Political Violence

[vla1ne]

I'm going to shorten it down because you keep deflecting to random different points that have nothing to do with the subject of Gavin itself that you clearly have not informed yourself on. 

 

What does the term white nationalism mean to you? They want to preserve a white nation and white identity, but what is "white identity". Being proud of being "white" is such a sheet thing because it was a definition created in order to justify sheet like war and slavery. Polish and Irish cultures for example, are funking nothing alike yet you throw them under the same blanket because their people look similar. Black pride is necessary because at least, american blacks have an issue of not knowing exactly where they were from due to the slave trade. Their culture was inherently stripped of them to the point of being distant memories so they had nothing to really identify themselves besides "black". White pride isn't preserving any culture in particular, it's just excluding other people based off of literally nothing else then the color of their skin. You don't see "asian nationalism" or "asian pride" or whatever.

 

Alright, so you linked a 20 minute video, clearly taking tips from mido regarding how to successfully gishgallop an argument, just link a long ass video and hope nobody actually watches it. I'm gonna do this whole dissecting later because you basically gave me what would be 10 or 15 pages of transcripts and went "yeah debunk this". But yeah I'll funk up my recommended videos and take it on later tonight. Also, you speaking to black people doesn't make you not a nazi. George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party was famous for speaking at Nation of Islam (a "black supremacist") group because it ultimately lead to his goal of separatism.

 

Uh, he still called a black woman a monkey. You can't play the "pretending" card when you're constantly going about how you're proud to be white and you want to preserve white culture and all those red flags but then claim "oh it's just a joke" when your joke is dehumanizing someone of a different race. Like how stupid do you think I am? 

It's called context. I pick statements and arguments that add to the context of my statement, and in general, i take them straight from the mouth of the person in question, as they (the person in question) would be the authority on their own thoughts.

 

It means a white person who has pride in their country and their race. You appear to be projecting something else as far as your claims of justification. Wars happen everywhere, as does slavery. All races have fought wars, all races have been slaves. There's no need to justify something other people did just because they were the same race. Drop it. Black pride is no different than white pride, they both mean to take joy in being a specific race. It's ok to be black, white, asian, ect. that's the end of the argument. Telling anybody that they cannot take pride in their race, is wrong. period.

 

 

I used a single timestamp, and an explanation of what that timestamp applied to. I said the rest is good stuff, but i only spoke of that one thing. Your entire second comment starts off on the wrong foot, and i'll address that flaw right here, your comment:

"Alright, so when he starts actually talking about the talk, he's speaking as a white man to a colored person's experience which is like, already wrong"

assumes that different races cannot understand each other. they can. and what he said, is on point. you don't tell your children that everybody is out to get you. even if they were, you do not do that to the mind of your child. You do not try to ingrain in the mind of ANY child that the world is rigged against them, especially when it's not. As in this case

 

 

Do you know what tongue in cheek humor is? a man calling a woman a name, a woman calling a man a name, one race calling another race a name, ect, none of that, is newsworthy. it's basic sheet, and it's by no means a big deal. end of story.

 

 

I'm going to trim down my responses, because this is getting exhausting.

 

Trump got a lot of blowback specifically because he didn't condemn the racists.

 

Deflecting back onto other people getting banned is worthless.

 

That is not what I was saying about the NPC meme, and once again, you're deflecting. The thing about Russian bots is that it's being used to report a legitimate problem, and reporting false accounts appropriately. It is a critique that confronts an actual problem, and it's been used since 2016 because it's been proven that fake accounts were used to spread false propaganda. Calling out those fake accounts fixes problems, while the "NPC" meme doesn't help anyone, nor does it address any legitimate issues. It comes entirely from a place of pure malice, and carries the same weight as using "drinking the Kool-Aid" as an insult.

 

Quote where I sanctioned violence. Just telling me to "stop mislabeling" people means nothing. The burden is on you to prove that the labels I assign to Spencer or Milo are inappropriate, just as much as it is on me to show that they are appropriate. You claim to not mislabel people, except you called Gary Younge a black supremacist in response to me calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist. While you disagree with whether he's a Nazi, you agreed that he is a white supremacist, but you backpedaled on your label of Gary Younge as a black supremacist because you lost the sole piece of evidence you had for that point. You are guilty of mislabeling, whereas what I'm advocating for isn't violence, but for taking platforms away from people who have already shown that they will abuse any privileges they have.

 

Mostly by the left, but the right did as well, i agree. and while i don't personally care if he condemns people who are so far beneath value, i agree that condemning them would be a good look.

 

 

What i am saying is, NPC is a victimless meme. Mass banning people, for a victimless meme, is dumb. I would say the exact same thing if it were anything other meme, be it russian bots, pepe, or any other meme. None of it is banworthy. What does the NPC meme do that harms people? how is having an NPC avatar (which is something people were actually banned for, without doing anything at all) If i called you an npc would you try to get me banned? I doubt it. 

