wherein you guys can vote separately for President, Senator, House Representative, Governor, etc, and they could all be effectively different parties. I'd want a Proportional Representation system for the voter numbers that determines how many representatives one can have in Parliament of a given party (I work off of the basis that most Voters don't even see what their average MP does anyway, or interacts with them most of the time, so it effectively doesn't matter who is in charge in terms of party representatives for seats, especially since we have no power anyway over what specific cabinet offices they hold if they're even in charge), but you could vote say for individual PM officials who are party leaders or Senators (who are not elected currently in Canada) Canada doesn't have that, your vote for your regional MP is inherently a vote for the Party leader, and the PM of the hour has the power to appoint any Senators they desire if a seat is open. If it were otherwise, you could end up in a situation where in Canada you have a PM who is Liberal, but a Conservative-majority controlled House, and an entirely different Senate, forcing them to have to work with the the other parties and make compromise.

 

Or at least that's the idea, I think Democracies arguably work best when you have to reach a compromise on a situation by incorporating all different viewpoints or opinions, not merely catering to a Left or Right side.

 

One could argue that Soviet Russia was, the Communist Party there was in charge, but it was obsessed with having mobs of people fighting tons of "minorities" that were apparently the cause of every single problem in Russia and securing their power by being basically the "heads" of the Mob, the "Vanguard Party". They just changed who was most to blame when it suited their goals at a given time. They also seized power with mobs after the election didn't fully vindicate them. Most Communist regimes in the past have arguably operated on this principle of justifying their power by mob-assistance or military control, or both.

But you keep forgetting that Soviet Russia, in vast part was an authoritarian state, which did not particularly care for the mobs, except for when they felt threatened of being overthrown. China, even though it dislikes both Soviet Russia and Modern Russia (perhaps because of borders), still shares many characteristics.

 

-----

I only brought her up because she's who the obvious alternative would have been. Bernie might have been better, IDK. Certainly more appealing in some respects, and certainly wasn't right how he and his fans got screwed, but he's basically shown he's not willing to fight that, so that left me disappointed in him. Just my view.

Please name the last presidential electorate that even close to getting into office off of an independent ticket. You would be hard pressed to find even one. If you're not endorsed by either party, it's pretty much done with.

 

-----

Does it? I've found some individuals to be far smarter than whole groups of people at times.

 

That's not what he claims, and I'm inclined to trust his word. Why would Styx lie about the tax cuts when he's been perfectly fine to call out criticisms of Trump on other topics, AND he has reason to care about tax cuts? He's been poor, he grew up in a poor family, he advocates for lower tax rates across the board, and he's certainly not in the upper middle-class tax brackets based on his Patreon income. He also never denied that it has a tax cut for the wealthy, he merely says that it says that there's an even bigger cut for lower tax brackets as well, to the point where the poor are hardly paying any tax. The only criticism he's seen people level at it is that it gives the wealthy a tax cut, ignoring that it provides others to other groups as well.

 

My point being, what reason does he have to lie?

 

We're also discussing a tax plan that hasn't even fully taken effect, that'll happen next month. Do you somehow have a way to prove Styx that his reading of the plan is wrong, or are you just saying what CNN and other big agencies that have used every opportunity to hate on the plan have told you?

What reason do people have to be racist? Apply said logic with what you said just now, and the question of reasons he has to lie is solved. But in case you didn't get it, it's because a person might think they could gain something out of it.

 

-----

1: K, so the flag is an older version that stylistically aligns for the book cover. I know the modern red and black double flag one as well, that's the common one I've seen flown, and the same Antifa chapters I refer to.

 

2: The point was you tried to counter by essentially saying that it is purely a historical document. Its not merely an account of past groups. Certainly not how the Deputy Chair was using it in the context of his post.

 

3: I wouldn't disagree, I do see history repeating its cycles again. But you haven't proven to me he is a Racist, nor has anyone else in any compelling way I've yet seen. Mass deportation of individuals who illegally entered the country and don't respect the sovereignty of a nation, and have not gone through the same processes as legal immigrants is not the same as what Hitler desired which was ethnic cleansing and complete genocide, nor is deportation even a uniquely Nazi thing to advocate for. Every Nationalist or individual who cares about people respecting a nation's sovereignty is a Nazi now? My Gods, Japan must be full of Nazis then. He never blamed Muslims for every single problem in the US, he merely remarked on a specific subset of them as an issue, as has the US administration done so, for pretty much the last two administrations prior at least in terms of public acknowledgement. He specifically said, multiple times: "Radical Islamic Extremists" or Terrorists for the last bit depending on the speech, you people merely just don't trust that he or the US administration would actually keep to that definition, and that's fine, but don't try and say he meant all Muslims when the Supreme Court doesn't even support your interpretation (7:2 on the Travel Ban, I might add, so it wasn't merely a partisan split). Hitler and the Nazis made no distinctions among Jews.

 

You can argue that his method may not do shit to solve the problem, I certainly don't think it'll do a damn thing on its own, but it doesn't make him in the same general ballpark as Hitler.

 

You've yet to even show how there are significant differences between chapters, I can easily demonstrate similarities across chapters separated by CONTINENTS where they demonstrate in the exact same fashions and use the exact same tactics to shut down people they don't like, which so often happens to be people who aren't even Nazis. All you've given are vague statements of "Oh not all Antifa chapters are 100% identical". Which of course they wouldn't be, but you've not proven that there is some grand misconception about how I'm viewing events.

 

Are you conversely somehow able to prove that all "Alt-Right" groups are 100% identical in their extremism? Because that's what you seem to imply on your end. The data you showed me certainly didn't prove that. You proved that extremists exist, I can prove extremists exist in Antifa, no fucking different. That hypocrisy is a two-way street if you're going to claim it, bud.

 

Its a general enough book to be a representative advocation of the whole platform, or do you disagree on that?

 

I wasn't specifically referring to Spencer, but he is most definitely the case that sparked that "debate", if you can even call it a debate. Okay, so you're fine with someone who sees someone else as completely inhuman or even simply terrible, to be able to physically harm them? Okay. That's fine. Just don't be surprised that they get violent back, and everyone else steps back while you two beat each other senseless because they think you're both the same thing. The only difference you have is where your moral compass aligns, and both trying to appeal to everyone else how you're somehow better than the other guy as to what is objectively the right thing on a given subject.

 

Unfortunately for such ideas, morals never stay the same. Hence why I think such a thought process is dangerous. The UN couldn't even get 100% agreement on the UDHR, they merely got it so that no country disagreed with it, yet you guys know better?

So you're saying that if a history book references anything occurring at the time of publishing, you should criticize it as though it were entirely modern?

 

Read my list of things trump has done up above.

 

Also, the difference between extremism and the entirety of the group is which one is more commonplace. You seem to think that extremism is a very big sect in Antifa, and that extremism is a very small sect in the alt-right. It's entirely backwards.

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

 

-----

The data you provided showed individuals, Antifa is a group of the Far-Left (you changed to ask about the Far-Left in general, not merely Antifa, which is why I make differentiations at different points), just as the Alt-Right has various groups with not all of them being the same. I didn't see any account of how all the groups organized to commit any murder or have consistently done so, and I already explained how the ADL and SPLC are VERY liberal when it comes to defining an "Alt-Right" member. But wasn't it strange that nobody seemed to acknowledge how the general phrase of the Alt-Right groups as responsible for any murders until Charlottesville, really (I'm talking mainstream media)? I certainly didn't even see many even acknowledge the groups existence as a whole "body" under that phrase until then, even you claim they've been doing it for a long time yet where is the organization? Most of those examples you gave are lone wolves, who may have been influenced by various groups, but does that make them "members"? The only data you gave is on sources that relate back to mostly individual cases that I would argue are not wholely reflective of the entire "Alt-Right". Hence why I said the "Alt-Right" didn't really have any blood on their hands til Charlottesville, not as a collective, it became that because so many showed up there from different groups, and they got caught up in an incident that resulted in someone's death, it was also the first time I can recall where someone actually died in a protest-conflict. Which was why it was so noticed. They've clashed several other times and had no deaths repeatedly for a long time before.

 

Hence why I didn't mention them in bombings, since The Weathermen I cannot think of many that have tried. But your comment in that context was on Far-Left groups, not merely Antifa which was why I brought them up.

Again, https://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising

 

-----

I don't think there are necessarily "better" sources on this, the whole fucking issue is so politicized, it has fucked the entire media apparatus and has made very big political divides across nations all over the place. All I know for certain is that I do not trust most popular media sources since many have zero journalistic integrity or actual investigative capacities that don't cow-tow to corporate interests, and I don't trust politically leaning outlets to give an honest account (which I could prove with the ADL and SPLC which were the basic primary sources of the others) when they have agendas to push.

 

I lean towards sections of the Alt-Media since, at least for some of them, especially ones like Styx, they are not corporate entities or aligned, they are not friends with any of the bigger entities with agendas and interests (they may have their own, but they usually state those openly unlike the bigger media outlets who usually lie, if they contradict themselves its another matter.) They most importantly allow for criticism and debate among their comments sections and viewers and generally don't try to police the discussion. You see more variety of opinions in a channel like Styx's (even though some are more prominent than others) than you ever do on any of these outlets that don't like anyone criticizing them or their articles.

So you expect me to find a study done with no data, because it would show bias if it was present? And government agencies don't have politically leaning outlets? They don't have agendas to push? Otherwise, please refer to my comments above for this.

 

-----

They have their problems, the first that comes to mind is that they're kinda reliant on a more actively thinking audience to actually keep them honest, and work best if you have a variety of people to look to on various topics to compare and contrast on various information. (I myself have a fairly wide set, I've got subscriptions, or otherwise keep tabs on Sargon, Styx, Shoeonhead, Armoured Skeptic, The Rageaholic, Tim Pool, Lionel Nation, Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneaux, Count Dankula, Top Hats and Champagne, Black Pigeon Speaks, The Great Work, and The Golden One) I most certainly do not watch them all actively, I don't agree with all of them on everything, some I find to be more compelling debaters than others, in fact I disagree on various things they may argue, but I find that having a wide variety helps to discern who are the more melodramatic, who are more joking and humorous ones, and who are the more sensible ones.

 

I still prefer their variety over the mainstream media which basically has none and are boring to watch.

Refer to dashofweak's response for this. Except for the part about the golden one. He looks like Chris Hemsworth on steroids. While I do like Chris Hemsworth, the golden one also looks like he hit his face on his doorway. But that's just me.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Lol, why am I even debating American politics? I'm Australian

Maybe I should start a General Australian Politics Thread?

I'm sure HGARR would love that

Share this post


Link to post
Alrighty, wow, took awhile to reply to this but ready now. Had to stop by the Antifa headquarters, they gave me a black mask and complimentary copy of the Communist Manifesto

 

Anyways, let's jump right into why Templar's long wall of text is about a pound of meat surrounded by 5 pounds of cotton.

 

Let's start with the most interesting part (for me) that pretty much gives away Templar's entire motive/position/any chance of me actually thinking he's trying to resemble anything balanced: His youtube list!

 

Wow Temp, you chose some A-class material to choose to consume, basically all the people you listed range from "barely right of center" to "self proclaimed fascist". Though you do say you "lean" towards alt-right media, so at least we know where you're coming from. So i'll just mention some of the people "I" watch, just so you can get a good idea of where i'm coming from, I owe you that much at least: some of my favorites are Jim Sterling (https://www.youtube.com/user/JimSterling), hbomberguy (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClt01z1wHHT7c5lKcU8pxRQ), Contrapoints (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNvsIonJdJ5E4EXMa65VYpA), Shaun and Jen (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ6o36XL0CpYb6U5dNBiXHQ), supperbunnyhop (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWqr2tH3dPshNhPjV5h1xRw), TJ1 (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCajw8zd6DPpXOuF6d22Fjkw), Malmrose Projects (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC32gaW8WaRhqmShrQ_ltqSA), and Claudia Brown (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQlNT2xADrXblBd1Tz1Fjzg) so in case you can't tell or can't be bothered to click on the links, pretty left leaning. Now, i do watch a couple of other general knowledge channels like Kurzgesagt (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q) or humorous channels like SovietWomble (https://www.youtube.com/user/SovietWomble) and hey, Ross Scott but i'm assuming you know who that is already.

