Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dashofweak

  1. This is an above average walking simulator with some pretty odd elements that would probably appeal to you if you like Ross's work, but don't expect much else.
  2. Just knowing it's from the Valley soundtrack let me find it right away, thanks Ross. To anyone else curious, the track was Vast Veridian by Professor Kliq:
  3. Great episode really enjoyed it, however something that's driving ME a little nuts is that the song for the credits wasn't included and i SWEAR i've heard it before. Anyone know what it is?
  4. well it's been awhile since i've been on this thread and i'm pleased to see not much has changed beyond the topics and more left leaning people.
  5. Also, just a quick look through the list, one entry i'm surprised isn't on there is killing floor 2 specifically because it has: A lot of zombies An evil carnival And to top it all off, heavy metal clown music here are the best tracks for that if you don't want to play the game yourself: https://youtu.be/V_eZAa0uETo https://youtu.be/bT3HKIXXfDg
  6. REVIEW OF RUINATION https://store.steampowered.com/app/1024670/Ruination/ So, this game is $0.99 (right now on sale for $0.89) and to me the question is "was this game worth 2 games of pinball" and honestly i gotta go with no. It's a very basic shooter platformer (so basic there's not even music). And the biggest thing that killed it for me is that the game doesn't work. And i don't mean on a gameplay level or it's not fun. There is fundamental functionality that isn't there. Specifically, you're supposed to be able to pick up weapons and use them. To do so you can press the S or the down arrow key. Neither one worked. I've posted something on the steam discussion for the game and will update this review if it gets fixed. But for now i can't get very far because i'm stuck with a whimpy little pistol From what i have played two things REALLY bug me (though this may just be me), but when you have a game this basic, one or two problems can make or break a game: 1. Intakill spikes. I loath instakill spikes, I don't think there's a reason they should exist in games anymore period. 2. Restarting This is a tough game, by design, so when you die it shouldn't take you long to have another shot. But a very slow (or at least it feels slow because this is a very fast paced game) "mission failed" screen pops up, before kicking you back to the menu. For a game like this there really isn't that much loading. Maybe Hotline Miami ruined me, but when you have a game this small and easy to load, one button press, then immediately back in the action is what I'd personally recommend. I don't even mind a second of black screentime to do the loading, just not what the game currently has. I get that maybe the developer didn't want to do that because you do choose your weapon at the beginning, and maybe you picked up a weapon, died, and wanna use it for this run. Well you can still hit escape to go back to the main menu instantly to do that. Idk, maybe that's just me though, but these two things plus the literally broken game made this more frustrating than challenging. So to use ross's rating: Hazy
  7. It seems to me, those who advocate guns will blame literally anything but the gun for the violence, over the past couple of months, I've heard, school layout, non-transparent backpacks, bullying, and unarmed teachers for school shootings, i haven't heard from the red side about how accessible guns are MAY have contributed to these shootings because it seems to me, once they aknowledge that guns MIGHT have something to do with all these shootings, they'll loose ground. This seems t be the overall Repub, strategy: never play defense, but with shootings it's really noticeable. never are the tools blamed, literally everything else that can be blamed from victims to architecture is blamed, while the GOP doesn't pay attention ( or doesn't care) that easy access to guns MIGHT play a role in the increased amount of shootings.
  8. Alright, a couple of things to unpack here before i make my overall point, i'm going to keep it brief and touch on only a few things, not because you're right, but because I want to get into some other stuff rather than getting bogged down in specifics (again) Ok, first, he rose from 32% to 40%, that's not great. Second, the bills themselves aren't influenced Trump's popularity. You may have not seen it, but down here, people were constantly calling their senators, hosting town hall meetings, and basically yelling/begging their GOP representatives to NOT vote for the "American Health Care Act" and their tax bill. I am not exaggerating when I say the vast majority of America did not like either of these bills. It was obvious that people DIDN'T WANT IT. GOP passed them anyways. Wonder why? It's because these bills massively benefited the rich. Pretty much everyone else gets the short end of the stick AND we're now seeing a huge rise in the deficit that I guarantee you next congress is gonna say "we need to cut MORE programs to fix" rather than taxing the people who already have a disgusting amount of wealth more. So basically the GOP ignored the wants and needs of the people they are supposed to represent in order to further enrich the people who already are exceptionally rich. I did not say that there would be "death squads" forming. You made that up. That concept alone is ridiculous, here's what's far more likely to happen: violence caused by normal people against demonized minorities that's ignored by law enforcement and isn't condemned. Then, because LGBT people, immigrants or "the other" as i said before, have no specific protections, the law can be selectively enforced. Hate crimes have a blind eye turned towards them, and the scariest part is murder and beatings would be perpetrated not by nazi skinheads, but ordinary people. You seem to not either understand or are misrepresenting my argument again. The point i was trying to make was in court, you have to prove someone COMMITTED a crime, you don't have to prove they are innocent of a crime. If it was there other way around, you could accuse literally anyone of say...tax fraud, and if they weren't on top of their taxes and couldn't prove that every single dollar they earned was taxed...well too bad buddy, you're going to jail. The point is that with the J20 trials, the prosecution isn't even TRYING to prove they did a crime, but rather make the argument that just being NEAR a crime is reason enough to arrest and jail you. That is dangerous, because it basically gives law enforcement any excuse to arrest anyone they don't like. Or hell, have a plainclothes police officer infiltrate a protest or group, break window, then that give riot cops reason to just arrest everyone there. The J20 trails shows that the government is willing to silence those they find inconvenient, which goes directly against my right, as an american, to free speech. And this isn't "a company fired me because they don't like what i was saying" psuedo-free speech violation. This is, "The government doesn't like what i'm saying and is using their official power to stop me from expressing my opinions" violation of free speech. If you can't see that...well I don't think we'd ever be able to see each other's world views. No....your hypothetical scenario doesn't at all fit what the protesters were trying to do. Like...at all. A university isn't where white supremacists and neo-nazis LIVE. The counter-protesters aren't saying "Nuremberg trail these assholes" or something. You example shows people with in intent of violence intruding onto residencies and trying to provoke a fight. Counter-protesters show up at specific events in an attempt to either deplatform the speaker OR show symbolically "your ideas aren't acceptable". And you're equating race (which can't be change, isn't chosen, and is immediately visible) to political ideology (which can be changed, is willfully chosen, and isn't immediately visible). It's a false equivalence. I'm honestly tempted to call this a bad-faith argument because it seems like you're making excuses for why someone should hate counter-protesters rather than trying to explain why counter-protesting in of itself is problematic. PLUS, I've have heard stories and seen footage of some counter-protesters PROTECTING neo-nazis from abuse because they don't want to start incidents. You seem to see counter-protesters as people who only want to start fights for no reason or out of spite for the other side. When the reality is much more like...people showing up to drown out the voices of white nationalists and to show that people do not like their ideas. Anyways, onto the idea I actually wanted to talk about. See, here's what I don't get, it seems to me that most people by now realize that it's very rich people who run the show. The mega-rich. Your Mercers and Koch's. What i don't understand is then why some of the same people who realize that there are powerful people controlling everything THEN go onto say it's "multiculturalism" or "cultural marxism" or "the jews" (dogwhistled as globalists of course). What struck me was whenever is ranting about how "the jews" want to control and weaken us and how there's a global conspiracy to weaken and degrade us. How right they would be if they replaced "jews" with "mega-rich". Because, there is just an overwhelming amount of evidence that those who are mega-rich, are not willing to give up ANY amount of wealth. They always want MORE and are absolutely willing to do anything to distract people from blaming them. I'm 95% sure this is why Robert Mercer funds Brietbart for example. Because Brietbart builds barely believable bullshit berating and bullying blacks. and of course "jews" "muslims" and anything else they think they can get away with that ISN'T rich people. Why does the alt-right seem to think there's this massive intricate global conspiracy that there's no evidence of, when the real answer is right in front of them: Wealthy and powerful people using their wealth and power to get more wealth and power at the expense of literally anyone else. There's this massive desire to change the way things are, because clearly people's lives aren't getting better OR are getting worse. But it seems like a large portion of people just picked up the wrong answer.