 

 

My bad. Mixed your views and proto's up for a bit there. He supports violence and censorship, you just support censorship. I take back that bit about you sanctioning violence. That said, as far as labels go, the burden is on you to prove your claim that he is what you claim he is. You made the claim that certain people fix X label, I said they do not. You said they do because X, i explained that they don't using their own words. Your reasoning is wrong because you (among others) are attempting to label him something merely because he talks to people in those circles. I talk to furries, am i a furry? No. I'm cool with gay people, does that make me gay? No. i have democratic and republican friends, but i hold views from both sides. One of my friends is in jail for theft, and another just got off of an assault charge. Am i a theif or a violent person just because i'm friends with those people? No. The list goes on and on. just because they know, or are friendly with somebody, does not mean they condone, or accept every single thing about those people. Also, gary younge is not the person that i was talking about. I looked him up shortly after the last comment because the name felt wrong. He is not the person that i was calling a black supremacist. I was talking about another person, whose name i cannot recall at the time. he's american black man, but i can't find the damn video, so i have to drop the topic. As i said, youtube scrubbed the debate from the site, all variants that i can remember at least, else i would have posted it. As such, the evidence i have, does not allow me to properly make the claim. as for spencer and gavin, I have given ample evidence, from the very mouths of the people in question, as to why they do not fit the label that you are trying to place upon them. I believe spencer's views are trash, and yeah, his views on ethnostates and the like are absolutely wrong, but i don't support censoring him. I support debating him, and properly thrashing him in the field of ideas. not using identity politics. as for gavin, we're much closer in views than me and spencer, he is neither a rascist, an nazi or any kind of white supremacist. he's an jabroni. and it's okay to be an jabroni.

 

Advocating censorship is still wrong. It's not on the level of violence, but it violates one of the core principles that this country was founded on. I do not care who they are. I do not care what they believe. I may well disagree with their views 1000%. I might argue with them about what they say and have said, but i will defend, from start to finish, the right of anybody, to say anything that they want to say, without being censored. so on that point, i disagree with you whole hardheartedly, but i would never tell you, or anybody else, that they cannot speak. You would not do the same.

 

 

 

 

[spoiler=A rational, 14 minute interview with somebody who disagrees with spencer, but just wishes to know what he's up against.]

 

 

[Proto]

Alright, so I learned actually watching your videos and telling them why they're stupid won't work, so I'm just gonna ignore them now.

 

 

It's called context. I pick statements and arguments that add to the context of my statement, and in general, i take them straight from the mouth of the person in question, as they (the person in question) would be the authority on their own thoughts.

I just saw the entire context of your video and analyzed it all and in return you cherrypicked one sentence out of my absolutely massive critique, so are you not holding up to your own standards? What is the correct context, the one that proves you right? In fact what you did was far more egregious because you entirely ignored the point I repeated, funking 7 times in the analysis of the video. You are acting hypocritical.

 

Also that's preposterous, would you trust a man on trial for murder to be the "authority of their own thoughts?" in their prosecution. In Vla1nes world no court should exist, all men would freely admit to being rapists, murderers and thieves. You shouldn't need to gather evidence either because they tell you exactly what their intent was regardless of how it would implicate them in that situation. 

 

 

It means a white person who has pride in their country and their race. You appear to be projecting something else as far as your claims of justification. Wars happen everywhere, as does slavery. All races have fought wars, all races have been slaves. There's no need to justify something other people did just because they were the same race. Drop it. Black pride is no different than white pride, they both mean to take joy in being a specific race. It's ok to be black, white, asian, ect. that's the end of the argument. Telling anybody that they cannot take pride in their race, is wrong. period.

That. Wasn't. My. Point. I understand the idea that everyone has done slavery, wars and such, however the American idea of whiteness was solely a way to discriminate against people who are not white.

The idea of a monolithic "white race" or race even as a concept of a group to lump in a shitton of other lineages was created solely to excuse the discrimination of those who look different then them. European culture is not homogeneous, they waged war against eachother, races we consider "white" such as the Irish and the Roma in early Britain were discriminated against themselves and shoved into ghettos. You can even go back to the Roman empire and see how they treated the Goths (essentially the modern day Germans) as a lesser race. It wasn't until they began seeing people of color that they even needed that the idea of there being some sort of sovereignty between these different lineages became even comparable.

 

Black pride was necessary because white americans grouped everyone into the category of black, in Africa there was originally no real concept of kinship via simply skin color, things were divided by ancestry, families, languages. Which the whites literally stomped away and destroyed upon transporting them UNWILLINGLY to their boat. Languages forced to be forgotten with the punishment of torture otherwise, artifacts pilfered from them, families separated, names changed. It didn't matter where you came from within a year, you were BLACK, and that was the ONLY thing you knew besides the vague history of "Africa". And since that was the only uniting factor that the slavemasters cared about or even allowed them to be identified as, they assimilated and rose together in spite of being shipped from everywhere because they were FORCED TOO.

 

This is very, very different from the voluntary European protestant that came to America to conquer and their ancestors, that's even way different then the Asian immigrant who came willingly for the gold rush or even the modern Hispanic or Middle-Eastern man who seeks asylum from the violence in their countries. For while they were discriminated against they were allowed to preserve their culture by the nature of not being LITERALLY OWNED by a bunch of people who's plans were to stomp out their "barbaric" culture for the sake of "saving the man" within them.