 

Anyways, normally i wouldn't do this because it's rude, semi-counterproductive, and distracting, but hey, since you're such a free speech fan, I'm gonna go through a lot of these one by one and talk about why they really really aren't worth you time. Isn't free speech nice? Seriously, real talk, you can do better Temp, buddy, pal even if I don't agree with your political leanings, some of the guys you've chose aren't A material, more like C or D. So i'll just list the ones that are pretty dang bonkers, assume the ones i don't mention are...fine. Nothing really bad about them, just, fine.

 

So because i have nothing better to with my evening but argue with strangers, let's start with the the man who thinks he's really smart, but isn't, (though this applies to many people) Sargon of Akkad. Wow, a grade-A powerhouse of intellectual debate and thought. He's so open to the sharing of ideas and openness of discussion. So much so that he tried to BAN ALL SOCIAL JUSTICE COURSE for, wait for it, indoctrinating your children. No joke, he actually tried to do that, oh and by "Tried" I mean he made a petition that got about 80,000 signatures: https://www.change.org/p/universities-suspend-social-justice-in-universities Boy, for someone who's so fond of free speech Temp, the first guy you listed tried to BAN THE TEACHING of an entire subject. Literally trying to silence people he didn't agree with (you know, the college kids and professors who hold all the power in this country). But more than that, more than once, he's been caught being REALLY REALLY lazy with his research, I'll just leave a video link that YOU won't watch but other people may:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc24YtUslCU also, take this as you will, but people have been saying for quite awhile Sargon is a "useful idiot" for fascist recruitment.

 

Next up is Tim Pool. So, let's start with the basics. From the way I see it, Tim-boy paints a world where the "mainstream" media (except for fox news) is dishonest, conservative ideas are under attack via censorship, the "lefties" are growing more and more violent, and to top it all off feminists are starting a civil culture war, trying to divide the US! Wow, seems like something out of a distopian novel, you know, a fantasy....because it is. Most of his videos are your standard reactionary, overblown, taken out of context, scaremongering tactics you see a lot of on conservative channels. The same topics are hammered out again and again, and i've seen the same thing from at least a dozen other conservative media in general, from fox news to rebel media. What i just said about Pool, could apply to a lot of the channels listed by you, even some of the ones I consider to be "ok".

 

Lionel Nation: Well, what i said about Pool applies to here too, except he seems to be leaning more towards the bizarre ideas of Stephan Molyneaux (who i'll get to) regarding masculinity and the destruction of "western values". Plus, he seems oblivious to the obvious mistakes that our president is always making, which is a whole thread unto itself. It's almost like he's deliberately trying to amp up the mistakes and faux pas of people who don't like Dirty Donald. Almost....

No matter, if you're looking for someone who'll paint the world as dangerous for conservative values, while attempting to claim trump will cure cancer (hyperbole), and has the credentials of winning an award that isn't connected to politics so he seems more legit (an Emmy)

 

But anywho, let's move onto Lauren Sutherland. So, here's an interesting case of what i wanna call "the monolith of femminisim" because that, along with subtle traditional conservatism, is exactly what Lauren seems to be railing against more than anything else. To be fair to Lauren, most of the people do this, but she was really the first person that it stuck out to me on. So, to put it simply, she only really seems to showcase the people who are very emotional and on the extreme ends of the feminist spectrum. Along with that, she seems to also fearmonger about "the immigrants", which uhhhhhhhhh...well i'll just leave this video right here talking about why her main defense (the great replacement) isn't really a thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8

 

Now, we move from racist to.....oh boy Paul. Joseph. Watson. boy oh boy oh boy oh boy. So, aside from the fact that he works for INFOWARS which is just....holy cow, everything that comes out of infowars is off the wall nutters. Let's talk about...boy where to start huh? I could talk about how he's just....wrong about so much? How he thinks that he's constantly under attack from censurers but...really people are just calling him out on his BS. It seems like he understands like...what's the level above "skin deep" when it comes to issues. Many of his videos have a very light understanding of a topic and then when you dig deeper it turns out everything he was saying was just....incorrect or blown way out of proportion? And finally, his most recent (and personally most hilarious fuck-up to date) the soy thing he had going for awhile. I would go through it, but there's 30 minute videos explaining why the idea that soy feminizes people is utter garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU

 

Ahhhh Stefen, man who ruined Peter's name, Molyneaux. Without going into his attempts to re-write history, downplay the genocide of Native Americans, and very weak grasp of the roman empire he seems to love so much, Stefen is just....bizarre when it comes to women. And i'm not talking normal, IRL bizarre, I mean really bizarre even for the internet, which is saying A LOT. So, for anyone curious about how just...weird his views are, I'm going to link to his "Truth about Wonder Woman" video, where he tries to prove that wonder woman is anti-male and trying to make the claim that it's trying to portray men as nothing but either violent, cruel, beast or disposable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEr4VwCV-E4 There is no better critic of Stefen than an outsider looking in. I will say he at least SOUNDS nice to listen to, seems intelligent, but then when you look at his arguements, they melt at the slightest examination.

 

Black pidgeon Speaks: A lot of what i said before applies now, but with a spicy dash of unapologetic racism and Islamophobia. I'm gonna leave this here because i really don't feel like repeating myself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_YEe7jLVc

 

The Great Work: Never heard of it before today, but really just seems like a fanboy of all the other people you listed

 

Oh, and The Golden One. Alright, right away i'm just gonna get it out of the way that out of all the people on this list he's the one i'd most want to take me from behind and ravage me all night long and afterwards we can cuddle while i brush his golden locks out of his face....as long as he doesn't have any pillowtalk because HOLY COW THIS GUY IS AN ACTUAL FUCKING FASCIST

 

and no joke I'm not just saying that, his massive pecs and Adonis-like figure doesn't distract me from the fact that this guy is an actual, self-proclaimed fascist who thinks "Cultural Marxism" created by the Jews is trying to destroy western culture and identity. Like, do i need to say any more? He actually has a video titled "The Jewish Question" which OH MY GOD. This guy's a straight-up, not even trying to hide it, Nazi.

 

Friggen hell, that took longer than I thought. So much so, i'm gonna get to your actual talking points tomorrow, I'm meeting up with some anarchists later tonight and we're going to rob all white children of their candy and give it to black welfare queens. So i got a busy night ahead of me.

 

Catch you all later.

 

dash, my oh my, you seem to be incapable of understanding the nuance to what I said prior.

 

You do realize that simply watching one's content does not necessarily equal an endorsement, right? I'll admit, I did not rank my sources in any particular order as to how much I actually fucking watch, or even where I line them up in terms of where I align with their views on various subjects or even my own strict opinions on various subjects, but I gave the list as a perspective of into the wide variety of types of content makers who classify themselves as the Alternative Media whom I so happen to have seen. Which the Alt-Media generally is overwhelming Centrist and Right-wing for my tastes. I get my fill of Leftist media all the time in my country's media outlets, I don't need to go to the internet to hear the same thing repeated to me again and again, nor am I really inclined towards communist arguments anymore than I am ethno-nationalist ones.

 

But my replies.

 

You understand WHY Sargon argued for that, right? Why he specifically outlined the types of courses he refers to, and how it serves nobody any real purpose other than to indoctrinate one into a cult and encourage them to go into political activism of a very particular variety? More to the point, we're talking about courses where they in and of themselves, police speech and topics in their own fucking classes man. Where you have no choice but to either go with the line, or remain silent because the difference in opinion does not matter so much as the propaganda. Yet you go after him because he wants to ban such courses? FFS, had this been the 1940s, you could argue the exact same shit was going on in the Hitler Youth programs, merely from an entirely different direction. Its also in the context of SJW activism on University campuses, which these classes inculcate, and which I hope I don't need to explain to you how THEY are the ones who've been the real front-runners of silencing free speech on campuses across NA and Europe both among faculty and students in recent years. But oh yes, Sargon is the real hypocrite for merely making a petition to see these removed, if at all possible. Right.

 

Kinda an ideological trap there isn't it? Both of us can argue the other is silencing free speech, it merely falls along ideological lines as to who believes who is correct. I would argue mine is the pervasive argument since its far more widespread and is easily document-able to prove that it is censoring speech in and of itself, but I will say that yes, in a vacuum, Sargon is arguing for censorship of classes and therefore speech. Even though that's already fucking happening on Campuses anyway, and his petition was to try and deal with some of that.

 

In fairness, I will admit, I do not think Sargon is a very good debater when faced with an actual opponent in most cases, I feel he needs to work on his argumentation, and I think he has been tempered too much by the kinds of debaters who are more likely to just shut him down rather than debate him to the point where he isn't the most well-suited for many different debates with skilled opponents.

 

Yea, and I could show you a bunch of moronic Leftists who are just as likely "useful idiots" for "Fascist" recruitment, just as I'm sure a whole bunch of Right-wingers are "useful idiots" for Far-Left recruitment, THE TWO FUCKING ENDS OF THE PENDULUM PLAY OFF OF EACH OTHER. When some of the top figures of the Alt-Right, many arguing ethnostates or some such ideas and laws, consistently cite how its the Far-Left that has given them such boosts in membership over the recent years, I'm a little more inclined to believe their reasoning since why would they have any reason to lie about why they're experiencing such a growth, to themselves?

 

As for Tim Pool. I actually don't watch much of his material, I got interested in him after his trip to Sweden, where he impressed me by being one of the few journalists I had seen to actually go over and investigate the situation over there in regards to the Migrant situation in that country, and show the actual situation on the ground as much as he could with first-hand footage, and showing some very interesting material in regards to it. His footage was quite fair and balanced in perspectives, I thought. He gave different people the ability to voice their opinions. His sum-up of his trip there, I thought was very equal and could be verified based on what he had seen and shown us, exactly what I would expect for a journalist to do. Then, what do you know? He gets fucking branded by the Swedish government's media figures list, and has his words twisted by Swedish media afterwards (If I recall correctly). IDK where the hell you're getting the idea that he's some pawn of FOX news or the Right-Wing, I've seen tons of them call him a fence-sitter. Go figure.

 

I also don't watch much of Lionel either, I only watched a couple of his videos recently and personally don't find his long-form dramatic style to be my favourite, but that between the lines he does give some insight into some things by virtue of being a Lawyer and being far older than most of these types of content makers. I will say, he's interesting to listen to, but I do agree his hyperbole isn't the best and a trifle unnecessary. He's more amusing for me to watch than anything else. I will say though, I did think he was one of the better speakers at the recent Meeting of the Minds discussion in NY, of which Styx and Tim were two of the other attendants.

 

Again, I watch Lauren on certain subjects (I believe the last bit of hers I watched was on Count Dankula's trial over in Scotland and the complete shitshow that is, will probably look into her recent and ridiculous detainment in the UK). I am inclined to her partially because I'm a Canadian as well and her antics here I've found to be very amusing in regards to pointing out some of our government's ridiculous ideas and policies in regards to political correctness. Again, I was impressed with her for similar reasons to Tim Pool in that she's one of the few actual "investigative" journalists I have seen in action that are actually bold enough to go into subjects that most mainstream outlets won't devote time and effort to, in her case, actually going into the various Free Speech protests that have broken out into violence, and the Antifa antics in Hamburg at the last G20. I'm not a big fan of her immigration videos, I find that other content makers I watch have argued those subjects better and with less drama, and I don't look to her on many feminist issues especially since I don't really support the views particularly.

 

I've watched barely a handful of PJW's videos and those were from over a year ago, I lost interest in him pretty quick as I realized he was a dramatic nut bar like Alex Jones, playing a character mostly. But a broken clock is right twice a day, and he claimed to offer a different perspective, hence why I paid any attention to him at all.

 

Stefan, like many of the others, I don't fucking watch him for everything, in fact I also hardly watch him at all. There are actually some subjects I do highly disagree with his interpretations on, and others I think he's right on the dot on, funny how many socio-political commentators can be like that for people. The set of videos that got my attention that he was even worth my time was the 3 videos on the "Untruth of Donald Trump" during the election. Where in long and detailed fashion, he tears apart the mainstream media's interpretations of what they claimed Trump said, versus what he actually said and showed how far the media was going to lie about, or simply spin what this guy was saying. Considering how much propaganda has since been spun about the man non-stop since, I find it immensely illuminating towards the BS of the MSM. So for that mostly, I appreciate him for.