  9. Alright, broad strokes here because these posts are getting a bit long so apologies if some things get lost or not responded to So, first with Hillary. There were investigations, they've ended, I trust the professional law enforcement more than I trust YouTubers or heavily biased news sites. Plus, no punishment can be as bad as being the candidate who lost to Donald Trump. She's finished, politically. She couldn't win against one of the most repulsive people to come out of american politics in recent memory. Therefore, she's done. Whatever. I like Elizabeth Warren much more anyways. Moving on, I am very aware that there's a difference between liberals and progressives. Honestly, a big part of why i think left-leaning politics isn't as strong as it should be is because we're constantly bickering with ourselves where as the right tends to fall in line and follow the leader....even if the leader is totally unfit to be a leader. He's impulsive, he constantly makes major decisions without consulting anyone. He passed a MASSIVELY unpopular tax bill AND passed a MASSIVELY unpopular health "reform" act. Both of those instances shows right there that he does not give a shit about normal people. Plus, before he was even elected, he bragged, not "was discovered" or "got caught" BRAGGED about sexually assaulting women. THIS is what a leader should be like? Really? Any decent GOP voter should have held up their hands and went "ok, not this one". But they didn't, yet people are still behaving that Trump is the greatest president ever while his administration has multiple empty seats because people keep quitting, he's severely hurt the US's foreign interests, and even with majority control of the house and senate, he's having trouble doing anything. Oh, and Obama had the opposite problem: a majority house and senate that was opposed to him. Because here's the thing, and it ties into the right getting more leeway. I want you to imagine, just for a moment, a world where Obama was so morally bankrupt, that he payed a porn star to have unprotected sex with him. Just...imagine. That would have been Obama's legacy, no one would have been able to stop talking about it. Right-wing websites and commentators Yet here's Trump, still supported by the people who would have been calling for immediate impeachment of our previous president. Still supporting. Still chanting MAGA. Oh, and don't you dare tell me Trump's an LGBT ally, not when he tried to ban Transgendered people from serving AND picked friggen PENSE to be his VP. Pense is an enemy of LGBT people, and even allowing him into his administration shows he doesn't give a half-fried shit about LGBT people. Doesn't matter what he's said, his word is worthless More on showing the right more leeway, you've kinda revealed a pretty deep bias against left-wing demonstrators. Because, you said: Because in case you don't know, and because it's the same in Canada as well as the USA, our judicial system runs under "Innocent until proven guilty". I don't have to guarantee anything, someone has to PROVE that these people indeed committed a violent act. If there was video evidence or photos with positive IDs on the 60 people that are being put on trial, then it would be appropriate to make arrests. But that misses the bigger picture. See, the point of the j20 arrests WASN'T to bring guilty people into justice. It was to silence and discourage further protests. This article (which i implore you to read): https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/j20-one-year-later-what-happened-to-defendants-w515646 pretty much details how people's lives are being turned into a living hell for exercising their right to free speech. Protesting is a necessary and vital part of American (and Canadian) democracy. Arresting 60 people, for being near a window when it was broken during a protest, then when you prosecute, you straight up admit you don't care whether or not they did anything wrong, just that they were near something bad when it happened, is an attempt to silence free speech. As someone who lives in the US, that shit's pretty scary. Will "I" be arrested next for no crime other than daring to speak up against people who have not only helped the rich rob and disenfranchise normal people, but then also had the cast-iron balls to suggest that things aren't getting better because Americans are too lazy? Will my family have their house raided and their privacy violated because one of us tried to exercise our RIGHT to protest? I always see right-winger whining that their speech is being trampled on anytime someones says "use the pronouns I identify with" or that a TV host is fired for saying racist stuff. Yet here's the government, persecuting people for the crime of having differing ideas on how the country should be and all the free speech warriors are dead silent. That shows me that these guys don't care about free speech. They care about THEIR free speech. I bet you anything there are people who cheered that DCPD arrested 200 "commies" but also go on and go about how free speech is under attack "By leftists". I'll give credit where credit is due, you are right that Charlottesville wasn't beneficial to the right. However, the fact that literal Nazis showed up at a rally called "Unite The Right" should of in itself been damaging to the GOP or the right. Fox News should have been running story after story saying, "These people don't represent us" even without the murder. Trump should have gotten on stage and said, "Look, i don't like that these people love me? Ok? They're NOT good people." (or however he'd say it) It took an innocent woman being MURDERED, to make the Rally put a sour taste in people's mouths. Even then, news coverage was trying to equate one side that brought clubs, shields, guns, and killed someone to people who showed up in counter-protest. I guaran-damn-tee you that if Heather Heyer wasn't murdered (which, fun fact, the nazis tried to peddles some BS that she died of natural causes and called her a whore on their websites, so add disrespecting not some historical figure or long dead person, but a recent murder victim to the list of terrible shit they've done) the news and alt-right wouldn't have stopped attacking the people who showed up to counter-protest. Plus, the police asked for the help OF white nationalists to help identify the COUNTER PROTESTERS. That right there seems to spell out, "we have more tolerance of Nazis as long as they don't question our economic policies" to me. Plus, again, it seems to not occur to anyone on the right (including your precious Peterson) that hanging out or agreeing with Fascists, kinda makes people think you're a Fascist sympathizer. Oh, and he did, BTW he had a nice civil conversations with some white nationalists, took some photos, pretty clear he knew exactly what these people were, and hung out with them anyways. If he doesn't want people to think he isn't a white nationalist, maybe, just maybe, don't associate with them. Like i said before, there's a reason Progressives don't hang out or associate with Tankies, because we know those on the right are just itching to call us Commies (for proof see Selous's replies) so we don't hang out with them. Oh, and because their ideas are awful and bad, just like Nazis and White Supremacists. PS if you want to talk about search algorithms, I'd wonder why "yours" keeps directing you to far-right reactionary websites, youtubers, and news stories.
  10. Oh, and since he started the whole thing he got a total of $86,417.95. So like he said in his beg-a-thon video: not quite a millionaire
  11. No clue as to why i did this, but i spent the afternoon graphing out Ross's Earnings as per the donations page. Excluding October 2015 because he got so much that one month it messed with the graph.