 

I am not behind asian pride despite being a Korean, I am not behind white pride or pride in anything that devolves into simple aesthetics or color. I'm not even behind black pride when it comes to people that aren't descendants of slaves honestly. However it's all slaves and slave-descendants funking had. In place of say a irish or chinese culture of food, traditions, pagan beliefs, all they had was blackness and remnants of a culture that was forcibly erased. That is why black pride, in america, relating to the descendants of slaves is different. 

 

 

 

I used a single timestamp, and an explanation of what that timestamp applied to. I said the rest is good stuff, but i only spoke of that one thing. Your entire second comment starts off on the wrong foot, and i'll address that flaw right here, your comment:

"Alright, so when he starts actually talking about the talk, he's speaking as a white man to a colored person's experience which is like, already wrong"

assumes that different races cannot understand each other. they can. and what he said, is on point. you don't tell your children that everybody is out to get you. even if they were, you do not do that to the mind of your child. You do not try to ingrain in the mind of ANY child that the world is rigged against them, especially when it's not. As in this case

I mean, a virgin can understand a description of getting laid, watch all the porn they want and even read book after book, they're still not going to be able to speak on how sex is to people who have gotten laid, because his ideas are solely based on the media's interpretations of it. He can speak, he's just going to be horrendously wrong. In Gavin's case it's just like this, he just assumes they're lying and these claims have no basis despite bringing no reasoning.

You said the rest of it was good stuff, so I assumed you were endorsing the rest of the video and had watched it. The fact that you found it acceptable but now you're backpedaling and saying "well I only really spoke about this part" is absolute hogwash.

 

You keep calling me for "taking things out of context", well you took two sentences of sarcastically worded advice out of a video that was completely shitting on black people and calling them liars and potential ISIS members to an audience of mostly conservative men. That's taking sheet out of context there, vla1ne.

 

You saw a 20 minute video of a man calling black people liars, showing them shooting at cops, showing them raping women and calling them potential ISIS members and took 5-10 seconds of it and went "yep, that's proof he's not racist, no racist would ever make this video." THAT. IS. CHERRYPICKING.

 

That is the most dishonest thing I've ever seen. 

 

@@vla1ne also that Tim Pool interview was not with a white supremacist or even someone who was curious about the beliefs, he didn't attend the previous meetings. He's not a fascist and he doesn't even fit the criteria to get in their meeting. This is a hilarious misleading lie that you propped up as being a "reasonable discussion" when you either didn't even watch it or thought I wouldn't watch. You're really grasping for straws here man.

[Phantom Roxas]

Mostly by the left, but the right did as well, i agree. and while i don't personally care if he condemns people who are so far beneath value, i agree that condemning them would be a good look.

 

 

What i am saying is, NPC is a victimless meme. Mass banning people, for a victimless meme, is dumb. I would say the exact same thing if it were anything other meme, be it russian bots, pepe, or any other meme. None of it is banworthy. What does the NPC meme do that harms people? how is having an NPC avatar (which is something people were actually banned for, without doing anything at all) If i called you an npc would you try to get me banned? I doubt it. 

 

 

My bad. Mixed your views and proto's up for a bit there. He supports violence and censorship, you just support censorship. I take back that bit about you sanctioning violence. That said, as far as labels go, the burden is on you to prove your claim that he is what you claim he is. You made the claim that certain people fix X label, I said they do not. You said they do because X, i explained that they don't using their own words. Your reasoning is wrong because you (among others) are attempting to label him something merely because he talks to people in those circles. I talk to furries, am i a furry? No. I'm cool with gay people, does that make me gay? No. i have democratic and republican friends, but i hold views from both sides. One of my friends is in jail for theft, and another just got off of an assault charge. Am i a theif or a violent person just because i'm friends with those people? No. The list goes on and on. just because they know, or are friendly with somebody, does not mean they condone, or accept every single thing about those people. Also, gary younge is not the person that i was talking about. I looked him up shortly after the last comment because the name felt wrong. He is not the person that i was calling a black supremacist. I was talking about another person, whose name i cannot recall at the time. he's american black man, but i can't find the damn video, so i have to drop the topic. As i said, youtube scrubbed the debate from the site, all variants that i can remember at least, else i would have posted it. As such, the evidence i have, does not allow me to properly make the claim. as for spencer and gavin, I have given ample evidence, from the very mouths of the people in question, as to why they do not fit the label that you are trying to place upon them. I believe spencer's views are trash, and yeah, his views on ethnostates and the like are absolutely wrong, but i don't support censoring him. I support debating him, and properly thrashing him in the field of ideas. not using identity politics. as for gavin, we're much closer in views than me and spencer, he is neither a rascist, an nazi or any kind of white supremacist. he's an jabroni. and it's okay to be an jabroni.

 

Advocating censorship is still wrong. It's not on the level of violence, but it violates one of the core principles that this country was founded on. I do not care who they are. I do not care what they believe. I may well disagree with their views 1000%. I might argue with them about what they say and have said, but i will defend, from start to finish, the right of anybody, to say anything that they want to say, without being censored. so on that point, i disagree with you whole hardheartedly, but i would never tell you, or anybody else, that they cannot speak. You would not do the same.