 

Black Pidgeon Speaks is a recent one for me, like Lionel. I'm not even subbed to him. Considering that I don't even entirely know where he's from (I'm guessing Japan, though I don't believe he's a native. So sue me, I haven't had the interest to fully look), I merely find his perspective fascinating on numerous subjects, even if he is melodramatic in presentation and not the most detailed. FYI, I don't necessarily treat casual racism as a criticism considering how often I've seen legions of the Far-Left disparage Whites with casual racism (not that they ever call it that), and the MSM as well, but nobody seems to give a fuck. The double standard does exist on that issue. Strange world we're living in now where racial segregation and discrimination is actually being argued by some Leftist groups on the basis of social justice and "reparations". But either way.

 

I've watched one fucking video of The Golden One's (one that was in regards to Styx, actually, I watched it for context) and could tell very apparently that he's a ethno-nationalist, I merely listed him to show that yea, I watch the odd ethno-nationalist video, if for nothing else than to see what the fuck they're even arguing. Its the same reason why I watched the odd video made by Anita Sarkeesian. Doesn't mean I agree with them, hell for the one video of his I watched, I was laughing most of the time for how over the top dramatic he was and how even his titles read. Some sources, you purely watch to see what they have to say, not necessarily because you agree with them (which I think you could say is a take-away of my list), but because you've never actually heard someone try to argue it in such a manner. I will say though, his character is the only amusing part of him for me, I just have no care to actually buy into his arguments since I don't believe in an ethnostate working any better than any other or any racist principles.

 

So, if you noticed, there is a differentiation on how I view the content of various makers. Some, I watch every day, others I only turn to on certain subjects, others still I only watch the odd video of for context, or because they have made a valid point in the past. None of it is necessarily endorsement of all of their views at once.

 

If you want someone whose ideas I actually mostly align with, and haven't listed, its the late George Carlin. Whom even now I wonder what he'd be thinking about the various situations going on right now. Certainly wouldn't be a fan of all of the sanitation of speech, I know that for a fact, and he was well aware of the problems both the Left-wing and Right-wing causes have even in his time.

 

But okay, you smug bastard. You go right ahead, your parting comment was an nuanced as your interpretation of me. After I myself said that there aren't necessarily "better" sources, but no matter.

 

As for my views of yours, I honestly can't say that I've watched many of them to go into detailed comment (though going through a brief look through some of their content, I daresay, some of them I could pin you to the wall for them picking low hanging fruit of rival content makers or generic political interpretations on the other end of the spectrum, since that's what you seem to be doing to me. I assume these are the people you associate "A" Class content with? Glad to know we have some similarities in the types of content we indulge in. We're mirrors.).

 

Though I do know some of them (hbomber specifically) and I must admit I used to watch Jim Sterling very regularly, daily actually, and am still subscribed to him (because IMO its meaningless to unsub now), and I still appreciate the service he did and in many respects continues to do for exposing shitty Early Access and Indie Developers as well as some of the antics of the AAA industry. I simply stopped watching when it became very clear to me that a) Anyone can do that in just as interesting or even better manners, especially on the AAA end of things. Ross IMO does it just as well, just not as a regular a basis since that's not his prime focus. And b) Its incredibly obvious where Jim Sterling's biases are on various subjects even just on gaming alone. Its obvious because for those subjects, the quality of research and argumentation goes to shit compared to other times, its like night and day IMO, and its embarrassing IMO because I know he's intelligent enough to know better that these pathetic arguments won't convince anyone. He just doesn't care, I think, because he sees it as beneath him to argue those particular points effectively in ways that don't belittle the people for holding them, or because he has friends whom the subjects relate directly to. Which is fine, he can do whatever the hell he wants, its his channel, but its why I lost interest. Its why I arguably have more respect now for a person like Styx or Razorfist, because they actually keep fairly consistent in their quality of arguments, by and large.

 

I also just grew generally disinterested in him over the years, I only watch his odd video now. Just like many others I have an eye on both for entertainment or otherwise. Ross is actually one of the few exceptions where I've kept watching everything he's made over the years and years and enjoyed (albeit for different reasons) throughout.

 

As for Kraken, I'll reply again to yours shortly.

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to point out that, currently, there are package bombs delivered to prominent African Americans and their families in the city of Austin, in Texas.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/03/13/austin-police-search-for-bombing-motive-say-explosives-made-with-skill-and-sophistication/?utm_term=.714088c7c761

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-20180312-story.html

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a19411206/austin-bombing/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/12/austin-bombs-texas-attack-link-previous-bombing-victims

 

While it might be a little too soon to tell, there is a clear link in all three, that they were addressed to African Americans, and it is a possibility it is a hate crime.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry about being late AGAIN, Antifa's really demanding with their service hours.

 

Anyway, shall we get into the original reasons why i wanted to post? I think we shall.

 

First, I do want to apologize for being smug, glib, insincere, and so on and so forth, promise it won't happen again.

 

Second, Kraken posted a lot of what i wanted to say but there's still a few more.

 

Third, let's get start

 

So, First, Temp. I wanna say that it's kinda funny that you're demanding a recording of Trump saying "shithole" when you're making all these claims and I haven't seen a single source from you. But, let's ignore that for the far more interesting point that Trump wasn't racist before that statement....buddy, I can find sources from before he ran for president that he was racist

 

How about the fact that more than once in the 70s him and his company got in trouble for discriminitory practices against black people?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-releases-file-on-1970s-trump-housing-discrimination-case/2017/02/15/b9ef9a7e-f3e3-11e6-b9c9-e83fce42fb61_story.html?utm_term=.f9e2d557eec6

 

but hey, maybe that was all his father who was a racist prick, what about the fact that he thought the Central Park 5 were guilty, took out full page ads full of racist dog-whistles, AND even after they were exonerated via DNA evidence, thought they did it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941

 

"But that's not RACIST, you're just saying that because they were black!!!!!"

 

Alrighty, how about....the fact he secretly paid for heavily racist anti-native american ads?

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/nyregion/trump-and-others-accept-fines-for-ads-in-opposition-to-casinos.html?mcubz=0

 

"but that was a business tactic to stop a new casino from being build."

 

Ok, how about the fact that he was one of those guys saying that Obama needed to show his birth certificate...which if you can't see as being racist (considering no WHITE president had ever had such a ridiculous claim be made that they were secretly a foreigner)

 

and that's all i could find before the campaign, and during the campaign....well I'll just leave some videos here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Zam8cqth8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a96Q9OyCGh0

 

so...Trump is a racist. There's just, no nice way to say it. He is. If you really don't want to see reality as it is...well that's your choice Temp.

 

And "Islam isn't a race" doesn't really cut it when Trump's "Muslim Ban" targeted countries that had high density of Muslim practitioners. Plus, pretty much everyone knows that you mean middle eastern people, because when people are complaining about "the Muslims" they usually use stereotypes and prejudices for middle eastern people. So, you're technically right, in the same way that telling a child that has been bitten by a snake "See? It's not POISONOUS it's VENOMOUS, so why are you dying right now?"

 

 

Now, about Antifa: I have already spoke at length about it, and neither Templar has really be able to explain well why they're worse/equal to alt-right/white supremacist people people who not only commit multiple homicides and mass shootings, but also try to recruit white males while they're young (As young as 10!) and PRAISE said people on their websites: https://www.splcenter.org/20180205/alt-right-killing-people

 

Moving on. You do realize that the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" because socialism was actually really really popular during that time in Germany? They're more authoritarian collectivists than socialist. Plus, wasn't it either you or the other templar that said that "just because people call themselves something, doesn't mean that's what they are"? Anyways, here's an article talking all about it: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

 

I'm not even going to go into whether or not global warming is real, because honestly, it's not worth pretending that it isn't happening. It's happening, and if you don't think it is, you're a corporate shill (but just for the fun of it, here's another article, this time from the liberal front, NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

 

*clears throat* antifa IS different from the alt-right because of all the things i've said before. Antifa's worse crime is riots and de-platforming of white supremacists, not murders, bombings, and shootings.

 

And i want to touch on your statement about college campuses and ask "have you actually spent time on one?" Because I'm in a liberal arts college right now and everything i hear from the alt-right about it being a leftist indoctrination facility and is poisoning the minds of young people and conservatives are persecuted is just (to put it nicely) fucking stupid and wrong.

 

Look, there are like, 5 guys who walk around with MAGA caps and the Sith Lords have a pretty active chapter within the school. Sure, people don't LIKE them, or hang out with them much but that's not censorship, that's just people saying "I don't like you because of your political beliefs". Seriously, every time i hear about how "the liberal agenda" is silencing conservatives on campus, I have to wonder just how much meth they're smoking. This is one of the most overblown, over-reacted, and just plain false myths I've heard from conservative groups, and that's saying a LOT.

 

So, i want to end this on an interesting idea. See, when i first read on here "there are no laws against hate speech" I honestly didn't believe it. I thought it was either a lie or spoken out of ignorance, so i took a look. And to my surprise, there ISN'T any rules against hate speech. However, where most white nationalists would just hit the x button and continue to spout hate, threats, and bigotry; I decided to dig a little deeper.

 

What i found is that there was a case brought before the Supreme Court about hate speech and if it should be made illegal. Now, however they rule, the judges release an explanation as to WHY they voted one way or another. And what was intersting was the biggest reason I could see why they voted no, was because they said it was the duty of the citizens to decide what was and wasn't hate speech, and it was their responsibility to block it.

 

So really, antifa is doing EXACTLY what the supreme court wants. They see speech that they see as hate speech, unacceptable in our society, and then take steps to either make sure that message isn't heard, or communicate to those people that they aren't welcome.

 

Let me put it this way: if a nazi gets on stage facing an empty room, they'll think "oh, no one care, but no one STOPPED me, maybe if i find the right audience or say the right things, i could get more people to hear me out."

 

where as, if people show up, protest, show, pull a fire alarm, and let that person know over and over and over again that they aren't welcome....well that person is a LOT less likely to try to peddle his BS again. And you know what? I think it's working. Richard Spenser has stopped his speaking tour because "antifa is winning"

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/richard-spencer-cancels-speaking-tour-college-campuses-after-speech-michigan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/03/12/antifa-is-winning-richard-spencer-rethinks-his-college-tour-after-violent-protests/?utm_term=.c7dcfdc2cc67

 

and that's good news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
if people show up, protest, show, pull a fire alarm, and let that person know over and over and over again that they aren't welcome....well that person is a LOT less likely to try to peddle his BS again. And you know what? I think it's working. Richard Spenser has stopped his speaking tour because "antifa is winning"

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/richard-spencer-cancels-speaking-tour-college-campuses-after-speech-michigan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/03/12/antifa-is-winning-richard-spencer-rethinks-his-college-tour-after-violent-protests/?utm_term=.c7dcfdc2cc67

 

and that's good news to me.

 

You are Anti-Free Speech.

It's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
if people show up, protest, show, pull a fire alarm, and let that person know over and over and over again that they aren't welcome....well that person is a LOT less likely to try to peddle his BS again. And you know what? I think it's working. Richard Spenser has stopped his speaking tour because "antifa is winning"

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/12/richard-spencer-cancels-speaking-tour-college-campuses-after-speech-michigan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/03/12/antifa-is-winning-richard-spencer-rethinks-his-college-tour-after-violent-protests/?utm_term=.c7dcfdc2cc67

 

and that's good news to me.

 

You are Anti-Free Speech.

It's as simple as that.

The first amendment protects you from legal repercussions, not other peoples' first amendment rights. If Richard Spencer feels threatened by protesters who don't like nazis, maybe he shouldn't have such a punchable nazi face.

Share this post


Link to post

Your sources, which are mostly just referring back to SPLC and ADL anyway, outline singular cases. The stats are based upon singular spree killers (particularly the SPLC's).

 

Yes, I cannot prove that Antifa, as a total organization, has done any murders, but you similarly cannot prove that those cases were nothing more than lone wolves either, or that even those groups are the entirety of the "Alt-Right" if they even specifically planned the acts out as a group. Its the distinction that I made. You know what I'm talking about? You proved that there were extremists, I can prove that there are Far-Left extremists out there as well.

 

And no, they may not be arguing for the supremacy of a specific group, but that is where the distinction lies. They argue for the supremacy of collectivism rather than the individual or a specific group, they oppose individual rights and/or favour collective rights. They still argue for the supremacy of ideas because they believe that theirs are inherently the best, no different from their rivals.