  12. Ok, you tried to argue that the colleges you listed trying to get POC only spaces was indicative of a larger problem. I showed that it isn't happening...so I guess we're just going to ignore that huh? Alright. Also, college campuses have kinda always been progressive, like, when has this become news for you? It's like saying retirement homes are full of conservatives...yeah, ok. But i'm not the one claiming assisted living programs are GOP brainwashing institutions. "Cultural Marxism" is the modern re-imagining of a Nazi idea called "Kulturbolschewismus". Just like then, it isn't happening and is basically just used in order to justify some truly terrible beliefs. In other words it's Fascist Propaganda, plain and simple. I'm not saying you said it's happening, i'm saying what it is. And now you've gone from "POC are DEMANDING that colleges give them their own spaces" to "Willful segregation is bad". If i show you an article that explains that this isn't willful segregation, what's the next step down on the ladder? How much are you willing to backtrack and still try to look right? You clearly didn't read the words that I typed if you're claiming that I could only find one argument. And about laws and science. Yes, often they go hand in hand, but not always. Most laws, are in fact, socially constructed. That law that says you need to make sure there are sprinklers in a factory in case of a fire isn't scientifically based, it's socially based. And are you conflating science and statistics? Because those also aren't the same thing. And i'm not arguing against erasing history, erasing history would be burning books, suppressing knowledge, and trying to pretend it never happened. I'm talking about glorifying history. I WOULDN'T want to glorify Celtic slaves, I don't want to glorify the colonization of other nations by Briton, and as someone who's ancestrally German there is absolutely history i don't want to glorify. And I wouldn't want to forget those things happened either. Let me put it this way: I have no problem with people learning the Civil War happened, in fact everyone who lives in america should know about it, the problem is in glorifying the people who fought to keep slavery alive (and before you say state's rights, it was one very very specific state's right they were fighting for). Lastly, about whether the Right has more leeway when it comes to being punished. You seem to be purposefully not engaging with my point. It doesn't matter how they're treated by the media, i'm talking about official government action. Someone was murdered in Charlottesville yet we're not seeing 60 neo-nazis being put on trial for being near a murder when it occurred. But we are seeing 60 left-wing protesters being put on trial for being near a few windows when they were broken. No police officers threw tear gas into the nazi crowd, pepper sprayed them, then arrested 200 of them with no warning. That's what happened to the J20 protesters though. May i remind you that not even one person was even assaulted before the tear gas was deployed? And that's, again, not an exaggeration, the prosecution is trying to make being near a window when it's broken at a demonstration a crime. And you bet your bottom dollar it'll be selectively enforced against anyone who doesn't agree with capitalism. That sends a pretty clear message to me in terms of what the government thinks is acceptable: Nazis are ok, trying to change the economic system will get a boot in your face though. And finally (gonna make a whole section for this) ----------------------------------------------------- Let's talk about Mr. Trump To start with your points: First, there WAS investigations into Hillary's misdeeds, you can say they were over quick because of something something deep state, but in reality it's probably because they looked bad but weren't Illegal: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895 (basically it wasn't just Hillary, a whole bunch of people had to sign off on this) http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37811529 (shady, but not illegal, which isn't great but hey, that's why the investigation was dropped. "Officer! This guy painted a shaved Ren and Stimpy on his garage door!" "Ok, Shady and Sketchy, but not illegal") Basically, both of these boil down to "Looks bad, is shady, but that's about it" And now onto Trump's crimes. So, you do realize that the presidential election WASN'T Trump's first experience with the Russians right? Like, a huge part of selling his building was getting Russian Billionaires to buy units. Now that may just seem like "just business" but these guys basically run Russia. So, he already was well connected among the Russian Elite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-history-of-donald-trumps-business-dealings-in-russia/2017/11/02/fb8eed22-ba9e-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cc1660046811 So, it's not like this Russia thing was pulled out of Comey's ass (who remember was originally in charge of the investigation). So! There's also evidence to suggest that key people within the Trump Campaign during the 2016 election met with Russian Elites during the presidential race. That's what really kicked off the investigation mind you. So, in order to determine if our President committed treason by allowing a foreign power to interfere with US election, a special investigation was started. Now, how long do you think crimes take to prosecute? A month? Two? Six?...well yeah six, for a misdemeanor. Felonies can take 1 and 1/2 to 2 years to prosecute fully, and that's a single person. To gather enough evidence to prove without a doubt that there was collusion in the Trump campaign, while people are trying to cover their tracks and do whatever it takes to not go to prison, is gonna take a bit longer. Now, you'll have to excuse me if i go off on a slight tangent here. Judge Rod J. Rosenstein who was appointed by Trump himself signed a warrant allowing for the FBI to raid the offices and hotel room of Michael Cohen because the FBI was able to present enough evidence of probable Bank Fraud for a warrant. Then, a team that was not part of Mueller's investigation, raided his office and subpoenaed several documents. So, already, this is not Mueller's doing. Mr. Cohen was already in trouble and the raid had nothing to do with the Russia Investigation. And, the FBI has not nor will not violate attorney-client privilege. You know why? Even if they get a recording of some guy saying to his lawyer: "I killed a person, the knife that i used to kill them with along with a lock of the victims hair is in a box hidden at this location. Boy I hope no one finds it because it's got my fingerprints and DNA all over it." Then the FBI finds that box, and the fingerprints + DNA match, but they had to violate attorney-client privilege to get it, guess what happens? Guy walks away scott-free. Any first year law student could tell you that. So, the FBI isn't going to do anything illegal in order to get the case built against Trump, which , btw wasn't even the point of the raid. Plus, how exactly did the FBI violate Attorney-Client privilege? I'll link you some articles explaining just what is and isn't privilege, read those, then tell me what the FBI did wrong: http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-1-what-is-a-privilege/ http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-2-attorneys-and-clients-can-sorta-talk-openly/ http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/11/checking-your-privilege-part-3-marriage-means-you-cant-convict/ http://www.lawyersandliquor.com/2017/12/checking-your-privilege-part-4-forgive-me-father-for-i-have-testified/ I'm like, 100% sure the FBI prosecutors know more about Attorney-Client privilege than you, me, or the talking heads on the TV. As a side note, Trump firing the person who's in charge of investigating him for crimes, would actually be obstruction of justice...like, basically the definition. He'd be trying to obstruct justice from occurring. Nixon tried to pull that crap too and called his investigation a witch-hunt. Also, riddle me this: say you got elected president and had help from the russians to do it and now there's an investigation on exactly that. What would you do? Well, if it was me (and i had the morals of a cold-hearted businessman) I would cast doubt on the agency running the investigation, claim i'm innocent, get the voting base and news station that loves me constantly saying "there was no collusion", so that way i can stop the investigation before they find out exactly what I did. Also, i'm not even gonna touch your comments about the "24/7 Trump hate train" because Fox news ran a report that Obama wanted Dijon mustered on his hot dog (and of course spun it as anti-american). If Trump isn't playing golf (which he does a LOT) he's messing something up; most of the news I see is like, him doing actually really bad stuff, I'd list them out but we'd need a whole new thread and about a week's research. And in case you haven't noticed, the Trump administration is much much worse than the Obama administration in almost every measurable way. Just on a functional level, at least Obama was able to get Ambassadors into a South Korean Embassy. But let's talk PAST what Dirty Donald has done and focus much more on what he MEANS. What is his "raison d'être?" if you will? Why have so many people rallied around a washed-up businessman who represents everything wrong with wealth and power. Well, let's start with his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again". Now, i'm going to assume you're a straight, white, male, I hope you don't mind. But for basically everyone outside of that group, America was never great for you. Native Americans (to start) were routinely massacred, had their land taken away, forcibly relocated, and to this day face massive discrimination. Do i even NEED to explain why being black in america was always bad till like, maybe the 80's? I hope i don't. Women are TO THIS DAY not given things that have been done, shown to work, and are really beneficial to them (like paid maternity leave). And as for LGBT people, well Reagan purposefully didn't put any resources or research into AIDS because he was convinced all gay men would just die of it and that's another problem solved for him. He didn't even commit ANY research until straight people started to get AIDS. So, to "Make America Great Again" is to go backwards, towards white supremacy. Oh, and you don't need to wave swastikas or black suns to be white supremacist. You just gotta think black people belong in the ghetto because they're dangerous, hispanics should be in the fields and learn to speak English because this is AMERICA, complain that people calling a football team "Redskins" racist is just people being to sensative and whine about how PC culture is going overboard whenever a kid's movie with a black main character is brought out. You just gotta "support gay people, but not their right to marry". White supremacy, doesn't mean "genocides and hate crimes", it means keeping white people at the top, and everyone else at the bottom. In other words, the status quo that has existed for a very long time in the US So, his entire slogan was basically saying, "All this progress over our history? Yeah, just get rid of it, we don't want it, who's with me?" So, that's his first "appeal". The second is he's rich. In the USA, that means you're good. If you're rich, that means you were a Randian Superman, pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, didn't take any handouts....except for the money Trump's Daddy (who was part of the KKK may i remind you), gave him. So, this one point is wrong in two senses, the stupid stupid stupid idea of Randian economics being anything more than a pipe dream where those with wealth and power are willing to give up their wealth and power if someone truly better comes along. It's a stupid ideology that ignores very real systemic problems. AND he didn't even meet Randian standards, because he INHERITED all of his wealth. Next is his whole, "Anti-PC Language" thing. And i'm just gonna say this, which SPECIFIC political correctness does he not adhere to? Is he saying that the american flag would be better used as a torch baton? That would be anti-PC. What about that Ned Kelly was a hero and shoulda been born in America, that would be anti-PC. Or what about that you can only get an abortion if you could use the fetus for a paddle-ball? That would be Anti-PC...or wait, does he only make fun of/not care about what black people, LGBT, disabled, hispanic, native american, or women consider "PC"? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Well anyways, Trump also ran as "Anti-establishment", which is hilarious if you ask me. Sure, he's not establishment, he's not a politician, he's just part of the demographic (mega-rich people) that bribe and own the politicians, see? Anti-establishment! It would be establishment to even pretend that the rich don't own this country's body, people, and soul. So in short, Trump's not just a person, he's a symbol for everything wrong with America. But, because people are so fed up with the system (or were already GOP voters who were refreshed by a candidate who didn't try to hide all the racism and homophobia) people voted for him. AND, people hated Hillary so much, because she's basically a symbol OF the establishment and people are sick of it, that he won. Now that he can't do anything right and people are rightfully calling him out on it, his base are in conniption fits because this is the guy they put all their hopes and dreams into! He was the symbol, he was the guy who was gonna drain the swap and make america great again! But, turned out when so many people were saying "this is not the right man for the job", his base didn't listen. Because they didn't want to see Trump the man, they wanted to see Trump the symbol. And every single american (except for the extremely wealth of course) is gonna pay for it. You know, I've heard the accusation that I'm happy Trump's doing so poorly, that i get to say "i told you so" and be RIGHT! Here's the thing: I'm not happy. I got to say "I told you so" the first two months of his presidency, now i'm sick and tired of being sick and tired of Trump's and the GOP's shit. This. Isn't. Normal. And it sure as shit isn't because things are getting better.