 

 

 

 

[spoiler=A rational, 14 minute interview with somebody who disagrees with spencer, but just wishes to know what he" s up against.]

 

 

 

The NPC meme led to posting fake accounts and specifically targeting liberals as though their beliefs meant they gave up their autonomy. It's not causing physical harm, but it's still a form of verbal abuse. At most, I would report you for flaming, because that's exactly what the point of the meme is.

 

Thank you for the apology, and I would like to apologize becuase I did not realize that the guy you were talking about was not Gary Younge, so I'll move on from that that point. I agreed that the burden is on me to prove that Richard Spencer is a Neo-Nazi, and my examples were about how he specifically co-opts language. It was more than just the people that he hangs around with. I'm not saying that he's a Neo-Nazi because he hangs around other people who use that rhetoric, I'm saying that he's a Neo-Nazi because he uses that rhetoric himself. You then claimed that he "jokes" about it, except now the burden then falls to you to prove that it is a joke, and not reflective of his actual beliefs. Because, again, what you see as a joke, I've seen as a constant in his beliefs. So I'm asking you to show that, if these beliefs are just jokes, then what does he sincerely believe?

 

All of your continued deflections are moving away from that point. I don't see how you believe you can intellectually thrash someone in a debate on a subject when you insist on derailing from that subject. I understand what you think you're going for, that you believe you're proving how it's absurd to assume something about him simply because of the people he hangs out with, but weak false equivalences do not prove your point. You believe I'm saying that he's Nazi because he's hanging out with other people, and that the association grants him that label, but I'm saying that he associates with those people because he already holds Neo-Nazi sympathies, therefore he is being friendly with like-minded people. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to agree with you that my reasoning is wrong when you could not even accurately state what my reasoning is.

 

You said it yourself that words don't have power unless you give it to them, and that's exactly what deplatforming is all about, denying people the power to give their words any meaning. I am not in favor of censorship either, so I would really appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/142218/colleges-right-reject-hateful-speakers-like-ann-coulter

https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/#n9zyQz46COqo

 

The right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. In all of these cases, whether it to be universities or online platforms, they are exercising certain rights to either disinvite speakers from their institutions, or punish people because they violated the terms of service. I believe I've gone over the latter for than enough times, but for as easy as it is to joke about how no one reads the terms of service, crying "censorship" when you violated them is really your own fault. Just because you did not bother to read the rules does not mean you can get away with punishing them. So, again, what I am asking for is taking platforms away from people who have already shown that they will abuse any privileges they have. That last part is the key; these people have to abuse their privilege. That is not censoring them simply because they hold a certain view.

 

"Wrong-think" has come up as paranoid nonsense to play the victim, as though so much as holding right-leaning beliefs will get you censored, but whenever I see it come up, it is always to blame authority for punishing actions, not thoughts. In this case, deplatforming someone as a punishment is typically done in response to actions that the person took. As the New Republic article points out, "Such decisions aren’t about 'shutting down' points of view; they’re about finding the most valuable ways to use our limited time and resources." In that case, it's not censoring you or infringing on your First Amendment rights; it's just that they've decided that they would rather spend their resources elsewhere. In other words, people like Richard or Milo would have failed to proven themselves worthy of using of those resources. That's not "censoring" them, as convenient as that is for Milo's victim complex.

 

You are literally citing the guy who created the NPC meme as an example of "rational" interview. I'm not going to waste my time on him.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well Liberalism does have aspects of Homogeneity among it Roxa

[Proto]

Well Liberalism does have aspects of Homogeneity among it Roxa

How is that not more true of conservatism, who's landmark idea is literally "keep things the way they are and do things how they used to be done". Literally.

 

Liberals and the left have heavy complaints about exactly what should be done to repeal the conservative traditions, meanwhile all conservative viewpoints have to do is say "whatever they're doing, stop them from doing it."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How is that not more true of conservatism, who's landmark idea is literally "keep things the way they are and do things how they used to be done". Literally.

 

Liberals and the left have heavy complaints about exactly what should be done to repeal the conservative traditions, meanwhile all conservative viewpoints have to do is say "whatever they're doing, stop them from doing it."

There's less homogeneity among conservatives in views

[Phantom Roxas]

Well Liberalism does have aspects of Homogeneity among it Roxa

 

What you perceive as homogeneity is not a justification for a meme that's being used entirely in poor taste to harass people.

[vla1ne]

 

The NPC meme led to posting fake accounts and specifically targeting liberals as though their beliefs meant they gave up their autonomy. It's not causing physical harm, but it's still a form of verbal abuse. At most, I would report you for flaming, because that's exactly what the point of the meme is.