 

And again, that doesn't explain why they disrupt events where that topic isn't even being argued. The argument wasn't for Nazism or Racial supremacy at King's College, yet they were there and forced it to shut down. I also find amusing how a Jewish Objectivist can be construed as a Nazi sympathizer, but whatever.

 

-----

 

SPLC I think I proved the discrepancy already between them, and the ADL alone previously. I also proved how the SPLC inflated statistics by including a singular example that didn't even take place in the US in order to get a more impressive number.

 

They wouldn't even be the first outlet to do it. Hell, a few years ago they changed the definition of Mass Shooting to 3 people instead of when it was a previously higher number because they were becoming less and less frequent. The data on gun violence has been lowering for years, so anti-gun groups change their metrics for the data in order to help bolster their own agenda and arguments. I demonstrated that SPLC is doing the exact same type of thing, and as is shown, many outlets fucking believe them wholesale.

 

But funny you should ask for proof of SPLC getting their shit wrong, there was actually just recently 2 days ago, an incident involving Tim Pool and the SPLC. They claimed that 1) He's an Alt-Right figure. and 2) That he attended some conference in Iran. Tim publicly responded by saying that he's not a member of the Alt-Right, and that despite how he's traveled around, he's never even been to Iran. They subsequently deleted the page on him, which he also called out for everyone to see because of how inconveniently stupid it makes the SPLC look in terms of their research abilities.

 

Sure, SPLC claims to monitor hate groups and individuals, but its blatantly obvious that their definition is extremely politically biased and is entirely at their own discretion. There was one very recent criticism as well where despite sites like Jeezebel and others openly in some of their articles openly calling or endorsing for violence against people they don't like, they're still not considered a "hate group" or "hateful" outlet.

 

That entirely is a discretionary choice on SPLC's part. Not an objective analysis based on an objective definition.

 

I'm still surprised you even bother turning to Wikipedia, they're known throughout academics as one of the most untrustworthy and/or biased sources of information online. And as I illustrated in my experiences with GG, I do not trust them at all to be honest on modern socio-politics.

 

When you have pages that are willing to ignore publicly accessible evidence exonerating a movement because the editors controlling the page have an agenda to push, and the owners of the site don't give a fuck, you've lost objectivity.

 

Read Benito Mussolini's My Rise and Fall (its a fused book of two of his works, both at his height and his lowest points of his short political career), Mussolini is undeniably the grandfather of Fascism, the inspiration and bedrock for Hitler and others, and his book is far more insightful into his view of the socio-political philosophy of the movement than Mein Kampf for Hitler who is far more deranged. Also helps that Mussolini used to be a writer, so of course he could outline his thoughts more compellingly. He constantly refers to the term Socialism, and how Fascism is the natural evolution of Socialism's ideals, and even that Fascism is Socialism in its true form.

 

His difference being that the Socialists had betrayed their ideals by seeking to reform the Capitalist system from within using gradual internal political power. Mussolini argued that no, you had to destroy the entire system before making your socialist system, it could not be done from within. He didn't disagree with Socialism's goals, he disagreed with their strategy.

 

Mussolini's upbringing even gives insight as to why he and his Fascists were disposed towards Political violence too. His parents, both self-described Socialists, are described to have been very heated in their own debates, and his Father specifically ran into frequent troubles with law enforcement due to his violent proclivities towards his opponents and their property.

-----

 

Simple, a person isn't forced to prove a negative, not even a President. Its the prosecutors' job to prove that something happened. Or, more to the point, do you honestly believe that with everything that HAS been caught on camera with this guy, that mysteriously NOBODY has a fucking recording of him saying such a thing? Again, if anyone did, by the Gods, it would be everywhere.

 

Two very different subjects though. Him being hard on North Korea and trading back what they're giving him doesn't mean he's necessarily inclined towards racism.

 

Funny too, that arguing and trading threats with Kim Jong Un, may very well make history as having led to the first face to face meeting between the head of North Korea and the United States since the Clinton-era. Granted, that hasn't been set in stone yet and could fall through, and I doubt anything major will change if it does happen, but the fact that its even being talked about when after so many terms fuck-all has happened and in fact has gotten worse is something that IMO it is already mildly historic. I honestly hope it does happen. MSM will implode, and it'll be hilarious how big of fools they look if that guy happens to have made more progress on the issue than the past 3 Presidents before him.

 

China's reception of him compared to Obama, and the fact that they too have come around to support more sanctions on NK is also a bit telling on this. One could actually argue that Trump, so far, has proven very good at Asian Foreign politics, but less well so on European foreign politics. Again, such is temporary, we'll see what happens after everything is all said and done on those matters.

 

He has allegedly so, yes. But yet where has that case mysteriously gone to since the election? Since supposedly being backed by even Clinton herself? To me, it went up in smoke as fast as the "Lock her up" idea on his own side. I would have thought that given the Democrats' own past political history on the subject, they'd have tried to push this rather than the "Muh Russia" bullshit that their outlets all have pushed non-stop since the election. I cannot say I've heard about any of the women listed before on mainstream media in terms of any major developments since. Now the focus seems to be on Stormy Daniels which by all appears is merely a case of Adultery and now Blackmail.

 

Its also all the funnier for the Dems since we actually got photos on theirs alongside the allegations.

 

More to the point, we KNEW he was piggish and crass in his personality and a womanizer long before he ever ran for Politics. Never once had there been any indicator that he'd abused anyone, nor do his comments necessarily prove it either.

 

I've not even heard the MSM bring up allegations of Pedophilia, WHICH WOULD BE BIG NEWS. Shows you how credible that is that not even the 24/7 propaganda machines against him even bother printing that out as a reminder.

 

As for Puerto Rico, I've seen the arguments made that its "His Katarina", even though he and Congress immediately put in more money and action into trying to deal with the situation than Bush ever did for the mainland US city of New Orleans (Many of the Parishes were still fucked up when I went there several years ago BTW, so an administration change didn't magically fix it totally either). I have also seen several accounts of Puerto Ricans also disparaging their own territorial government as insanely corrupt and inefficient even before all of this shit happened. So I wouldn't say that Trump's criticism is entirely out of touch. But I'll admit, I not as well-versed on this subject as I could be.

 

The Golfing, yea. Arguably one could say he has far more stress to deal with than Obama ever did (though I will say, Obama did visibly age through his two terms, he didn't even have a legion of MSM outlets disparaging every single little thing he does 24/7), he's also done more to fulfill his promises in less time than Obama has regardless of whether or not one agrees with everything he's proposed or done. I certainly don't, but even I can acknowledge he's moving.

 

Gun Control is an inconsistent topic for him, I will agree. Though it looks like the NRA lobbying will have the final word, if not their currently ongoing court cases (which I guarantee you will strike down the current age 21 restriction in Florida as unconstitutional, just watch). I chalk up the inconsistency to a few things: 1) Trump is not a traditional Republican, he's a Business Democrat from NYC at heart, its why the Republican Party hated him when he first started running, and why he has at times given different stances than the Speaker or various party members on certain topics and why he's not as Red of a Republican on some things. Its also why he took them off of useless debate topics like Gay Marriage. Notice how that basically evaporated as an issue when he came in. 2) Potential AB testing, he was seeing how people would react to the idea without fully committing to it. Politicians do this a lot of times on different issues, but its reliant on the people actually responding one way or another. 3) He genuinely doesn't know what to do about the issue in terms of effectively dealing with it. In which case, I don't think he'd be out of line with most of Congress in that boat.

 

The lobbying on its own IMO isn't an issue if we're not going to call it out on both sides. Because it does happen on both sides constantly.

 

It may be questionable (though IMO many of them make sense for the individuals involved), but then so is Uranium One in relation to the Democrats, or the fact that several Democrat figures are implicated into the whole findings of the Mueller Probe in regards to money-laundering, you don't see any of that making much of a spotlight in the news or bearing a massive investigation do you? Or the fact that despite not giving many of their own citizens equal rights at home, many different regimes in the gulf have given the Clinton Foundation massive sums of money during the election campaign? That's not suspicious at all?

 

IMO, if there is corruption, its endemic throughout all of DC, and that unless one strives to root it all out, its going to look stupid.

 

Sanctuary Cities, violate federal law by openly shirking respect for the current immigration laws which are fully the decisions of the federal government. (Its why a bunch of Militias a few years ago along the Southern Texas border were actually not convicted of any crime, they were abiding by US federal law and enforcing it as a Militia because they didn't view Obama's enforcement as adequate) Its frankly amazing that he hasn't just sent in agents to arrest the administrations of those cities, he'd have full authority to do so with the backing of the courts. The fact that he hasn't, I find fascinating, though I wager he'll try and get something on them in whatever immigration deal they work out. I also don't trust the interpretations of groups like the Washington Post, since I basically proved that they're willing to make-up bullshit just to make him seem worse than he is.

 

Okay, so the DNC Dossier outlining the plans for DACA being literally just a means to maintain their stranglehold on the Presidency via co-opting millions of votes mean nothing? The fact that Obama, tried, but failed to grant amnesty so many different illegal Immigrants when it is legally under the Purview of Congress to decide means nothing? The whole reason DACA is an issue at all is because it should not have become a question of legalization or not to begin with, it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The moral issue has become whether or not one feels comfortable with deporting people who entered the country illegally, had kids who may as well be Americans, or whether they came as kids of different ages, and punishing them as well for the crime their parents did. And also deciding who is proven to be productive or not.

 

But it shouldn't have gotten to this fucking point! Obama had no right to circumvent Congress, just as the Democrats had no right to stall Congress over DACA. Trump, is actually doing the right thing by having Congress debate it and figure out what they want to do, and the Supreme Court has even said they refuse to rule on it at this time because they're prefer not to set a precedent of them ruling on these things (even though they technically have the final word).

 

He's implied that he's open to allowing various illegals to stay, so long as they aren't criminals, and they can reasonably be said to be Americans or benefiting to American society through their efforts. I believe 2-3 million was the supposed figure he was aiming for to deport, along with the Wall being built. Estimates vary of between 12 and 14 million illegals across the entire US? That's certainly not every last illegal.

 

-----

 

Arguably its already too late depending on the theory you believe, they may very well have fucked up by not catching it even sooner.

 

Well then you know even in Al Gore's data, even his data outlines a warming period of the Middle Ages or Medieval Period. So IDK how the fuck you didn't know about it and why it presents a glaring problem with the Man-made climate theory. It also doesn't look good when the crisis is apparently not urgent enough for even him to change his own lifestyle, especially when he has the money to afford it. I've heard of figures and estimates as to how much carbon dioxide and other wasteful stuff Al Gore himself uses, despite his apparent devotion to the cause of climate change.

 

I confess, most of my knowledge on Skepticism of Climate Change comes from one of my University courses on The Social History of Truth, where we devoted a lecture to discussing why skepticism of science on various issues, and in general, has grown. Unfortunately, in the years intervening, I have since lost my fucking notes. I just remember that our Professor had outlined how Environmental issues and especially Climate Change, had run into problems where they presented their arguments more publicly before they had adequate data, and it was used against them because of how the public situation had changed.

 

Well, if you care to search through the Wikipedia you so like to cite, I recommend you go to the page on "Climate Change Denial" look at the History section. According to them, the debates and research have been ongoing since 1824 with research accelerating after 1940. The page does not list any opponents or critics to the ideas really appearing until 1970, though I have to doubt the veracity of that. How exactly was this research and claims not adopted wholesale so long ago in the past, if the evidence itself was not compelling enough or the arguments not fully fleshed out? The page itself marks out how the Ozone Hole was reacted upon VERY swiftly through global efforts once it was presented, yet you don't see that happening historically in regards to Climate Change theories.

 

Look, I'm not going to fucking argue on this anymore because frankly, it doesn't fucking matter. I never said I never believed in Climate Change, you don't need to convince me on it. I was using it as an example of why skepticism has purveyed into the minds of people on certain subjects. You're not going to win anything by trying to convince me, I'm not the one who needs any convincing.

 

I merely doubt as to whether or not our efforts matter if they're not globally synchronized (which they aren't, not even if the US were on board), and if natural cyclical effects will not simply reverse what we've done and just come into effect faster (not that such things wouldn't mean trouble for us either way). I'm not even concerned about the survivability of our species, I'm more concerned about how we can adapt to suit the changing environment, or go elsewhere to deal with it. Because I don't think we're gonna fix it before we see the major effects.