  13. Alright, it feels like we're getting bogged down in specifics again. But I wouldn't trust was Sargon says, he's been caught, multiple times, not even reading the sources he quotes. So, whatever sources he quotes could very possibly say something different and he embellishes or doesn't understand what he's talking about. But, here is something to consider, why do the words of a few professors make "Universities" as a concept a left-wing indoctrination facility? When i went to high school i had 2 teachers that were vocally against gay marriage but I don't see high school as some sort of anti-gay mill that brainwashes people through "cultural capitalism" or something. Which, btw, the idea that universities use cultural Marxism to indoctrinate people, is a theory that some people actually believe. Anyways, about POC-only spaces. IF it was happening...that would be bad, but surprise surprise....it isn't. Oberlan: Basically the guy in question said some pretty anti-semetic things on facebook and students didn't like it so they filed complaints, oh, and i couldn't find anything about tenure being moved around https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/12/oberlin-professors-condemn-colleagues-controversial-remarks-others-defend-them Cal state had housing that did only contain POC, but it wasn't because they didn't WANT any white people on there, it was just no white people asked to be a part of that housing group: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/california-today-colleges-segregated-housing.html I can't find anything for that "NYC university", but i'm gonna assume it's a similar situation to Cal state because....my college has something similar, a housing group that focuses on POC issues and is made up only of POC, but it's not that they don't like white people or ask to be exclusively POC, it's that no white student asks to be part of it. It seems that this is overblown hysteria in order to paint colleges as super-pc and white-discriminating in order to push an agenda. Not trying to be overly harsh but, this isn't the first time something like this has come up, i do literally 5 minutes of research and it all comes crashing down. Look, please diversify your sources. I'm reading this Canada Free Press article and....well it's not just heavily weighted towards conservative ideas, they are making some really bad arguments. Like, the first one they give is "it's not scientific"...yeah but, laws against saying racial slurs at the workplace aren't scientific either, they're social. And i would argue that purposefully misgendering someone is like saying a racial slur. Because the intent is the same, it's to say "You are less than me because of who you are as a human being". And that isn't right. No, "in my opinion", it just straight up isn't right to say "You are less of a human because of who you are". Not what they have done, not the choices they make, but because of who they are as a human. Look, if your ancestors weren't slaves, i don't think we can really understand to know what it's like to have statues of people who would want you in chains or beaten if they were alive today. So, I'm gonna say that if POC want those statues down, well, take them down. I wouldn't want to glorify a darker chapter of our history unless there's a damn good reason. You're right, feminism is complex, there are many aspects to it, and not everyone agrees. Refer to my "feminism isn't a monolith" statement. Look, cable is getting it's ass kicked by YouTube, Hulu, and other streaming services, right now. Because it's just a better system. We had that with porn too. The internet made porn watching more private, more affordable, and didn't result in awkward billings. Moving on Look, what is considered "PC culture" is just different groups requesting different things. You used to use the word "colored person" and it was 100% PC. Call native americans, "Indians" or "Redskins", 100% PC. There's a scene where James Bond rapes a woman and it was considered PC. What is and isn't acceptable changes over time. And when it comes to sexualization or foul language, well there are people on the left and right spectrum. Heck, one of the biggest divides is "sex positive" vs. "sex negative" feminism. People are sensitive to sex and language, and for different reasons. But to pin all of the blame on POC and minorities is a different kind of "PC". Because, honestly, people are always behaving like it's censorship, but it isn't, it's criticism. Criticism =/= censorship. And hey, if you can't be funny without being racist or homophobic, maybe you're not that great of a comedian. --------------------------------------------------------- Now that the rebuttal is out of the way, here's an interesting idea: Does the Right have more "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to their actions. To give an example: There were arrests made in Charlottesville, but those arrested did things like murder people, shoot weapons at people, and beat people. Windows were broken, people were hurt, and it's obvious reading through the report of Charlottesville that the neo-nazis were there to fight, they didn't WANT it to go well. So what happened? Well, police gave the order to disperse, declared it an unlawful gathering, and in general gave the white nationalists warning and opportunity to leave. Now, people march down streets of DC, it was scheduled, and it was peaceful save a few broken windows. Then, without warning, without orders to disperse (which is police policy at the time), started throwing tear gas, pepper spraying, and arresting people. A few hours later, a limo was set on fire. 200 people were not only arrested, but had charges pressed against them. 60 are still facing charges. Were 200 windows broken? Is there video evidence of 60 people breaking windows? NOPE! Prosecution said that merely being in the march and being part of the crowd that broke windows, means you're guilty of their crimes, and should be punished. So let me be clear here, a march that had minor property damage is being punished as a group more than the neo-nazis who wave flags with coded symbols and literally killed someone. Is there some sort of free-pass for people on the right? Are their crimes just tolerated more than people on the left? Like, another example: Hillary's goddamn emails, where she used a private server to conduct government business. Fox News and Breitbart to this day won't shut up about it. So, we're all in agreement that government officials using private email servers to conduct government business is a bad thing right? Guess what Trump got caught doing while in the white house? Using a private email server. Not just one, but multiple ones throughout the Trump Administration. I'm not seeing a ton of people outraged over this, partly because Trump is so terrible that he can't go a week without doing something inane. But also because, well, it seems from my perspective that people on the right are under far less scrutiny than those one the left.
  14. The UK government seems to be pretty heavy handed with their obscenity laws, like the one time this guy got put on trial for a porno of "bestiality and genital mutilation" But he was released when the "tiger" that someone was having sex with spoke (because it was actually just a guy in a suit) and the "genital mutilation" turned out to be hot dogs and ketchup. http://www.keepcalmtalklaw.co.uk/the-state-of-extreme-pornography-law-in-the-uk/
  15. I haven't seen a lot of what you're describing here. The closest thing i've seen is someone joking that it's Sith Lords (specifically NRA types) who say "we need guns to fight against an authoritarian government" and then someone decided to do just that (in their mind anyways). Overall, I'd ask where you're getting these news sources and if nuance was dropped because of the source's bias. Like, for example, let's take a hypothetical of...BLM leaders have a meeting at some cafe that's supposed to be "Black Only". Then that could be spun by an unscrupulous news sources as "BLM Leaders Demand Black Only Cafes". Idk, something to think about. I will admit i've been guilty of not checking my news a few times and it does take practice. Again, I'd ask about where you're getting your news source here. Because the biggest criticism I could find of the bill came from the Daily Caller (A very very right-wing news orginization) that basically hammered the free speech aspect. The only way i could see someone making the "genocide" argument is extending the enormously high murder rate Trans people are subjected to. It is hard to get exact numbers considering the FBI or any other law enforcement doesn't keep track of those kinds of statistics. But trans people are much more likely to experience violence against them, and almost always (except for like, boxers or something) where there's more violence, there's more murders. The pronoun thing could be read as trying to protect a minority group from harassment. Like, for example, it's illegal to use racial slurs in the workplace, this is just an extension of those laws. Now, there are two sides, I will admit trying to strive for exactly 50/50 is stupid and i'd much prefer a functional government. However, one thing to consider is democratic leaders are more often than not reflections on who have power within society. Generally speaking, a woman is going to look out for women more than a man will look out for women. Not always, and party ideology more often than not determine if a person's policies will be beneficial to any given group. Another thing to keep in mind is not everyone votes in their best interest. It's ideology over practicality, which is why you see a lot of people in poor southern states vote Sith Lord, even though it would be in their interest to vote democratic if they want to see more investment in their communities. Ok, first here i want to talk about Identity politics and representation. Because it's actually pretty simple: it may not matter TO YOU. But it really could mean the world to someone else. Just to out myself here, I'm LGBTQ, and seeing representation that's realistic to my life experience is always really important to me. I'm not gonna demand that every movie have a shoed-in poorly thought out gay or bisexual character (because whenever i see lazy LGBTQ writing it makes my eyes roll), but when it's done right, well, and doesn't demonize LGBTQ people (there are far too many movies and games where the villain is queer-coded) well it's really relieving. It honestly makes a world of difference. It's not that i can't relate to a character if they aren't LGBTQ, it's