 

Thank you for the apology, and I would like to apologize becuase I did not realize that the guy you were talking about was not Gary Younge, so I'll move on from that that point. I agreed that the burden is on me to prove that Richard Spencer is a Neo-Nazi, and my examples were about how he specifically co-opts language. It was more than just the people that he hangs around with. I'm not saying that he's a Neo-Nazi because he hangs around other people who use that rhetoric, I'm saying that he's a Neo-Nazi because he uses that rhetoric himself. You then claimed that he "jokes" about it, except now the burden then falls to you to prove that it is a joke, and not reflective of his actual beliefs. Because, again, what you see as a joke, I've seen as a constant in his beliefs. So I'm asking you to show that, if these beliefs are just jokes, then what does he sincerely believe?

 

All of your continued deflections are moving away from that point. I don't see how you believe you can intellectually thrash someone in a debate on a subject when you insist on derailing from that subject. I understand what you think you're going for, that you believe you're proving how it's absurd to assume something about him simply because of the people he hangs out with, but weak false equivalences do not prove your point. You believe I'm saying that he's Nazi because he's hanging out with other people, and that the association grants him that label, but I'm saying that he associates with those people because he already holds Neo-Nazi sympathies, therefore he is being friendly with like-minded people. Sorry, but I'm not inclined to agree with you that my reasoning is wrong when you could not even accurately state what my reasoning is.

 

You said it yourself that words don't have power unless you give it to them, and that's exactly what deplatforming is all about, denying people the power to give their words any meaning. I am not in favor of censorship either, so I would really appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/142218/colleges-right-reject-hateful-speakers-like-ann-coulter

https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/#n9zyQz46COqo

 

The right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard. In all of these cases, whether it to be universities or online platforms, they are exercising certain rights to either disinvite speakers from their institutions, or punish people because they violated the terms of service. I believe I've gone over the latter for than enough times, but for as easy as it is to joke about how no one reads the terms of service, crying "censorship" when you violated them is really your own fault. Just because you did not bother to read the rules does not mean you can get away with punishing them. So, again, what I am asking for is taking platforms away from people who have already shown that they will abuse any privileges they have. That last part is the key; these people have to abuse their privilege. That is not censoring them simply because they hold a certain view.

 

"Wrong-think" has come up as paranoid nonsense to play the victim, as though so much as holding right-leaning beliefs will get you censored, but whenever I see it come up, it is always to blame authority for punishing actions, not thoughts. In this case, deplatforming someone as a punishment is typically done in response to actions that the person took. As the New Republic article points out, "Such decisions aren’t about 'shutting down' points of view; they’re about finding the most valuable ways to use our limited time and resources." In that case, it's not censoring you or infringing on your First Amendment rights; it's just that they've decided that they would rather spend their resources elsewhere. In other words, people like Richard or Milo would have failed to proven themselves worthy of using of those resources. That's not "censoring" them, as convenient as that is for Milo's victim complex.

 

You are literally citing the guy who created the NPC meme as an example of "rational" interview. I'm not going to waste my time on him.

 

It targeted them because many sjw's  devolve into chanting mobs after a few programmed statements.

[spoiler=These are the kinds of people we call NPC's]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E61BTum2OI

 

People who devolve into a violent incoherent mob, literally attacking the homes of the people (or just the people) who they disagree with. Those who resort to violence the second they don't get their way, those who don't think, people who don't think their one sided ideologies can't backfire on them. the kinds of people who do sheet like this are the people we call NPC's, and the term applies on both sides.

 

 

I can show you clip after clip of rational discussion devolving into frenzied chanting initiated by mobs of npcs. it's not verbal abuse anymore than it would be verbal abuse to tell them they weren't thinking for themselves. It's a hilarious form of criticism because all that needs to be done to disprove it is engage in rational discussion. The main people against it are those who can't take a joke. twitter banned everybody, even the people who merely had it as an avatar. It's not porn, nothing about the meme deserved such a wide backlash, aside from some unhappy people at twitter realizing the meme applied to them.

 

 

He sincerely believes that whites in america (and across europe) are becoming a persecuted class (which i tentatively agree with), and that they need to reestablish themselves in their homelands. The man also seriously believes (for some dumbass reason) that white people are the only natural citizens of places like europe, canada, and america. he calls for separation of the races, in actual separate but equal division, which is surprisingly popular these days on the left as well. He also casually brushes aside the contributions of other races to america, and asserts that only white people have contributed anything to any white country. there's more as well, but i'm short on time. Where he's joking though, is when he plays the nazi card, the genocide card, and other things of that calibur. People try to call him (and everybody else nowadays) a nazi, so he does it just to piss them off. He does not condone violence, and while his views can be sen as offensive, he himself is (while definitely racist) a pretty chill guy. He's wrong in his beliefs, but he is respectful, sincere, and honest to a fault (you can be wrong and still be all those things). He doesn't care about other races, but he does not wish them harm, nor does he hate them, he  wants them out of (what he believes to be) his country.