 

I know damn well that's been happening, but you have some people who argue that ALL genetic modification is bad, and don't make the distinctions between which types, or realize that pretty everything has already been genetically modified for our usage, simply over time and use modifying it through usage. The see the words genetic modification, and they think its all Monsanto variety.

 

And yes, I never said I expected Yellowstone to erupt anytime soon, or that I even thought we'd get a period of global volcanic activity increase (which was what I meant, not a global eruption, specifically), but that in the face of those two potential events, however unlikely atm, would render our efforts insignificant, and we don't even have effective means of dealing with those events.

 

-----

 

This is also a problem with our terms.

 

I do not regard Antifa as being the entirety of the Far-Left, which is the actual equivalent term for which I would call the Alt-Right as you seem to be using (I've also personally used the term Ctrl-Left, but that phrase hasn't really stuck, even though I find it to be an applicable mirror-term). You're essentially comparing a movement with various chapters but all arguing for the same thing, to an entire political ideological side with tons of variations of beliefs and goals and who don't necessarily all seek the same thing. Some of which overlap each other, and can be described generally as being further right than your establishment conservative. Just as the average Far-Left member can be described as being generally further left than your average establishment Liberal.

 

The Alt-Right is a very modern language convention, to the point where I'd argue its not even 5 years old, and up until recently was very strictly used as an insult (and still is, frankly), most didn't openly call themselves that until recently. And Fascism in and of itself is very modern as a political idea, not even 100 years old yet. Communism and Anarchy, two of the traditional Far-Left doctrines of ideas conversely, have reached over 100 years old now though I would argue most don't follow their original iterations, they've morphed since.

 

Funny, I see today as the inverse of the 1960s. The sides have merely switched, especially on the University campuses (where much of it in terms of Free Speech began) and what is rebellious too has changed sides in some respects. And all the more interesting, the Far-Left does the exact same things, and has done so for the past few years prior to the Alt-Right's formalization yet with little opposition. The only thing that hasn't happened is the shootings, but as I pointed out, had the one shooter succeeded, we'd have a line of dead Republican congressmen and a radical Democrat to blame for it, and thus two very public sets of ideological-political deaths. The other being Charlottesville, which I still regard as the first time the Alt-Right as a whole was actually blamed for a death with any credibility, and that only is a case because of how many groups were there, and how they protested prior to it, the actual death itself in all likelihood was not planned.

 

------

 

Yes, but Soviet Russia became an Authoritarian state only through the power of an organized and energetic mob both through the public apparatus and seizing control of a sizable sector of the army once the voting didn't turn out in their favour. Lenin actually argued that the populaces of Petrograd and Moscow, despite being a minority against the populace of Russia, were the most fit to vote and therefore their votes were the only ones that mattered because the mostly rural Russian empire couldn't comprehend the class struggle, and would naturally vote for their traditional overlords (in his view). And while he made a compelling argument for why he was right, it still is effectively arguing for a state of mob rule. Read up on the foundations and creation of the Soviet Union, its quite illuminating how much they relied upon mobs in their early days. And yes, I'd say China is quite similar.

 

-----

 

That's not my point. My point was that he stopped criticizing the Democrats and basically just let the whole issue fall away, when it should have been a rallying cry to reform the Democratic Party after their failure, and it makes him look like he doesn't give a fuck about it to me. Soon as Trump gets elected, he turns over to jump on the bandwagon of how evil he is, meanwhile this motherfucker got screwed by the other party that should have at least given him a chance and not screwed him out of the gate for a dynastic candidate! Blame them for the fact that Trump's President, Bernie! Use it to your advantage to show how fucking stupid they were to go for a candidate who for the first time in decades lost Michigan and Wisconsin, and who was the corporate candidate status quo! He didn't. And now the Dems are still fucked, and likely will be even moreso depending on how Mid-terms go.

 

I know no independent since Washington has won, that wasn't my point. My point was that he gave up on the chance to actually do some good for the Democratic party even in the aftermath, when the public likely would have supported him on it, and instead just fell back in line.

 

-----

 

You're arguing two different things that have entirely different basis of logic, and one which you haven't even provided a reason for, nor have you proven him wrong. He claims the tax plan offers breaks to quite a few different groups of people including corporations. You merely claim that it ONLY benefits the corporations.

 

What the fuck does he have to gain out of lying about the fucking tax changes?

 

More traffic to his channel? Oh yea, that really matters when he runs no fucking ads, and its been a real benefit to him since he's spoken about it numerous times and yet no discernible change in the average number of viewers has happened on said videos or in general. His books? I fail to see how lying about that will help his occultist books sell. Other than being hopeful that more people will likely have more spendable income to perhaps buy one of his books. His patreon? Oh yes, that totally will just bring all the backers flooding in immediately, especially when he later goes on to criticism Trump on a bunch of other subjects, because he really likes to get those short-term backers who don't pay attention to what he makes for content.

 

You gonna claim he's a Russian bot next? Or an Alt-Right member? Give me a fucking break.

 

More to the point, if he's lying, so are these guys: https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/

 

Their conclusions are that the system will be much more simplified, it is a pro-growth plan, will lead to wage increases, boost the GDP and produce hundreds of thousands of jobs, based on their models.

 

-----

 

The title is not indicative as merely a historical account, in any case. This whole thing was about optics, which was the point I was making. That it looks like an advocation or support of the platform.

 

K, so still cannot prove that he's racist.

 

Your source also makes a distinction between Antifa and the Far-Left, basically saying how they aren't representative of all groups within it. (Again, you are associating Antifa as being of equivocal to the Alt-Right, I think we've confused the scales of our terms here, as I said earlier.) Nor do they exonerate Antifa, they merely say that Antifa is not the entirety of the Far-Left, and that most attacks of a political nature in the past 10 years have been from Far Right extremists. They don't even say that the Far Right as whole is responsible for it, merely that its ideology has generated more violent extremists in recent memory, which I wouldn't necessarily dispute. And guess who one of their fucking sources is for information, AGAIN. The ADL, the same organization whom again gave the incredible assertion that Pepe the frog is a fucking White Supremacist Meme . . . yet you want me to believe that they know what they're talking about when they define this shit, and aren't just going with whatever they want?

 

"Oh yeah, we just completely over-exaggerate this, but these people are over-exaggerating Left-wing violent tendencies!" They have no right to claim over-exaggeration as a bad thing when they repeatedly do it for their own benefit.

 

I do appreciate how even their guy admits that the shooting on Scalise and the other Republicans is a troubling development though, because it is.

 

-----

 

Again, many of those shooters were lone wolves. Not even your source really disputes that. Its one thing to claim that an ideological side produces lone wolf extremists who act independently and cause suffering and death, and that an entire group is responsible for it and actively planned it (Which TBF, I don't think either side has actually done this in any total sense, you've merely got extremist groups and outlets who may propose the ideas). If the latter were true, boy, wouldn't Trump have just an iron-clad reason to ban all Muslims, wouldn't he?

 

-----

 

I never said that. I merely think that more than ever, its EXTREMELY important to see the different ends and criticisms of various outlets and organizations since it has been proven more than ever how much so many different organizations, outlets, and individuals will publicly lie to your face in order to make you believe them, or will print bullshit because they know it'll benefit them. I think that is the biggest lesson people should be learning from various incidents these past few years.

 

Also, its important to analyze the data they're presenting, if its accessible. What does it actually show? What does it actually prove? Not merely what they CLAIM it proves, but what does it actually prove?

 

You see this in statistics all the time where governments, media agencies, or independent agencies, will twist the data and how its presented in order to present a very particular thing if it suits their agenda to do so. Its why you need to take context into account and know how to analyze statistics. Its why two different outlets can report the exact same issue, yet emphasize different aspects of it depending on what they want to talk about.

 

Gun deaths and shooting stats have been manipulated like this recently to push anti-gun arguments, if you want a prevalent example. None of the major outlets pushing the figures on them are taking the wider context into account, in that overall violent crime with guns has been steadily decreasing in frequency and numbers over time. The incidents might be individually worse in some cases, but the incidents themselves are becoming fewer and fewer. Or, even considering the idea that removing guns will actually solve the problem of mass deaths in incidents like the ones occurring anywhere. Why? Because its inconvenient to their data.

 

The people who cited Japan as an example for lack of deaths by gun violence failed to account for how they just recently had a knife attack that resulted in even more deaths than the Parkland shooting. Or the wider context of how odd it is to compare Japan as as country and culture to the US on such an issue, but that's another matter entirely.

 

Its why cross-referencing is important. I managed to find discrepancies in your sources' numbers alone, man. They all claim to be representing the same stats, yet they differed, and they're on the same fucking side.

 

I also never suggested putting full faith in government agencies, so IDK where you're getting that idea from. Though I will say, I would hope that you could trust your government to actually get decent and reliable statistics on various subjects, otherwise how the fuck could you ever hope that they'd ever solve ANY problems? That doesn't mean you should be skeptical of the government, I think people should be skeptical of their governments, but I mean be skeptical of many things besides.

 

-----

 

True enough on that bit on him. I most certainly don't agree with him at all, but he is quite an impressive specimen.

 

ADDENDUM BASED ON NEW POSTS:

 

To kraken:

 

We'll see what those bombings turn out to be. Still could just as likely be a lone wolf, but if it were different, I will say its one of the few cases I have seen of an organized act.

 

 

To dash:

 

I figured I'd save you guys the time and clutter of not going through every last bit of video footage that Sargon, Razorfist, Lauren, Tim, Styx, or others have posted over the past few years on the subject. Its not that fucking hard to search up, considering you guys seem to be able to do it amply without my input.

 

Also, admittedly and embarrassingly, I don't know how to link videos in anything other than their URL links. So sue me.

 

But okay, allow me to go through a "brief" list, not in any particular order and not even a comprehensive list, but all videos which in some way have informed my view on various subjects (Mostly specifically Antifa chapters and different videos related to them or Far-Leftists and/or SJWs specifically, but a few others on other topics I talked about) I highly recommend you do not go through all of these unless you have A LOT of time to kill:

 

Sargon (His main channel and The Thinkery):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPj3CyBJrIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-4Pxe8Dz8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwSYhTWk6E8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgccg9xurE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWlahP7ABJs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQwfTPqn5kc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPvN5o2aRNs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBrmgPVP-_8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe4-7IgMbsg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM0VyoVsCYg (On Pepe being declared a White Nationalist Hate symbol)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtXwkD-KgLg (Same again, this time specifically the SPLC)

 

 

 

Tim Pool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNkXd4qyV0 (This one is on Tim Pool commenting on how the SPLC lied about him among other things)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2K1e2Fd4Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZUjpqgRo4

 

Lauren Southern:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io3VpyL4RoE (With Tim Pool)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVORaw0_PpA (Not on her channel, but footage of her, and there are others.)

 

Razorfist/The Rageaholic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNWAIJfzGZc&t=498s (On Antifa's eerie similarities to Historical Fascists)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuuoqjGAWNc (His experience with Antifa in Phoenix and media bullshit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGhmrutv8no (Antifa trying to boycott a Swedish Black Metal Band for being supposed Nazis)

 

Count Dankula:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPTZ7hz_vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFdYFWZrsQ (Via Sargon's channel, doing a TWIS episode to fill-in)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnPtd8CWno

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-Wcl7lP3o (Not Antifa or even Anarchists, but bullshit about a brand of collectivist arguments from a brand of Far-Leftist)

 

 

Styxhexenhammer666:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEh87xZAg60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72PcphViyOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P7UbBGWu3Y&t=534s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NWUdrv4lks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dwCuWj14_c&t=343s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bQ-TQqHDeQ (ADL believing the "Okay" sign = "White power")

 

 

But on to the topic of Trump apparently calling countries shitholes. This claim literally has no evidence that isn't complete hearsay, and you know it just as much as I do.

 

There is evidence of Antifa being violent, there is evidence of them shutting down, or trying to shut down events and people around the "Western" world that have zero relation to Nazis or Racists at all, and people have it on fucking film. There is even recordings of people of various Leftist groups calling for violence and or the deaths of various groups or people they don't like, of them beating up people they don't fucking like. There is also a shitload of photo and video evidence of them vandalizing and destroying the public and private property of individuals who have fucking nothing to do with the issues either.

 

Conversely, there is no evidence that has actually been presented by ANYONE, let alone the fucking media outlet that originally broke the fucking story that isn't hearsay on this particular issue of what Trump supposedly said! So don't give me this smartass crap.