that having an LGBTQ character, or hell movie, makes it all the more special. Anyways, another thing to consider is this: You aren't responsible for the sins of the past, but are you responsible for their lingering effects? For example, racist housing policy in the 1910s-1960s basically made black ghettos as we know them today. Due to a bunch of complex reasons that this video delves into: racist housing policy in the past negatively effects black people in urban areas. Do people of today have a responsibility to fix problems that were created in the past? Not feel guilt, because honestly that doesn't do anything, but put time and effort into fixing problems that have an unjust origin. I would say yes, you may say no. I leave that to you. I am very glad we can agree on this I don't think that "The Left" revived race issues. I think they were always there, but not talked about because it makes people uncomfortable. What we're seeing nowadays is "Enough is enough". Let me put it this way, in 1992 a black man named Rodney King was savagely beaten by police. It was unjustified force, there's no way around it. They beat him for 15 minutes. After the 4 main cops who beat him were found not guilty, riots broke out all over the city. This was because LAPD has a history of police brutality against black people. So, it was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. I don't think that racial tensions disappeared and then resurfaced because people on the left brought it up. I think that the tensions always existed and those who want to see racial problems dealt with, see people on the left to be more open and willing to fix those problems than those on the right. I forget who said it but, "Statues are how we glorify history, museums are how we remember it". So i absolutely agree that if people don't want them in public areas they should be put somewhere else. The thing is though, that confederate statues were never about history, it was basically a very subtle message to black people to "sit down and shut up". Which i know may seem like a stretch, but consider the amount of confederate monuments put up, during the civil rights movement: http://theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construction-confederate-monuments-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras So, you have to look a bit deeper than skin-deep on some of these things. Something that's interesting to point out is that this is a complex issue, but feminism isn't "men vs. women" it's more about dismantling patriarchy, which is the idea that men should behave a certain way and women should behave a certain way. This negatively effects men to, just to give an example, I hear MRA types try to argue that because women get custody of their children more often than men it means that men are disadvantaged. But the thing is, that's actually a problem feminist already know about and want to change. Because it's the by-product of this idea that "women should raise the kids and men should be the breadwinner". That's just one example but there's a multitude of others. Ok, so first, porn disappeared from cable BECAUSE of the internet, not because of PC culture. Like, cable was just more expensive and more restrictive when it came to porn than the internet. But anways, I would argue that PC culture is making MORE free speech than taking away. Here me out, I know it sounds crazy but consider what you could and couldn't show in a movie during the 1950s and 1960s. Interacial couples, any kind of nudity, and many would be refused classification if there was a single swear. Now, even pg-13 movies get 1 "fuck". And next to that, what is and isn't "Politically Correct" changes. For example, when most people complain about PC culture they are talking about people on the left. But people on the right have REALLY dictated what is and isn't acceptable too. To give two examples: the first is a show on Disney Channel "Good Luck Charlie" where there was one episode that there was a lesbian couple who brought their kid over to play with "charlie". That was is, a lesbian couple showed up, dropped off their kid, and that was that. Well the show was pulled by Disney after hundreds of angry letters came in from conservatives who were furious that Disney DARED...show two women in a happy marriage together. The second one is Far Cry 5, and I think political correctness ruined the story of that game. Because they COULD have had a really cool story about how far-right (hell, make them basically neo-nazis if you wanna avoid offending people) societies can be really brainwashy and xenophobic not just to people of a different race, but basically to anywho who wasn't in their group. But, they went with some magical brainwashing drug that makes everything like...really bland story wise. The people who made Far Cry 5 didn't want to lose sales from people, so they removed what could have been really artistically cool. Hence, political correctness ruined the story and made it much more bland. Well, that's my direct response. I want to bring something new up a bit later.
  16. Wow, Sel, look, you've given the game away when you linked to the "red pill movie" which, btw costs $4 to watch so that means that you've PAID MONEY to watch it. I didn't pay $4 because i didn't want to give money to whoever made it but I digress. I AM going to say you're alt-right, because remember way back a week or two ago I said i call it like i see it...well I see you repeating the alt-right's talking points, linking to alt-right youtube personalities, and everything you've said really points to you being alt-right. And the alt-right is a white supremacist group, btw, so yeah, I'm also calling you a white supremacist. This isn't out of nowhere either and i'm not using it as an insult, I'm more just stating a fact. Everything you've said on this thread points to the idea that you are a member of the alt-right. I should just stop there really, the alt-right as a group really doesn't deserve any recognition. But i'm gonna keep going because, well, white supremacy is on the rise but it's a losing ideology. So, it may take 5 years or 25 but the overton window will shift back and white nationalists are going to be pushed back into the fringe but here's what i don't think a lot of the alt-right get. Leaving aside things like...morality, respect, and in general not making "be an asshole" your primary political ideology, there's a very practical reason why you shouldn't follow these hateful ideas that make up white supremacy : you're making yourself look bad. It's sorta a self-defeating ideology when you think about it: "We want to be respected and uncensored" well, walking around with lit torches shouting "Jews will not replace us" isn't helping your case that you should be treated like anything less than dangerous. Constantly banging on about free speech, then using that free speech to shout racial slurs and try to provoke people doesn't make your point a good one. The alt-right's biggest fear is that white people are being mistreated and prosecuted, well maybe don't act like dangerous hateful people. The fact that at one of your rallies (charlottesville) someone from the other side was murdered by an attendee, should have made everyone in the alt-right go "wow, this isn't who we are." But...it is, because instead of distancing yourself from the murder, the alt-right attacked the victim, saying that she was a "useless woman". This really doesn't sell your case. If you have such little empathy for people that you can't accept that BLM has a point about black people being disproportional targeted by police or that people are tired of being told "You're the real racists" and then are called racial slurs by the same people, at least try to understand that by actively going out of your way to piss off people who aren't white, you're making it worse for yourself. I think white nationalism is bad because of all the murders, hate crimes, and inequality it creates. But if you REALLY don't care about people who don't look like you, at least recognize that the alt-right isn't normal, and it's a losing ideology. At the MINIMUM, think about the long-term selfishly, rather than the short term fears and prejudices. You're tired of feeling like the bad guy, that white people are demonized, well maybe stop doing and saying terrible things. The alt-right IS going to lose, it's been shown time and time again that hate is losing, maybe jump on board with the rest of us.
  17. oh my god, i've had about a 1/4 of a bottle of rum, once i'm sober i got a LOT to say about this. But right now i'll just say this: I didn't expect you to actually link to Paul Joseph Watson. I thought he was so fringe and stupid that even right wingers made fun of him...oh boy. I got a LOT to say, hell there are multiple videos responding to just the FIRST link. You've kinda shown your hand here Sel, not only do you confirm all of my suspicions about you being part of the murder-cult of the alt-right, but really? PJW???? You could do SO much better than this prick. Wow, even drunk off of link, an ungodly amount of booze (had to make myself another drink) i can think of many arguments to contradict what you have posted. Look, M8, you can do better than this, rise up against the people who are really oppressing you: the super-rich. They want to keep you angry and distracted, just, cast off this terrible alt-right ideology and join everyone else in realizing that it's not "The libs" or "the jews" or "the muslims" who are ruining everything. It's the people with all the power and money who use that power and money to get more power and money. Anywho, I'm gonna sober up and post a more measured, rational, and evidence based response soon, see you then.
  18. oooh, so you're a male feminist? Better watch out ladies, he might be using the "Sneaky" technique to get women, like the correlation of most beta male feminists these days. Oh shoot! I didn't realize Sel, here i thought you were an alt-righter but I've been had! You're actually a man-hating radical feminist! Wow! I honestly never would have thought. I mean, I'm just assuming you're a man-hating, radical, buzzword, third-wave, feminist considering that I only really tend to hear about how men are infiltrating feminism so that way they can get with girls from the radest of the radical feminists. Huh, I mean, you'd have to hate men quite a lot to think that the only reason someone would agree with feminist ideas is because we're just endlessly horny fuck machines that want to put the peener into the warm thing. Like, that's such a low view on men. It's kinda shocking to be honest.