 

 

Your own point was rather muddy to me. You appeared to be going with guilt by association. You only stated they were both nazis and hung out together. He does hold some similarities, but there are differences in the degree of beliefs that make it inaccurate to label him nazi. They hold a few similar beliefs, but they branch out in different directions, and come from different places. spencer beleves whites are being persecuted, and wishes to protect his race. nazis, while they may hold similar views, do not wish to protect their own race, so much as harm other races.  they both view their races highly, but they diverge on other subjects far enough to not fit under the same umbrella. they may be friendly, but if i sat down with a nazi, i would bet we could come to terms on 

 

 

That's not what i mean. I mean words do not harm people. even up on a podium, words do nothing. words always have meaning, but only actions have power. people can say whatever they like, it is only when they act that they have any power. de-platforming is not the solution. it's one of the problems. there are no unbiased arbiters, and  if people cannot speak on a soapbox, then others will question why, and want to hear for themselves, look at alex jones. nobody cared about him till he got shut down, and then his base blew up 200% (it shrank slowly after, but remains more inflated than it once was)

 

 

You are correct, it is not the right to be heard, but if you don't want to hear it, just don't go. You can even tell other people you don't think they should go, but when people actively threaten to riot on a campus, that is no longer the same thing. that is active censorship. these people do not abuse privledges, they do what every other speaker does. they go onstage and state their views to an audience that is willing to at least listen. it is not abusing privileges to hold and state views. no matter how controversial.

 

Holding right wing beliefs will indeed get you attacked and de-platformed on the basis of wrong think. Allison got out kicked for life from a comicon just for daring to be publicly right wing. Jeremy got banned by magic because of a smear campaign that led to him being physically attacked. Gab got de-funded and de-hosted because of one violent person who had pages on all platforms (yet only gab gets attacked), Dave Rubin gets attacked from the left all day long over who he brings on his show. The killstream incident lead to their stream for charity being shut down and fully refunded by force, because people with the wrong opinions were on it. Diversity in comics went on a public tv show and was edited to hell so that he would look as evil as possible, a gamer on youtube got banned simply for killing a feminist npc in a game (a LITERAL npc). the list goes on. Wrong think is an actual thing, and unfortunately, it's been marketed so that when it happens to people on the right, or who even lean right, it's always disguised as them having done something wrong. even when they've done nothing wrong.

 

 

the npc meme was made up as a joke comparison. and it was found that it applied well. the person in question actually was once rather far on the left, then he got screwed over by the left, came over to the center, and made a joke that took off like a rocket. he's by no means irrational, and the joke applies to both sides.

 

 

 

 

Also that's preposterous, would you trust a man on trial for murder to be the "authority of their own thoughts?" in their prosecution. In Vla1nes world no court should exist, all men would freely admit to being rapists, murderers and thieves. You shouldn't need to gather evidence either because they tell you exactly what their intent was regardless of how it would implicate them in that situation. 

 

 

That. Wasn't. My. Point. I understand the idea that everyone has done slavery, wars and such, however the American idea of whiteness was solely a way to discriminate against people who are not white.

 

The idea of a monolithic "white race" or race even as a concept of a group to lump in a shitton of other lineages was created solely to excuse the discrimination of those who look different then them. European culture is not homogeneous, they waged war against eachother, races we consider "white" such as the Irish and the Roma in early Britain were discriminated against themselves and shoved into ghettos. You can even go back to the Roman empire and see how they treated the Goths (essentially the modern day Germans) as a lesser race. It wasn't until they began seeing people of color that they even needed that the idea of there being some sort of sovereignty between these different lineages became even comparable.

 

Black pride was necessary because white americans grouped everyone into the category of black, in Africa there was originally no real concept of kinship via simply skin color, things were divided by ancestry, families, languages. Which the whites literally stomped away and destroyed upon transporting them UNWILLINGLY to their boat. Languages forced to be forgotten with the punishment of torture otherwise, artifacts pilfered from them, families separated, names changed. It didn't matter where you came from within a year, you were BLACK, and that was the ONLY thing you knew besides the vague history of "Africa". And since that was the only uniting factor that the slavemasters cared about or even allowed them to be identified as, they assimilated and rose together in spite of being shipped from everywhere because they were FORCED TOO.

 

This is very, very different from the voluntary European protestant that came to America to conquer and their ancestors, that's even way different then the Asian immigrant who came willingly for the gold rush or even the modern Hispanic or Middle-Eastern man who seeks asylum from the violence in their countries. For while they were discriminated against they were allowed to preserve their culture by the nature of not being LITERALLY OWNED by a bunch of people who's plans were to stomp out their "barbaric" culture for the sake of "saving the man" within them.

 

I am not behind asian pride despite being a Korean, I am not behind white pride or pride in anything that devolves into simple aesthetics or color. I'm not even behind black pride when it comes to people that aren't descendants of slaves honestly. However it's all slaves and slave-descendants funking had. In place of say a irish or chinese culture of food, traditions, pagan beliefs, all they had was blackness and remnants of a culture that was forcibly erased. That is why black pride, in america, relating to the descendants of slaves is different. 

 

 

I mean, a virgin can understand a description of getting laid, watch all the porn they want and even read book after book, they're still not going to be able to speak on how sex is to people who have gotten laid, because his ideas are solely based on the media's interpretations of it. He can speak, he's just going to be horrendously wrong. In Gavin's case it's just like this, he just assumes they're lying and these claims have no basis despite bringing no reasoning.

 

You said the rest of it was good stuff, so I assumed you were endorsing the rest of the video and had watched it. The fact that you found it acceptable but now you're backpedaling and saying "well I only really spoke about this part" is absolute hogwash.