 

But on to your evidence:

 

Oh wow, real hot fucking scoop from the 70s, a time where tons of fucking realty companies, and other businesses did this all the time because of legal loopholes. You gonna boycott every single last one of their modern iterations too? Or are you guys scrapping the bottom of the barrel because you had to go back over 40 years just to find anything remotely racist on this guy's business? Who was the candidate who in modern times when she went south actually used a hot sauce comment and southern drawl to try to be relatable to blacks down there?

 

Considering the only one of those allegations in terms of acts I recall sticking and being repeated in the media was the 70s one, I'm inclined to believe they weren't big fucking scoops. Or are you gonna say that CNN and other outlets are apparently all racist sympathizers as well too, even though so many of these outlets made it their 24/7 business to dig up and repeat every last bit of dirt they could find on him no matter how out of context they spun it? Hillary's ads didn't even run the fucking things and they had no shortage of material to choose from.

 

Ted Cruz got criticism for being born over in Canada, I believe, which I wager would have been foisted on him, had he made it. JFK got shit for being catholic in a time where the Church had basically none of the power it held centuries ago. Don't fucking try and claim that no white guy has ever faced criticism for whether or not they were legally able to hold office based on their backgrounds. Sure, maybe they were never asked for their birth certificates, but the accusations were about as fucking dumb.

 

And yes, I would say that the accusations on the certificate were stupid, but at the time did you honestly think it was anything other than Trump trying to fucking drum up publicity by acting crass? Acting like an idiot for the few minutes of fame, because nobody considered it to be a serious challenge at all? Hence why they never went anywhere? We all knew that about him prior to the election. Didn't see many racist allegations flying around prior to the election, except perhaps in regards to these comments, did you? And what do you know? He doesn't even stick to those comments when he gets into office. Real fucking proud racist there, not even sticking to his guns when he gets into power. That actually really pissed a lot of the genuine racists off.

 

But oh yes, he totally ran a racist fucking platform, he's secretly vehemently racist even though since he started running for office nobody has caught him even saying a racial slur, he hasn't proposed any racist legislation since he's gotten into office or repeals of amendments surrounding them (hell his tax plans helps all people), he totally got the majority of whites to vote for him and for the Alt-Right to be completely on board with him because he ran an ethno-nationalist cause (not, on either count), and he totally didn't get a single voter of any other race or sexuality to vote for him at all because he's such a fucking bigot (not, again).

 

And despite all of this flagrant racism, a media outlet has to fucking make up an account of it happening and have dozens of other outlets act all enraged over hearsay!? You realize you're making the case for the shithole comments look even more unbelievable now, right? If he is such a racist, why would they even need to make it up? The White House and Congress are as leaky as a shiv right now, how is it apparently impossible to get even ONE instance of racism on any kind of recording, if he's such a racist? No, they apparently have to make it up.

 

Oh, and the Dems totally aren't racist by the same historical or modern nit-pick analyses or simply by the fact that their administrations have done fuck-all to meaningfully solve many of the race issues in the country? Or the fact that they've now, in many respects, become the party that hates Whites (Hell, even Bernie, with his comment on "Whites don't know what its like to be poor.", real fucking endearing for a guy who supposedly knows the Working Class), or the party that views a quarter of the fucking country as "deplorables" unworthy of being listened to. Whose internal memos show they don't give a fuck about illegal immigrants for any reason beyond more votes, whose former candidate has by now publicly blamed every single last person and demographic but herself for why she lost, and whose pundits love to throw around the race card of why the election turned out as it did even if the data doesn't support it a la Van Jones.

 

I think we can both say that everyone's got baggage in there that have made them look like total fucking morons who arguably shouldn't be running the country for a variety of reasons, and leave it at that.

 

Oh really? The Supreme Court doesn't think so, and I'm inclined towards their 7:2, non-bipartisan ruling over yours. Not to mention, again, it is the single most ineffective "Muslim ban" in all of history, by not even including the top five Muslim majority countries on Earth. Real great fucking discriminatory legislation, he's really hitting it hard, especially using a list of countries Obama's own administration drew up! Especially since they're temporary too and won't even last a year! You're casting assumptions onto actions that do not necessarily support those assumptions.

 

I've seen tons of Leftist protest groups bring their kids along as much as the Right, inculcating them into their ideologies while they're young, and last I checked, Antifa's membership isn't a bunch of geriatrics either, man. Its mostly University students, whom may or may not have had their own critical thinking abilities fully developed yet.

 

Fuck the SPLC, I'm tired of you guys linking it like its the Ten Commandments of all that are hateful, when I've repeatedly shown how false they can be and how misleading they can be, and I'm not going to explain it again if you guys refuse to listen.

 

How about I link the state of New Jersey which officially branded its Antifa chapters as a domestic terrorist organization a while ago?

 

I've talked about how Mussolini saw his own fucking movement, he's the grandfather of the thing, and inspiration to those that came after, and his parents were self-described socialists. I'm pretty sure he had a grasp on what he meant. Terrible though he was.

 

Fuck off on the Climate Change bit, I didn't want to get into an argument over the damn thing since I do believe it is a thing. You obviously didn't read why I brought it up, and I'm getting pissed that it even went this long. I'm not the one who needs convincing on it. I was merely using it as an example.

 

And again, like kraken, this whole fucking thing is getting its terms mixed the fuck up where we're apparently equating Antifa to the entire Alt-Right whereas the Alt-Left would be the better phrase. Can you even link an organized modern event where an Alt-Right group actually organized bombings and shootings? Can you say that all who claim to be members of one group or another have, or that this is entirely indicative of the Alt-Right? All kraken has been able to link are lone wolves who were INFLUENCED by them at best (which if that's the basis for what we're using here, it is purely luck that the Far-Left hasn't produced as many murderers so far. Because both have various groups and speakers that have advocated for murder and in some cases even mass genocide.), I don't recall any account of those people acting under orders or following some grand plan beyond their own where a bunch of them all got dragged into court afterwards on conspiracy charges. (I'll admit though, my memory isn't the greatest on this, so feel free to show me otherwise if that is the case)

 

Really? I spent time on one as well, quite recently. I even visited a couple years ago. I will admit, it is definitely dependent on where you are, and what program you are in, but I cannot deny, it most certainly seems to be a growing problem when more and more incidents seem to be occurring on more and more campuses across NA and Europe. You're lucky perhaps, like I was when I originally went in that I managed to avoid and not see much of any of it, to the point where I was shocked to find out that it was actually happening elsewhere, because I could not believe such things were actually occurring, but by the Gods has it come to many campuses, including increased its presence at my own. I never thought I would see the day where my own University would have a group shut down and yell-out a speaker they didn't like, but it did, and quite recently.

 

At the same University, earlier when I visited again, I saw an audience explode and practically try and rip a guy apart on my campus because he had the gall to say he would have voted for Trump. IDC what you say, that is not behaviour I want to see at an academic event at a University.

 

So again, maybe you're lucky, and I know I was for my years in Uni because my Uni wasn't known for having much of an activist core or being all that controversial in terms of topics and discussions. But that doesn't change the fact that this shit IS happening and is developing more and more with each year. As more Professors feel censored, more student societies feel censored, and more Free Speech events or simply talking events are brigaded for no good reason, and people are seeing it across nations.

 

Interesting topic to end on.

 

I still do not believe that Antifa are the ones I would trust to do that, nor would I trust any kind of movement like it to do so of any description or leaning. Arguably, the government doesn't even adequately defend it, why would a public organization, one based upon opposing another ideology, one which has no real unifying leadership or overarching organizational structure, and has proven to be very liberal at who they brand as a Nazi, necessarily be any better?

 

(To use my own experience in GG, we never really proposed to be the ones to remain in place to sit in judgment on games industry and journalism ethics forever or even make any kind of final decision on the matter, we were a consumer revolt. We had no leader or formal organization that wasn't impromptu and temporary, and nobody really had 100% control of the hashtag by nature of it being a hashtag. We merely knew that we wanted the situation to change, and that the state of affairs which had been building over the years had been exposed as being almost exactly what many had feared it was. But a common sentiment was that GG would have gone nowhere and just evaporated like so many other consumer revolts before it, had the source of the major qualms been resolved or addressed. But that never happened, so it persisted despite multimedia bombardment and a mountain of hack articles for a while. But we were under no illusions that it would ever continue forever.)

 

Ideological fanatics with no qualms for authoritarian tactics do not arbitrators of Free Speech make, IMO. They would remove one source of tyranny, only to impose another by virtue of the fact that they are fallible in their proclamations, and have caused suffering to quite a few through their false deductions. We already view such a state as intolerable when our justice systems make such mistakes, and we'd be no more forgiving on others.

 

Plus, not to be judgmental of the Supreme Court's words, but that's a very vague sentiment when you're dealing with a population whose morals can and will change throughout the decades and generations. Does it mean that Free Speech is not inalienable and Hate Speech is merely whatever the populace of the day desires it to be? If so, why did we even fight for Universities to be centers of Free Speech at all? Why did racism even die out from mass public law and language at all? Why is Free Speech even considered an inalienable right if it can be revoked or limited by the majority on its whim? Why trust a populace to make the right decision, when we apparently don't already trust to make informed or rational decisions based on the current system of Free Speech, since we're arguing for the censorship of ideas based on public receptions and perceptions? Surely a public we don't trust to be capable of dissecting a BS argument is not capable of deciding what speech is and isn't allowed?

 

Just some of my thoughts in response. I don't necessarily have an answer to the situation.

 

Nothing lasts forever, is what I'm saying. Both good and bad. I'd merely prefer that we don't leave the door open for authoritarians to seize power so easily given the opportunity through well-meaning means, and that we simultaneously try not to jump at every shadow but actually seek to deal with the real problems rather than merely perpetuate them and create new ones.

 

And on the subject of blocking people from speaking,

 

Since you gave me a quote for thought, let me reply first in an old quote from whom I cannot remember saying it and am probably paraphrasing: "By cutting out a man's tongue, you don't show that you're better than him, you merely show that you fear what he has to say."

 

Censors have rarely actually succeeded in eradicating something, they merely make it more difficult to obtain or listen to, and arguably it becomes more rebelliously attractive because it has become taboo. Doesn't matter what it is that is being censored. And arguably, the more brutally it is censored, either by a government or group, or wider society, the more attractive it becomes to those who wish to be rebellious.

 

To use a perfectly mundane example. In the French Enlightenment just prior to their revolution, despite it being incredibly blacklisted by the crown and illegal to sell, there were more pornographic and smut texts produced and sold than both the accumulated number of political philosophy and natural science treatises combined. Granted, we're talking porn's attract-ability here for mass consumption, but its prevalent for socio-political contexts because guess what types sold the most to the masses out of the various content in said smut? Ones involving nobility participating in depraved acts, the very people who wanted the stuff censored. Small wonder they sold like hotcakes ahead of the French Revolution via the underground press.

 

But back to modern reality.

 

In the manner in which Antifa have conducted themselves, EVEN IF, we say that they actually succeed in eradicating Nazism via their methods (which personally I don't even think is a guarantee), they have simultaneously "red-pilled" an entire generation of people who look ready to seize power away from the groups they support anyway, because that generation has seen that such groups are no better. They know that in time, those same groups will abuse their power over others, given the chance. And so, they will do all they can to avert them ever gaining much substantial power again with all their might.

 

Which is arguably what is happening now as well. Centrists are not inclined toward supporting Antifa, certainly not when it looks like various chapters are ready to declare anyone "right of Marx" at times a Nazi or Fascist or Racist bigot, or anyone who even is mildly nationalistic as a Nazi, and beat the fuck out of them or their supporters and disrupt whatever they're doing because they think that they're the arbiters of social justice.

 

And its a problem at Universities because many times, a lot of these speakers are INVITED by student societies on campuses. One group's opinion on who isn't allowed to speak apparently overrules the other who wants to hear them speak and perhaps question them? Yeah, that's gonna go over well, welcome to the 1960s again.