  19. So, I want to discuss the deeper stuff, Sel and Bull you don't need to be a part of this, you seem uninterested in doing anything except 1-3 line responses anyways. I have much more hope for knight here. Anyways, I specifically want to talk about this idea that "straight white men" are under attack by BLM, feminism, and seemingly everything on the left, because this is where you and I (and i bet a lot of other people) have a different world view than you on. See, I don't think it that straight white guys are under attack or something along those lines. Let me ask you this, does: "The left attack straight, white, cis, guys and tries to shame them just for being white. They use PC culture to try to suppress what straight white men want and try to make them out as the bad guys." ring true? If it does, I totally can understand why but I think that's not necessarily the case. See, it's not "Straight white guys" that Social Justice types hate, it's the established power structures built within society, and not all of them are laws. Many of these are either social or while TECHNICALLY dismantled, their echos are still felt today. And a lot of these power structures where built by straight, white, cis, men in order to benefit straight white cis men while leaving others out of the that power structure. What we're seeing now is attack on this existing power structure, not the idea of being a white guy or straightness or being cisgendered. And this dismantling is being done because POC, LGBTQ people, and in general minority groups are getting power, not more power, just more of a voice and ability to change situations that are detrimental to them. But I will admit that POC and LGBTQ have something that seemingly straight, white, cis guys don't: and that's a narrative, which is pretty powerful. Usually, straight, white, cis, guy's narrative was more like the "default", every hero that was written or any tale told was for the benefit of straight, white, cis, men, because they were the ones who had all the power. But now, there really isn't a "default" and that's good in my opinion, but at the same time POC and LGBTQ people have a powerful narrative, a good-feeling narrative: overcoming oppression. And because straight, white, cis, men were usually the oppressors, we can be made out to be the villain a lot. Straight, white, cis, men really don't have a narrative anymore. That's why it can feel like straight, white, cis, men are being "attacked" but I really don't think they are, and in fact, I think it leaves us open to a new narrative: overcoming difference and fighting back against the authority that really has been ruining everyone's lives up to now. I'm going to post a link to a site: https://www.redneckrevolt.org/about This is a group of people who found that narrative. Rather than uniting by race, which in a world with more travel and communication than any point in history is detrimental, they're uniting by class. This is a narrative i'm fully behind, because stories ARE important. And seeing that in most of them people who you're supposed to identify with are villains, can make it feel like the world's out to get you. But it isn't, more people want equal rights, and that's a good thing. So when they attack these systems of oppression, they aren't attacking you, but a bad legacy that you don't need to hold on to. While we can learn from the past, often times the most important lessons are what NOT to do. Plus, I don't think "the west" or "western values" are eroding from "PC culture". When i think of "western values" I think of things like free speech and feminism. Feminism IS a western idea, and a pretty good one too. I don't think of white people as western, I think of the attitudes people have, how one goes about making their mark on the world and just living as a person. There's a lot of specifics one could get into on this thread, but when we all see the world in a different way, when all have different but rational (sometimes) response to any given piece of information. And specific political things just have way too much baggage to do anything but either preach to the choir with people that you do agree with or butt heads with people that you don't. Especially when you get to specific people.
  20. Boy, this is some great good faith argumentation right here. But besides that, let me just say 1. 20k gun laws really don't mean much on their own. I mean, the content matters more than the amount doesn't it? 2. A question you need to ask yourself is "does having guns make myself safer"? because here's the thing, it may not. Having access to a tool designed to create death quickly may not be the best thing if you aren't in a good state of mind. This could range from suicidal thoughts to anger at a domestic partner 3. If you're referring to WWII i can only assume that you mean, like, if the jews had weapons maybe the holocaust could have been prevented? I mean, if you mean something else let me know but here's the thing. The jews weren't killed because they didn't have guns, in fact, the warsaw uprising kinda proves that. There were literally tens of thousands of jewish individuals who resisted and fought back, which did prevent the holocaust from continuing (momentarily) in warsaw, but A. they killed maybe 700 soldiers, while most of them were murdered by the nazi regime despite their resistance. And B. this is the larger argument of "I need guns so i can shoot at an authoritarian regime" right? Well here's a question: Does that mean you're willing to kill cops? Are you willing to take the life of law enforcement and soldiers? Anyway, you really aren't doing much except acting like a total embarrassment to people who are actually really thoughtful about guns. I should know, my aunt and her husband own 20+ guns and I got to shoot a semi-automatic rifle while visiting. and when talking to them about gun control they're far more receptive and calm than you are. You're not making a good case, just weakening your position. Maybe don't be so reactionary next time.
  21. Not surprising at all, though this result makes me question whether or not "libertarian" is the opposite of "authoritarian" since i have fundamental disagreements with libertarian ideas. And let's keep discussion of other political ideas out of this thread, that's what the rest of this forum is for
  22. "You just call everyone you don't like a Nazi" "Boy, get a load of this COMMUNIST. He's a commie, totally, even though he hasn't mentioned anything about collective work, seizing the means of production, how everyone is equal in many regards, and the nationalization of every service, he's totally a commie, because i say so. Don't listen to him, he's a commie. Commie, Commie, Commie, Commie, if I say it enough times that makes it true right? That's how it works?" Look, I've already kinda given up any hope of you actually reading and using a small amount of rational thought. But I didn't expect you to be a complete reactionary. Maybe I DO have too much faith in the common person.
  23. What are you smoking? So you disagree with this idea? That people arming themselves is because they're afraid of being hurt? May I ask why?
  24. So here's the thing about Fascist in the modern day, in the past, and in the United States specifically (lest we forget the purpose of this thread). It almost seems like Fascism wasn't around very much for a lot of the US's history after WWII. Before then, there were actually fascist sympathizing factions within the US, heck some people went to help fight in the Spanish War while some companies sent materials. After WWII, there was no way someone would come out as a Fascist or peddle Fascist ideas, they'd get dogpiled to the ground, after all we just won a war against it. In fact, I would actually argue that basically any political stance that deviated from the norm (in terms of economics) was suppressed during this time. Socialist and far-right alike. But only now are we really seeing the resurgence of far-leaning groups, especially on the right. Why is that? Well, I would argue that right now in the US, there's this prevailing feeling of "something is wrong". The American Dream is largely dead to most people, we have an opioid crisis on our hands, nothing seems to be getting better, and people are becoming more and more anti-establishment. Now, this feeling isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be channeled into unhealthy ways. I would argue that far-right/alt-right groups are one of the worst ways TO channel this feeling. Because here's the thing, every time i try to come to understand the far-right it boils down into this: "deviants" whether that's LGBT people, immigrants, socialists, or whatever, are ruining everything and 'we' need to take steps to stop the damage. Depending on who you ask, the 'deviants' change and so do the solutions to 'stopping the damage'. Everything else is kinda secondary if i'm being honest. For example, I've seen "blue lives matter" everywhere in the town i'm in, a direct response to black lives matter. But, more than once i've seen someone who shouts "blue lives matter" attack the same police chief for saying that gun control really is the best way to reduce gun violence, not "good guy with a gun". How does that relate to "deviant"? Honestly, it's buried beneath a lot of seemingly legit reasons, but overall, I find people want guns because they're scared of "deviants". They're worried a Muslim person will suicide bomb a place they frequent, and a gun makes them feel safe. They're scared of black people, because they're "thugs", better keep a gun on me at all times so i can shoot the next "thug" who'll try to rob me. It's a byproduct of this fear of the "deviant". Fascism takes this fear to the next level. See, the ultimate goal of fascism ISN'T an "ethnostate" not really. It's the installment of a strong leader who'll take absolute power, and use it to suppress the "deviant". If you look from dictators in African countries, to Mussolini and Hitler, there's this strong desire to be rid of "deviants". But who those are depends on fascist leader to fascist leader. For Hitler it was Jews, Gypses, homosexuals, and Communists. They were all the people who "deviated" from what it was to be "german", at least if you listened to what Hitler says. What really makes these far-right groups, who have overtly white supremacist ideas, Fascist is that hatred of "deviants". That's the connecting thread that you really don't see on far-left groups. I would argue that the biggest divide between those on the left and those on the right are how much one trusts the common person. Those on the right seem to think that people can't be trusted to do the right thing. This is why the GOP is so against Pot, they're worried people will act out of control, be lazy, be untrustworthy, and society as a whole will suffer because now that it's legal, all these people who can't be trusted will now make a whole bunch of bad choices. This kinda also leads back into