 

You keep calling me for "taking things out of context", well you took two sentences of sarcastically worded advice out of a video that was completely shitting on black people and calling them liars and potential ISIS members to an audience of mostly conservative men. That's taking sheet out of context there, vla1ne.

 

You saw a 20 minute video of a man calling black people liars, showing them shooting at cops, showing them raping women and calling them potential ISIS members and took 5-10 seconds of it and went "yep, that's proof he's not racist, no racist would ever make this video." THAT. IS. CHERRYPICKING.

 

That is the most dishonest thing I've ever seen. 

 

@@vla1ne also that Tim Pool interview was not with a white supremacist or even someone who was curious about the beliefs, he didn't attend the previous meetings. He's not a fascist and he doesn't even fit the criteria to get in their meeting. This is a hilarious misleading lie that you propped up as being a "reasonable discussion" when you either didn't even watch it or thought I wouldn't watch. You're really grasping for straws here man.

 

I was gonna skip the whole second comment due to time constraints, and then i read the very first sentence. because it was so damn stupid i could not fully ignore it, and it was the springboard for your entire comment so i decided to at least address that much.

 

This isn't murder, it's worldviews. the two are leagues apart. if he starts killing people you'd have a point, but he's not, he's explaining his views. and yeah, im ny world, everybody gets to talk. freedom of speech and all that. people also don't get attacked in my world over their views. they get debated.

 

You know who was selling africans into slavery right? Other africans. They weren't some innocent group of people. Africans were as brutal as whites, they were simply the weaker brutes at the time. sheet wasn't civilized back then, as tribal warfare, blacks owning or killing blacks of other tribes, and blacks selling blacks as slaves  was nowhere near uncommon. White people didn't even start the business in africa, they just profited from it where they could. But none of that even matters, because the people involved in that are dead. unless you can find me some slave owners in america today? Same goes for china, africa, japan south america, russia, any first world country really. This is nothing special. america went through the phase, as did every other country. it's not a white thing, it's a people thing. every single race has done this at multiple points in history. this is nothing special, nor is it the sole fault or responsibility of white people, or any other race for that matter. slaves were useful, and be it class, race, ancestry, or whatever else, slaves and slavery was a way of life back then. we made it past that, as did the rest of the first world countries, that's something to take pride in.

 

White pride is no different from any other pride. It's pride in the achievements and progress of your race. no matter the race, everybody has something they can be proud of in their race. be it inventions, accomplishments, inherent abilities, culture, or simply because your family is one that you're proud of. there's nothing wrong with pride in your race. no matter your race. We need more black pride today. maybe we'd stop killing each other.

 

And he has me, a black man backing his statements. i agree with gavin, it is child abuse to attempt to imprint such stupidity into their minds. it holds them back needlessly, and forces them to look at the world through a lens that is not only unfavorable to them, but actively harmful to their development. even a virgin can tell you where a dick goes, how a dick works, and what a pussy looks like. face it, gavin's right. it's child abuse.

 

 

i said you don't have to watch the rest, as it wasn't relevant to the context of the statement. i agree with it still, the only backpedal is the one you played gymnastics to land on. "I used a single timestamp, and an explanation of what that timestamp applied to. I said the rest is good stuff, but i only spoke of that one thing." in short, i consider the rest goodstuffs (some small disagreements, but not enough to disregard the whole of it) but i only used one part for the discussion, as it added context to an older statement of mine. Stop looking for gymnastics, you won''t find them.

 

Yeah, they lied to their kids for 20 minutes straight. That's exactly what they did. As far as the al,queda thing, he was breaking down a point. Using irrational arguments does not add to intelligent conversation. He himself was denouncing being an al queda recruiter. The rest is you off in fairy land. The person in the discussion is literally Carlson talking with some nutjob who created a completely fabricated accusation of gavin being simultaneously being an isis recruiter and a nazi. Where are you getting your accusation from? Once more, gavin denounced the accusations of him being a nazi, and an isis recruiter. Seriously, what are you on about?

 

How you decided that statement applies to my comment, even i don't know. My literal comment was: "A rational, 14 minute interview with somebody who disagrees with spencer, but just wishes to know what he's up against." where in the hell did i say the interview was with any supporter of what you said? You reading ok there? That was the point. That normal people do not endorse violence against people just because their views don't match. They listen to them, make up their minds, and either stay away from the people because they consider them crazy, or get interested, and seek further info on the topic. Both views are valid. 

[Proto]

I was gonna skip the whole second comment due to time constraints, and then i read the very first sentence. because it was so damn stupid i could not fully ignore it, and it was the springboard for your entire comment so i decided to at least address that much.

 

This isn't murder, it's worldviews. the two are leagues apart. if he starts killing people you'd have a point, but he's not, he's explaining his views. and yeah, im ny world, everybody gets to talk. freedom of speech and all that. people also don't get attacked in my world over their views. they get debated.