 

And while I have no love lost on seeing Spencer apparently go, he's an easy one to remove. He's argued explicitly for an ethno-state and is perhaps one of the few cases where Antifa is actually justified in what they're saying. What about the cases where its not so cut and dry? I still fail to see why Sargon and Yaron alone were shut down when their discussion had nothing to do with that, and neither argue necessarily for an ethno-nationalist state. Or why Anarchists saw fit to lie about Count Dankula's speech to defame him and those who invited him (despite stupidly providing audio that in and of itself disproves their case). Why the SPLC and ADL consistently seek to over-exaggerate what makes an Ethno-nationalist or right-wing extremist and who is one on account of that. Or why Milo Yiannopolous despite how many times he's been threatened and shut down, continues to get more invites to events? Hell for a bunch of these cases, the tactics backfire. They get even more invites, more people who're inclined to support them or listen to them, and more reception in general as others spread what happened and how ridiculous it looks.

 

The other big thing is, just because you silence a speaker does not mean that their audience suddenly reverts. All that's arguably shown to them is that there are enemies who refuse to even allow their opponents to speak. And that lead to a couple things. In some cases, you get more violent radicals emerging, in others over time, it creates a silent opposition. Wherein you have no idea that people oppose your way of doing things and thinking, because they know better than to say anything and mark themselves out for you. They may nod their heads and clap, and they'll play the masquerade, but in places like the ballot box, they let their true feelings known.

 

IDK, just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, ok temp I decided to take a look at the videos you're listing and I have to thank you. I honestly didn't watch Sargon of Akkad's videos, I mostly heard about it from second hand accounts and people making response videos, but now i'm actually taking the time to watch his stuff and I gotta say, the critics were being kinda unfair.

 

They were WAY too soft on him. But now that i have a list of great videos to tear apart rather than just clicking around randomly on his channel, you've given me great points of criticism. This is gonna take awhile because i have to pause every 15 seconds (not an exaggeration) to write about why he's wrong. Expect a response to JUST THE VIDEOS coming up before we even get into what you've said. But so far, I will say this about Sargon: He doesn't even REALIZE how helpful he's being to white supremacists and deludes himself into thinking he's a "liberal".

Share this post


Link to post
They were WAY too soft on him. But now that i have a list of great videos to tear apart rather than just clicking around randomly on his channel, you've given me great points of criticism. This is gonna take awhile because i have to pause every 15 seconds (not an exaggeration) to write about why he's wrong. Expect a response to JUST THE VIDEOS coming up before we even get into what you've said. But so far, I will say this about Sargon: He doesn't even REALIZE how helpful he's being to white supremacists and deludes himself into thinking he's a "liberal".

 

"I'm a liberal" is the 2nd funniest thing Sargon's ever said, behind "gender communists"

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly i'm just tempted to drop this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL_vIqMiHK0 and run away because this guy is actually way more fair and nice to sargon than I would be.

 

But I'm only about 4 out of the 17 videos and just....this is gonna be a long haul of watching these videos but also responding to them in a measured way between personal responsibilities, family, and overall life in general.

 

Oh, and Temp, buddy, my man, my.......internet stranger.

 

I have problems with sargon, tim, and lauren. The others you listed i'm not gonna watch because they seem...fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Your sources, which are mostly just referring back to SPLC and ADL anyway, outline singular cases. The stats are based upon singular spree killers (particularly the SPLC's).

 

Yes, I cannot prove that Antifa, as a total organization, has done any murders, but you similarly cannot prove that those cases were nothing more than lone wolves either, or that even those groups are the entirety of the "Alt-Right" if they even specifically planned the acts out as a group. Its the distinction that I made. You know what I'm talking about? You proved that there were extremists, I can prove that there are Far-Left extremists out there as well.

 

And no, they may not be arguing for the supremacy of a specific group, but that is where the distinction lies. They argue for the supremacy of collectivism rather than the individual or a specific group, they oppose individual rights and/or favour collective rights. They still argue for the supremacy of ideas because they believe that theirs are inherently the best, no different from their rivals.

 

And again, that doesn't explain why they disrupt events where that topic isn't even being argued. The argument wasn't for Nazism or Racial supremacy at King's College, yet they were there and forced it to shut down. I also find amusing how a Jewish Objectivist can be construed as a Nazi sympathizer, but whatever.

 

Please cite sources for the "collectivism" and how they "oppose individual rights and/or favor collective rights." Also, their idea may well be superior considering they're not calling for murder and genocide. Also please, cite evidence stating that they "construed a Jewish Objectivist as a Nazi Sympathizer".

 

 

Please tell me that all of these hate crimes weren't publicly supported by white supremacists as a whole?

 

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

https://www.nps.gov/articles/16thstreetbaptist.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing

https://www.britannica.com/event/16th-Street-Baptist-Church-bombing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/churches/archives1.htm

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

 

-----

SPLC I think I proved the discrepancy already between them, and the ADL alone previously. I also proved how the SPLC inflated statistics by including a singular example that didn't even take place in the US in order to get a more impressive number.

 

They wouldn't even be the first outlet to do it. Hell, a few years ago they changed the definition of Mass Shooting to 3 people instead of when it was a previously higher number because they were becoming less and less frequent. The data on gun violence has been lowering for years, so anti-gun groups change their metrics for the data in order to help bolster their own agenda and arguments. I demonstrated that SPLC is doing the exact same type of thing, and as is shown, many outlets fucking believe them wholesale.

 

But funny you should ask for proof of SPLC getting their shit wrong, there was actually just recently 2 days ago, an incident involving Tim Pool and the SPLC. They claimed that 1) He's an Alt-Right figure. and 2) That he attended some conference in Iran. Tim publicly responded by saying that he's not a member of the Alt-Right, and that despite how he's traveled around, he's never even been to Iran. They subsequently deleted the page on him, which he also called out for everyone to see because of how inconveniently stupid it makes the SPLC look in terms of their research abilities.

 

Sure, SPLC claims to monitor hate groups and individuals, but its blatantly obvious that their definition is extremely politically biased and is entirely at their own discretion. There was one very recent criticism as well where despite sites like Jeezebel and others openly in some of their articles openly calling or endorsing for violence against people they don't like, they're still not considered a "hate group" or "hateful" outlet.

 

That entirely is a discretionary choice on SPLC's part. Not an objective analysis based on an objective definition.

 

I'm still surprised you even bother turning to Wikipedia, they're known throughout academics as one of the most untrustworthy and/or biased sources of information online. And as I illustrated in my experiences with GG, I do not trust them at all to be honest on modern socio-politics.

 

When you have pages that are willing to ignore publicly accessible evidence exonerating a movement because the editors controlling the page have an agenda to push, and the owners of the site don't give a fuck, you've lost objectivity.

 

Read Benito Mussolini's My Rise and Fall (its a fused book of two of his works, both at his height and his lowest points of his short political career), Mussolini is undeniably the grandfather of Fascism, the inspiration and bedrock for Hitler and others, and his book is far more insightful into his view of the socio-political philosophy of the movement than Mein Kampf for Hitler who is far more deranged. Also helps that Mussolini used to be a writer, so of course he could outline his thoughts more compellingly. He constantly refers to the term Socialism, and how Fascism is the natural evolution of Socialism's ideals, and even that Fascism is Socialism in its true form.

 

His difference being that the Socialists had betrayed their ideals by seeking to reform the Capitalist system from within using gradual internal political power. Mussolini argued that no, you had to destroy the entire system before making your socialist system, it could not be done from within. He didn't disagree with Socialism's goals, he disagreed with their strategy.

 

Mussolini's upbringing even gives insight as to why he and his Fascists were disposed towards Political violence too. His parents, both self-described Socialists, are described to have been very heated in their own debates, and his Father specifically ran into frequent troubles with law enforcement due to his violent proclivities towards his opponents and their property.

1. You never disproved the SPLC and ADL, you just pointed out how they thought that the okay sign on one hand was a white power symbol, and that they viewed Pepe as a racist meme. But, let's be fair, Pepe WAS used in a racist context, which the creator of Pepe The Frog himself publicly said was not the intent of Pepe.

 

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/glossary-terms/defining-extremism-white-supremacy

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog

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

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pepe-the-frog-hate-symbol-20161011-snap-htmlstory.html

 

Please, tell me how this is misinformation?

 

As well, you never cited evidence stating that the SPLC lied. You don't disprove it if you don't have the facts to back it up.

 

2. You automatically attributed the changed definition of Mass Shooting to be connected to "popularity" of the term, but you do not provide evidence to support this.

 

3.

 

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/09/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment

 

"Perhaps they deleted it because its insane?"

"They subsequently deleted the page on him, which he also called out for everyone to see because of how inconveniently stupid it makes the SPLC look in terms of their research abilities."

He wasn't necessarily calling them out that they are bad at research, he was correcting an error. The guy has obviously used the ADL, a similar entity, as reference, which you cite as "misinformation."

 

4. I tried to figure out what in the hell GG even was, but the whole thing was such a mess of motives and claims that I couldn't even tell what side was arguing for what. I'm glad I missed it when it happened (despite being particularly active on the internet at the time of it taking place.) Saying you participated in GG doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot when people don't even know what the hell went on.

 

5. "By the time he returned from service in the Allied forces of World War I, very little remained of Mussolini the socialist. Indeed, he was now convinced that socialism as a doctrine had largely been a failure."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Formation_of_the_National_Fascist_Party

 

Please, entertain the idea that he was socialist during his fascist period.

 

-----

Simple, a person isn't forced to prove a negative, not even a President. Its the prosecutors' job to prove that something happened. Or, more to the point, do you honestly believe that with everything that HAS been caught on camera with this guy, that mysteriously NOBODY has a fucking recording of him saying such a thing? Again, if anyone did, by the Gods, it would be everywhere.

 

Two very different subjects though. Him being hard on North Korea and trading back what they're giving him doesn't mean he's necessarily inclined towards racism.

 

Funny too, that arguing and trading threats with Kim Jong Un, may very well make history as having led to the first face to face meeting between the head of North Korea and the United States since the Clinton-era. Granted, that hasn't been set in stone yet and could fall through, and I doubt anything major will change if it does happen, but the fact that its even being talked about when after so many terms fuck-all has happened and in fact has gotten worse is something that IMO it is already mildly historic. I honestly hope it does happen. MSM will implode, and it'll be hilarious how big of fools they look if that guy happens to have made more progress on the issue than the past 3 Presidents before him.

 

China's reception of him compared to Obama, and the fact that they too have come around to support more sanctions on NK is also a bit telling on this. One could actually argue that Trump, so far, has proven very good at Asian Foreign politics, but less well so on European foreign politics. Again, such is temporary, we'll see what happens after everything is all said and done on those matters.

 

He has allegedly so, yes. But yet where has that case mysteriously gone to since the election? Since supposedly being backed by even Clinton herself? To me, it went up in smoke as fast as the "Lock her up" idea on his own side. I would have thought that given the Democrats' own past political history on the subject, they'd have tried to push this rather than the "Muh Russia" bullshit that their outlets all have pushed non-stop since the election. I cannot say I've heard about any of the women listed before on mainstream media in terms of any major developments since. Now the focus seems to be on Stormy Daniels which by all appears is merely a case of Adultery and now Blackmail.

 

Its also all the funnier for the Dems since we actually got photos on theirs alongside the allegations.

 

More to the point, we KNEW he was piggish and crass in his personality and a womanizer long before he ever ran for Politics. Never once had there been any indicator that he'd abused anyone, nor do his comments necessarily prove it either.

 

I've not even heard the MSM bring up allegations of Pedophilia, WHICH WOULD BE BIG NEWS. Shows you how credible that is that not even the 24/7 propaganda machines against him even bother printing that out as a reminder.

 

As for Puerto Rico, I've seen the arguments made that its "His Katarina", even though he and Congress immediately put in more money and action into trying to deal with the situation than Bush ever did for the mainland US city of New Orleans (Many of the Parishes were still fucked up when I went there several years ago BTW, so an administration change didn't magically fix it totally either). I have also seen several accounts of Puerto Ricans also disparaging their own territorial government as insanely corrupt and inefficient even before all of this shit happened. So I wouldn't say that Trump's criticism is entirely out of touch. But I'll admit, I not as well-versed on this subject as I could be.

 

The Golfing, yea. Arguably one could say he has far more stress to deal with than Obama ever did (though I will say, Obama did visibly age through his two terms, he didn't even have a legion of MSM outlets disparaging every single little thing he does 24/7), he's also done more to fulfill his promises in less time than Obama has regardless of whether or not one agrees with everything he's proposed or done. I certainly don't, but even I can acknowledge he's moving.