guns, "Because people can't be trusted, and me or my family could be attacked at any second, I need to have firearms so i can protect myself and my loved ones." is the message I honestly keep hearing from people who are unwilling to even think about stricter gun laws. So what's the solution? Well, if you go far enough right, it's to entrust a lot of power to "powerful people" who'll keep the average people in line. Personally, I think this is why those on the right are for less taxes and idealize Randian super-men. Because those who get power, deserve power, and it's unfair of the common person, who can't be trusted, to take that power away from them. Those one the right also tend to do REALLY WELL when there's chaos or disorder. The more chaos there is the more people desire order. They more people you see hurt, the more willing you are to give up rights and power to someone who promises to make the violence stop, especially if you're convinced that the violence is caused by "Immigrants, Thugs, and (in a word) 'Deviants'" I find people on the left are far more trusting of the common person. I mean, communism as an IDEA is how people will only take what they need, and work, and provide for a community because everyone is so nice that they'll just do that. Those on the left are far more excepting of those who are "deviant" than those on the right. Pot isn't a huge deal because people on the left are more likely to think, "yeah, it's alright if they get high, doesn't hurt anyone." Being wary of people in power is much more common on the left i think. Because even if you trust the common person, there's no denying that people will hurt normal people in order to get ahead. And those who have power, have more ability to hurt or hold back others for personal or communal gain. The things people on the left tend to fear are people who are powerful, not those who are powerless. This is sorta why i don't think of Stalin as a left-leaning person. Sure, he was part of a movement that vilified people in power, because they have the capacity to hurt more people. But once they were overthrown, he may as well have just been a replacement for the people he disposed of. He drummed up fear of "capitalists" and "fascists" to keep people in line and to justify more and more power being given to him. Mao is a different story, basically one of an opportunistic snake who swooped in when it was convenient for him to do so but hey-ho. The point is, yes, we should keep on the watch for someone who attacks "capitalists" and starts talking about executions of people who are on the top or who helped those on top. But we also gotta watch out that the fear of "the other" doesn't lead us to making really bad choices. As a country, we need to be accepting enough of "deviants" that we are so scared of our fellow human beings, that we give power to someone who doesn't deserve it. Being afraid that violence could happen at any moment and we need to be armed so we can protect ourselves, doesn't actually make anyone safer, just more able to hurt others. So, a big question to ask yourself when it comes to figuring out your true politics is "how much do i trust ordinary people, especially people i don't like." Because personally, even though I don't like a lot of conservative ideas or like things conservatives say, I don't think they're inherently evil. I think that a lot of what seems irrational, is just fear coming to the forefront and being expressed as hate and cruelty. I think your average conservative is afraid, deep down, scared that people they know and love will be hurt by someone who could have been stopped, "If only the Queer was told that how they behave wasn't acceptable, if only those damn immigrants didn't come to my country and ruin it, if only one of the teachers had a gun, none of this would be happening." I honestly feel a little bad for your average Fox News watcher or Brietbart reader, constantly hearing about how terrible the world is, how "Deviants" are ruining everything, and the people who let the deviants run wild are now stirring up LIES against the one guy who've we put all our hopes and dreams into because he's the only one that understands them. And for people who are under 30, jeese no wonder the alt-right has a growing following. "Things are bad" is such a strong feeling for people in that demographic. We have so many problems it would take all night to list them out. The problem is, for many of these people, they were given a second part to that feeling, "and it's the 'deviants' fault." To many on the alt-right, it's the Tumblr SJWs who want immigrants from terrorist countries and who HATE white straight men that are ruining everything. It's the people that they support that are ruining everything, afterall, they LOVE Obama and things are STILL shit!...but what if my views are too extreme and I don't know it? Well don't worry, there are people like Lauren Southerland and Sargon of Akkad who describe themselves as "Centrists" or "Moderates" and they're saying the same thing! Meanwhile, to those on the left, what we see is people who could wipe out poverty if they REALLY REALLY wanted to, sit on a mountain of cash, buying politicians, not giving a single thought to your average person if not look at them in disdain, and conclude that it's not "the others" who are the problem, it's the people who are sucking the wealth out of everything and everyone who are the problem....but first, we have to deal with this group of people who are saying the same things we heard from Fascist leaders in the 1930s because if their ideas take hold, then people I know and love will die.
  25. Look, when it's people peddling similar lies, using similar tactics, apologizing and downplaying the holocaust, and overall behaving in a very fascist way, I'm calling them as i see it. And I don't agree with libertarians, I have family who voted for Trump, and guess what I don't call or think of them as? Nazis. Because I don't think they are. Hell, I'm not even going to call Trump a Nazi, because he isn't. But he does have white supremacist supporters. Anyways, moving on to Templar Knight and I gotta say I can't believe it took me this long to realize this. See, the people that you're talking about, these far-left genocide deniers who look up to Mao and Stalin, who either try to say their mass murders never happened and unironically want that to happen already have a name within the leftist community. They're called "Tankies" That's the word we've been skirting around this entire time, it really does make sense why you have so many objections to the "far-left" if what you're imagining are Tankies. It's been so long since I thought about Tankies, that's why it took until now to start talking about them. You want to know why I ignored them? Because their ideas are really really really bad. Like, I had already encountered people like this and took one look at them and said, "Wow, I gotta distance myself from these people." and pretty much have ever since I've gotten into left-wing politics. Because their ideas really ARE bad. Just to give an example: they think that a lot of what Stalin and Mao did were "anti-imperialism" even though they intruded onto other's borders and took their resources for themselves or meddled in other countries in order to secure their own power. And that's just one example. See, most serious thinkers on the left have already encountered people like this, the difference is that we don't give Tankies a platform. The people I watch don't have Tankies coming onto their channels and talking about how great Mao, Jung-Un, and Stalin were. The difference between Tankies and the Alt-right is that for one, a Tankie will let you know everything they're about, don't worry about that, they'll trip over themselves to tell you about what they are and what they want. Where as fascists seem to want to slip by undetected, and if possible turn YOU into a fascist without ever having you think "Wait, am I a fascist?" Look, let me put it this way: If at some point, there was a growing movement of people online calling themselves say...."Post-Left", who actively attempted to recruit people to their cause using coded language designed to make their ideas more acceptable to the mainstream, I would not stand for the either. If i heard reports of this "post-left" movement trying to court angry teenagers and kids (you know, like Richard Spenser straight up admitted to) and there were "Post-Left" leaders who stirred up violence against people they didn't like. If when asked if they're a communist they say, "Oh, i'm not a Commie, I'm actually a anti-capitalist economic realist" or something like that, if they allude to, but never directly stating what they want, and when their chat records are leaked there's jokes and talks about killing people. I would be worried, and I would be fighting back against them. If there was a "Post-Left" rally, where the night before they paraded through a college campus holding torches and chanting "You will not control us" and the very next day a member of this "post-left" movement ran their car into a crowd of people and some libertarian woman was killed, who attended because she was worried about the country slipping into a violent communist uprising. Then, later, "post-left" websites were talking about what a capitalist whore this woman was and it was a good thing that she was killed. Then in the months following the election of a candidate they they endorsed there was a spike in violence against people this group demonized. If there were stories, week after week, about how a radicalized "post-left" member was planting bombs intended to kill people, that there were multiple mass shootings carried out by "post-left" members, and there were "anticoms" fighting back but any time they did anything they had their actions overly-exaggerated and were made out to be equal if not a greater threat. Then, I read news articles about how the FBI warned that far-left extremists were attempting to infiltrate both the military and the police: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement I would be worried too! The problem here, is that none of that is happening on the left. The Alt-right however, ARE doing things like that. We ARE seeing people who are members/supporters of the alt-right movement murdering people. There ARE leaked chat rooms of alt-right members joking about how they're gonna build gas chambers. We ARE seeing a spike in violence against Jewish and Black individuals. This is why i'm so vocal about the Alt-right. It's not because I don't hate Tankies and think their ideology is toxic and terrible (I do). It's that all Tankies do is sit on their websites and chat boards and not DO anything. The alt-right very much ARE trying to do something. They're trying to make white supremacists views more acceptable into the mainstream (as Spenser himself as directly said). And they've committed some very violent acts. It's not my left-leaning politics that make the alt-right's