 

Gun Control is an inconsistent topic for him, I will agree. Though it looks like the NRA lobbying will have the final word, if not their currently ongoing court cases (which I guarantee you will strike down the current age 21 restriction in Florida as unconstitutional, just watch). I chalk up the inconsistency to a few things: 1) Trump is not a traditional Republican, he's a Business Democrat from NYC at heart, its why the Republican Party hated him when he first started running, and why he has at times given different stances than the Speaker or various party members on certain topics and why he's not as Red of a Republican on some things. Its also why he took them off of useless debate topics like Gay Marriage. Notice how that basically evaporated as an issue when he came in. 2) Potential AB testing, he was seeing how people would react to the idea without fully committing to it. Politicians do this a lot of times on different issues, but its reliant on the people actually responding one way or another. 3) He genuinely doesn't know what to do about the issue in terms of effectively dealing with it. In which case, I don't think he'd be out of line with most of Congress in that boat.

 

The lobbying on its own IMO isn't an issue if we're not going to call it out on both sides. Because it does happen on both sides constantly.

 

It may be questionable (though IMO many of them make sense for the individuals involved), but then so is Uranium One in relation to the Democrats, or the fact that several Democrat figures are implicated into the whole findings of the Mueller Probe in regards to money-laundering, you don't see any of that making much of a spotlight in the news or bearing a massive investigation do you? Or the fact that despite not giving many of their own citizens equal rights at home, many different regimes in the gulf have given the Clinton Foundation massive sums of money during the election campaign? That's not suspicious at all?

 

IMO, if there is corruption, its endemic throughout all of DC, and that unless one strives to root it all out, its going to look stupid.

 

Sanctuary Cities, violate federal law by openly shirking respect for the current immigration laws which are fully the decisions of the federal government. (Its why a bunch of Militias a few years ago along the Southern Texas border were actually not convicted of any crime, they were abiding by US federal law and enforcing it as a Militia because they didn't view Obama's enforcement as adequate) Its frankly amazing that he hasn't just sent in agents to arrest the administrations of those cities, he'd have full authority to do so with the backing of the courts. The fact that he hasn't, I find fascinating, though I wager he'll try and get something on them in whatever immigration deal they work out. I also don't trust the interpretations of groups like the Washington Post, since I basically proved that they're willing to make-up bullshit just to make him seem worse than he is.

 

Okay, so the DNC Dossier outlining the plans for DACA being literally just a means to maintain their stranglehold on the Presidency via co-opting millions of votes mean nothing? The fact that Obama, tried, but failed to grant amnesty so many different illegal Immigrants when it is legally under the Purview of Congress to decide means nothing? The whole reason DACA is an issue at all is because it should not have become a question of legalization or not to begin with, it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The moral issue has become whether or not one feels comfortable with deporting people who entered the country illegally, had kids who may as well be Americans, or whether they came as kids of different ages, and punishing them as well for the crime their parents did. And also deciding who is proven to be productive or not.

 

But it shouldn't have gotten to this fucking point! Obama had no right to circumvent Congress, just as the Democrats had no right to stall Congress over DACA. Trump, is actually doing the right thing by having Congress debate it and figure out what they want to do, and the Supreme Court has even said they refuse to rule on it at this time because they're prefer not to set a precedent of them ruling on these things (even though they technically have the final word).

 

He's implied that he's open to allowing various illegals to stay, so long as they aren't criminals, and they can reasonably be said to be Americans or benefiting to American society through their efforts. I believe 2-3 million was the supposed figure he was aiming for to deport, along with the Wall being built. Estimates vary of between 12 and 14 million illegals across the entire US? That's certainly not every last illegal.

 

1. "he's also done more to fulfill his promises in less time than Obama has regardless of whether or not one agrees with everything he's proposed or done."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_(2009%E2%80%932017

 

http://time.com/5106302/donald-trump-first-year-promises/

 

Sorry, this is all despite the fact that Trump has every branch of government with a Republican majority, and he's a Republican President?

 

 

2. "one could say he has far more stress to deal with than Obama ever did"

 

So, he's not going to deal with stress in other ways, and would become completely hypocritical by indulging in golf? On his own courses?

 

Additionally:

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-presidential-seal/

 

 

3. But Hillary isn't in office, and isn't making noteworthy attempts to conform to any of these political lobby's goals. I'm pointing out that Trump has been lobbied by the NRA and immediately turns to support them whenever something happens. If Hillary was President, you'd hear me criticizing her if she did things like this, but as it is, this is what we have to deal with.

 

4. Please cite that last claim, I couldn't find anything about that.

 

-----

Arguably its already too late depending on the theory you believe, they may very well have fucked up by not catching it even sooner.

 

Well then you know even in Al Gore's data, even his data outlines a warming period of the Middle Ages or Medieval Period. So IDK how the fuck you didn't know about it and why it presents a glaring problem with the Man-made climate theory. It also doesn't look good when the crisis is apparently not urgent enough for even him to change his own lifestyle, especially when he has the money to afford it. I've heard of figures and estimates as to how much carbon dioxide and other wasteful stuff Al Gore himself uses, despite his apparent devotion to the cause of climate change.

 

I confess, most of my knowledge on Skepticism of Climate Change comes from one of my University courses on The Social History of Truth, where we devoted a lecture to discussing why skepticism of science on various issues, and in general, has grown. Unfortunately, in the years intervening, I have since lost my fucking notes. I just remember that our Professor had outlined how Environmental issues and especially Climate Change, had run into problems where they presented their arguments more publicly before they had adequate data, and it was used against them because of how the public situation had changed.

 

Well, if you care to search through the Wikipedia you so like to cite, I recommend you go to the page on "Climate Change Denial" look at the History section. According to them, the debates and research have been ongoing since 1824 with research accelerating after 1940. The page does not list any opponents or critics to the ideas really appearing until 1970, though I have to doubt the veracity of that. How exactly was this research and claims not adopted wholesale so long ago in the past, if the evidence itself was not compelling enough or the arguments not fully fleshed out? The page itself marks out how the Ozone Hole was reacted upon VERY swiftly through global efforts once it was presented, yet you don't see that happening historically in regards to Climate Change theories.

 

Look, I'm not going to fucking argue on this anymore because frankly, it doesn't fucking matter. I never said I never believed in Climate Change, you don't need to convince me on it. I was using it as an example of why skepticism has purveyed into the minds of people on certain subjects. You're not going to win anything by trying to convince me, I'm not the one who needs any convincing.

 

I merely doubt as to whether or not our efforts matter if they're not globally synchronized (which they aren't, not even if the US were on board), and if natural cyclical effects will not simply reverse what we've done and just come into effect faster (not that such things wouldn't mean trouble for us either way). I'm not even concerned about the survivability of our species, I'm more concerned about how we can adapt to suit the changing environment, or go elsewhere to deal with it. Because I don't think we're gonna fix it before we see the major effects.

 

I know damn well that's been happening, but you have some people who argue that ALL genetic modification is bad, and don't make the distinctions between which types, or realize that pretty everything has already been genetically modified for our usage, simply over time and use modifying it through usage. The see the words genetic modification, and they think its all Monsanto variety.

 

And yes, I never said I expected Yellowstone to erupt anytime soon, or that I even thought we'd get a period of global volcanic activity increase (which was what I meant, not a global eruption, specifically), but that in the face of those two potential events, however unlikely atm, would render our efforts insignificant, and we don't even have effective means of dealing with those events.

1. You're implying that Earth doesn't vary in temperature naturally by saying that the medieval ages had slight warming, thinking this is disproving man-made climate change. The difference is that the warming of the Earth at the current moment is the fastest it has ever been.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/04/new-study-confirms-noaa-finding-of-faster-global-warming

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating

 

Yes, let's argue with NASA and NOAA, two government groups which are clearly qualified to publish reliable information about these things.

 

2. You left out the part where the hole in the Ozone was caused by humans due to our over-reliance on Halocarbons. If we as humans are capable of causing the depletion of the Ozone, we are similarly likely to be the cause of global warming, which is even cited by NASA to be >95% Humanity's fault.

 

-----

Funny, I see today as the inverse of the 1960s. The sides have merely switched, especially on the University campuses (where much of it in terms of Free Speech began) and what is rebellious too has changed sides in some respects. And all the more interesting, the Far-Left does the exact same things, and has done so for the past few years prior to the Alt-Right's formalization yet with little opposition. The only thing that hasn't happened is the shootings, but as I pointed out, had the one shooter succeeded, we'd have a line of dead Republican congressmen and a radical Democrat to blame for it, and thus two very public sets of ideological-political deaths. The other being Charlottesville, which I still regard as the first time the Alt-Right as a whole was actually blamed for a death with any credibility, and that only is a case because of how many groups were there, and how they protested prior to it, the actual death itself in all likelihood was not planned.

I don't see it as an opposite. It's almost exactly the same, it's just that names have changed.

 

------

Yes, but Soviet Russia became an Authoritarian state only through the power of an organized and energetic mob both through the public apparatus and seizing control of a sizable sector of the army once the voting didn't turn out in their favour. Lenin actually argued that the populaces of Petrograd and Moscow, despite being a minority against the populace of Russia, were the most fit to vote and therefore their votes were the only ones that mattered because the mostly rural Russian empire couldn't comprehend the class struggle, and would naturally vote for their traditional overlords (in his view). And while he made a compelling argument for why he was right, it still is effectively arguing for a state of mob rule. Read up on the foundations and creation of the Soviet Union, its quite illuminating how much they relied upon mobs in their early days. And yes, I'd say China is quite similar.

Then Lenin died and Stalin took power.

 

-----

There is evidence of Antifa being violent, there is evidence of them shutting down, or trying to shut down events and people around the "Western" world that have zero relation to Nazis or Racists at all, and people have it on fucking film. There is even recordings of people of various Leftist groups calling for violence and or the deaths of various groups or people they don't like, of them beating up people they don't fucking like. There is also a shitload of photo and video evidence of them vandalizing and destroying the public and private property of individuals who have fucking nothing to do with the issues either.

Please, lay out some evidence, enlighten us.

 

Oh wow, real hot fucking scoop from the 70s, a time where tons of fucking realty companies, and other businesses did this all the time because of legal loopholes. You gonna boycott every single last one of their modern iterations too? Or are you guys scrapping the bottom of the barrel because you had to go back over 40 years just to find anything remotely racist on this guy's business? Who was the candidate who in modern times when she went south actually used a hot sauce comment and southern drawl to try to be relatable to blacks down there?

 

But oh yes, he totally ran a racist fucking platform, he's secretly vehemently racist even though since he started running for office nobody has caught him even saying a racial slur, he hasn't proposed any racist legislation since he's gotten into office or repeals of amendments surrounding them (hell his tax plans helps all people), he totally got the majority of whites to vote for him and for the Alt-Right to be completely on board with him because he ran an ethno-nationalist cause (not, on either count), and he totally didn't get a single voter of any other race or sexuality to vote for him at all because he's such a fucking bigot (not, again).

Guess what the media has brought us today?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-border-wall-comments-mocked_us_5aa8ce09e4b018e2f1c2eaab

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-videos-mosque-vandalism-women-children_us_5aa9a121e4b0600b82ffe195

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378218-trump-likens-those-crossing-border-to-professional-mountain-climbers

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-likens-immigrants-crossing-mexico-border-mountain-climbers-article-1.3872479

 

Meanwhile:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/reactions-stephen-hawkings-death-slammed-ableist-heres-155031194.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5492593/GOP-candidate-calls-Parkland-student-skinhead-lesbian.html

https://mashable.com/2018/03/14/nra-national-student-walkout-tweet-gun-photo/#vlXTZq4negq3

https://www.thedailybeast.com/alt-right-ringleader-richard-spencer-we-attract-the-mentally-ill?source=articles_sum&via=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+thedailybeast%252Farticles+(The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/378369-nra-tweets-during-student-gun-control-protests-ill-control-my

https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/nra-trolls-student-gun-protests-with-defiant-tweet/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nra-ar15-tweet-national-school-walkout_us_5aa985b0e4b0600b82ffaddd

 

Just to name a few.

 

Oh, and did we forget about Trump mocking a disabled reporter?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/07/28/donald-trump-criticized-for-mocking-disabled-reporter/

http://www.politifact.com/colorado/statements/2016/jun/13/priorities-usa-action/pro-clinton-super-pac-ad-trump-mocked-disabled-r/

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.