ideas seem bad to me. It's that they're violent ideas that WILL get a lot of innocent people killed and already have. So, to directly talk about your listed points 1. If the "Alt-right of the left are Tankies", which is what I've pretty much argued above me, then are we seeing "Anti-Imperialists" going to college campuses? UHhhh, no. And in fact, you say it's the professors who teach radical left-wing ideas and I've seen the opposite. I've seen a self-identified communist student argue with a professor about Marxism. He was getting mad because the professor WASN'T agreeing with him. College isn't a left-wing indoctrination facility, if anything, it's where radical-lefts go to find out their ideas are too extreme and not applicable in the real world. Who would have thought centers for education would temper extremist ideas? And about pepe: Look, when it started, I actually REALLY LIKED pepe. I thought it was a cool little cartoon frog, my old phone is filled with photos of those "Extra rare" pepes that people made. It was great! Then, one day, a friend told me, "Hey, you probably shouldn't do pepe memes anymore, they're being co-opted by the alt-right," and I could't believe it. Though, after he said that, I noticed online i was seeing less and less "rare pepes" and more and more people arguing fascist ideas with pepe avatars...or using that Jewish caricature you see on /pol all the time. And that's when i realized...yeah, pepe had been co-opted by the far-right in order to try to hide their true intentions. Fascists RUINED pepe for me. So i was wrong to call it an INHERENTLY white supremacists symbol, but he's been co-opted by these alt-right people that...well he's a symbol for him. You say walmart isn't nazi-sypathizers because they've served nazis before and you're right but consider this: Say, that you notice in walmarts a bunch of people with swastika tattoos and shaved heads started shopping their. Then, you notice after awhile, these are the only type of people who shop at walmart, and people like this start saying "Walmart is the store of the alt-right!" well...then I would be saying the same thing. And that's all i'm gonna say about pepe. 2. These are the Tankies i was talking about. Anyone serious on the left stays far far far far away from Tankies because guess what. The vast majority of people on the left do NOT agree with Tankies, and don't want others to THINK that they do by association. That's one thing I never understood. If Contrapoints or Hbomberguy or whomever had a Tankie on their channel to talk about stuff, I'd never hear the end about how my fav youtubers are genocide apologists and are trying to replace grocery stores with bread lines. Yet, people in the center or the right don't seem to grasp that having alt-right people on your show a lot, repeating a lot of their talking points, and in general acting friendly towards them while hostile towards anyone on the left, kinda sorta makes people think you're an alt-right sympathizer (that is, to have SYMPATHIES for them) 3. Yes, Globalist is heavily hinted slanted towards antisemitism. Especially if someone says "Globalist Elites" or that there's a "Globalist Cabal" because that's used as a dog whistle by fascists to say "Jewish Elites" or that there's a "Secret Jewish Cabal" that controls the world. I understand people who are opposed to the movement of labor into cheaper labor markets (an actual "globalist" tactic). But more often than not, I do see people who say "Globalist Elites" and then go onto say something that's so thinly disguised as antisemitism that if you were to weir the veil everyone could see your nipples. 4. About this, there's a lot to unpack here but i do want to say two very important things. First, is that a lot of the time "the left" seem to only be against things because so often it's viewed as "damage control". Like, a lot of leftists I know are against the expansion of the prison population and the war on drugs, but that was because both of those things didn't USED to be a problem. It's things that would need to be fixed before anything positive can be built from it. And here's something to think about, The Right are only rebels if you think of the Democrats as the authority on leftist politics, because here's the thing i'm guessing you won't believe but: they aren't. Democrats are pretty in the middle about a lot of things. I would argue there's no equivalent to Labor in the US. There's no real leftist political platform in the US. Just a centrist platform that looks left leaning because their opponents have shifted their party so far right. And "The Right" I would also say is conservative...and conservatives are anti-rebellion. There's nothing really rebellious about many of the right's ideas. It all seems like old ideas given a modern makeover and the only reason there's any semblance of being anti-authority is because there was a Democrat in the office last time. The real rebels I would argue are the people who go up against the Mega-Rich, but that's a different, far more interesting topic. And about YouTube and guns. A. They're a business, they've noticed a LOT of people dropping the NRA because of this string of school shootings, therefore they don't want guns to be what they're known for. Plus, youtube hasn't been a good friend to leftists either, multiple times people have discovered if they merely have the word "Gay" or "Queer" or "Trans" in the title of their video, it becomes automatically demonized. And Count Dankula...so, governments who use their power to unfairly target people that they don't like purely because of what they say is bad right? Well what about Desiree Fairooz who was not just once, but twice brought before a court because she laughed at Jeff Sessions? Can you agree that she shouldn't have had that happen to her? Plus, she didn't get in trouble for doing something intentionally and repeatedly for an "edgy joke", she just laughed at something someone said because she thought they were bullshitting her. Facebook and Twitter have been going after left-leaning content too. It seems to me that Google, Twitter, and Facebook are trying to remove political ideas on the fringe, in order to keep more people on their sites. Even if the election has shifted the Overton window to the point where fascists ideas are seen as "unreasonable" rather than "unthinkable". It seems both of us think that our ideas are under attack. You want to talk about media bias, we could talk about how the BBC, one of the news outlets who're commonly praised for being neutral, photoshopped Jeremy Corybn to have a more Russian hat and then put him in front of the Kremlin. 5. Already talked about Tankies, and how I think their ideas were so bad, I didn't even entertain them. I put them out of my mind for years because their ideas are SO BAD. So, I'm aware who the extremists ARE on my side and have already dealt with how i think about them. 6. Ok, so MSM is predominately leftist. Here's the thing though YouTube and MSM are NOT equivalent. The entire point of YouTube is that anyone can get on and make videos, where as MSM is a professionally run news source more like...FOX. If there was a flood of leftist content on YouTube I wouldn't be trying to make the arguement that FOX is the right's youtube...because they aren't. Youtube is where average people go to talk about their ideas and even if the amount of people making content is the same, youtube can have bias in it too. What i'm trying to point out is that there's a lot more popular far-right content that appears on youtube than even slightly left of center. Some anecdotal stuff, I usually have a hard time finding leftist content on YouTube, usually i don't find anyone new unless they're given a shout-out or one of their videos are mass flagged and the leftist youtube community puts up mirrors of said content. However, just watching ONE sargon video, not only recommended me a bunch of other Sargon videos, but also my homepage was filled with other far-right content. It only went away after watching a bunch of ted talks. BTW, maybe don't bring up Orwell to talk about the dangers of Leftism when Orwell was a socialist. Oh, that's not a leap btw, in his OWN WORDS, "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism as I understand it." (and 1984 was published in 1949 so...) And yeah, communist or communism IS a buzzword. Obama was called a communist repeatedly for the ACA which ultimately was really really friendly for insurance agencies. The word carries a LOT of stigma to it, and funnily enough you listing off communist leaders in an attempt to equate my beliefs to theirs is a perfect example of that. But like i said, a fascist isn't going to call themselves a fascist. Let's take Lauren Southern for example. She talks about "The Great Replacement" (code word for "white genocide" btw), tried to get onto a boat to deny refugees access to Italy, basically trying to drown them in the Mediterranean, and has many hard-right ideas. She may not call herself or maybe even consider herself a white supremacist, but she is, in action and in the words that she says. And about Antifa, they aren't fascists. They really, really, really, aren't. This is like me asking you, "why haven't you denied that Richard Spenser isn't a commie yet?" (and come to think of it i can't recall you ever explaining why some alt-right ideas are bad) I've talked to antifacists, and while I will admit some of them have some pretty left ideas (though not Tankie Territory before you leap to that conclusion) I'm not hearing a lot about the need for greater control over populations. More just "we really don't think the alt-right should gain a voice and traction because their ideas are terrible". And here's the thing, we both seem to think our ideas are under attack by various organizations yeah? But i want you to think about this: "If the Mega-Rich had their way, which political ideology would they be more comfortable with, the Alt-Right or Tankies"? Now, this may seem like a total diversion, but it's a serious question. Because let's face it, these huge media companies are OWNED by really really rich people, and they want to hold onto that wealth. Is it so unreasonable to think that there could be a greater chance, that there's a larger media bias against people who want more economic equality at the expense of the mega-rich, rather than far-right groups who want a more totalitarian government at the expense of people they don't like? Because honestly, the alt-right is a topic i really DON'T want to talk about. I just feel obligated to because i keep hearing stories about alt-right members committing murders and people come out of the woodwork to defend them or make people who are anti-alt-right seem way more dangerous than they really are. What I REALLY want to talk about, is how the Mega-Rich are doing everything they can to get all they can from you because...well...I'll just link to this music video:
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.