Do you not see how in the modern world being accused of being racist circulating racist propaganda could be akin to being called a thief, a rapist even a murderer? Hell, you subscribe to the whole "sjws are taking over the world everyone's so triggered" ideology, so why is it leagues different? Since SJWs hate the white man so much and they apparently run the media according to you who's to say he won't be socially lynched if he admits to that? Hell, he got banned off all social media because of the white nationalist sheet so there you go, it's potentially career-ending to have this sheet on display.

 

 

 

White pride is no different from any other pride. It's pride in the achievements and progress of your race. no matter the race, everybody has something they can be proud of in their race. be it inventions, accomplishments, inherent abilities, culture, or simply because your family is one that you're proud of. there's nothing wrong with pride in your race. no matter your race. We need more black pride today. maybe we'd stop killing each other.

 

I'm guessing you didn't read my entire four-paragraph explanation on why it is different then other prides (namely in the fact that other "prides" don't exist besides black pride and that's only because they're the descendants of slaves and were only defined by their blackness) and you're just regurgitating your beliefs. Either that or you didn't have anything proper to rebut any of my points, because this is literally what you said before I posted it, seems like you're stuck on repeat. NPC much?

 

 

 

i said you don't have to watch the rest, as it wasn't relevant to the context of the statement. i agree with it still, the only backpedal is the one you played gymnastics to land on. "I used a single timestamp, and an explanation of what that timestamp applied to. I said the rest is good stuff, but i only spoke of that one thing." in short, i consider the rest goodstuffs (some small disagreements, but not enough to disregard the whole of it) but i only used one part for the discussion, as it added context to an older statement of mine. Stop looking for gymnastics, you won''t find them.

You literally took a statement out of context and are telling me to disregard the rest of it for a point, but you're also saying that you agree with most of the rest of it? So do you disown this video or not?

 

 

 

 

Yeah, they lied to their kids for 20 minutes straight. That's exactly what they did.

 

Proof? Facts don't care about your feelings and you're getting awfully close to mindreading here.

 

 

 

As far as the al,queda thing, he was breaking down a point. Using irrational arguments does not add to intelligent conversation. He himself was denouncing being an al queda recruiter. The rest is you off in fairy land. The person in the discussion is literally Carlson talking with some nutjob who created a completely fabricated accusation of gavin being simultaneously being an isis recruiter and a nazi. Where are you getting your accusation from? Once more, gavin denounced the accusations of him being a nazi, and an isis recruiter. Seriously, what are you on about?

I wasn't referring to the Tucker Carlson video in the slightest, I was referring to when he said that this victimization complex of black people makes them more likely to become victims of ISIS recruiting and displayed the dude who shot at the police. I'll hook you up with the timestamp, since you don't seem to be capable of watching the full video in order to understand what I'm talking about. Why would I switch videos when I said I was apprehensive at watching one? Come on man.

 

https://youtu.be/ggEKsLRR32Q?t=648

 

 

 

How you decided that statement applies to my comment, even i don't know. My literal comment was: "A rational, 14 minute interview with somebody who disagrees with spencer, but just wishes to know what he's up against." where in the hell did i say the interview was with any supporter of what you said? You reading ok there? That was the point. That normal people do not endorse violence against people just because their views don't match. They listen to them, make up their minds, and either stay away from the people because they consider them crazy, or get interested, and seek further info on the topic. Both views are valid. 

The discussion is about how I'm saying that you shouldn't converse or platform racists and your evidence against it about how two civilized people handle things are... an anti-spencer person speaking with another person who also says he doesn't agree with Spencer's views in the slightest and is just there to see the shitshow. Like, if it wasn't a reasonable discussion with a fascist then what was the point of linking it? So we know people like to see shitshows? Wow, great breakthrough.

[vla1ne]

Do you not see how in the modern world being accused of being racist circulating racist propaganda could be akin to being called a thief, a rapist even a murderer? Hell, you subscribe to the whole "sjws are taking over the world everyone's so triggered" ideology, so why is it leagues different? Since SJWs hate the white man so much and they apparently run the media according to you who's to say he won't be socially lynched if he admits to that? Hell, he got banned off all social media because of the white nationalist sheet so there you go, it's potentially career-ending to have this sheet on display.

 

 

I'm guessing you didn't read my entire four-paragraph explanation on why it is different then other prides (namely in the fact that other "prides" don't exist besides black pride and that's only because they're the descendants of slaves and were only defined by their blackness) and you're just regurgitating your beliefs. Either that or you didn't have anything proper to rebut any of my points, because this is literally what you said before I posted it, seems like you're stuck on repeat. NPC much?

 

 

being a racist is nothing like being a theif, a murderer, or a rapist. the latter 3 are actual crimes, because they are actions that cause harm to people. the former is a belief. do not conflate the two. If i were a racist, and advocated moving away from white people, that would not be harmful to anybody, but it would still be a racist action. You can do no such thing as a rapist or a murderer. A racist can murder, steal or rape, but those are all actions, they are not directly related to being a racist (though being a racist is one of the things that can trigger them) can you not see the difference?

 

All races have their variety of pride, they just aren't blasted in the news for it, or granted the victim narrative buff for it. Replace asian with white or black and the reaction would be vastly different. 

 

 

You literally took a statement out of context and are telling me to disregard the rest of it for a point, but you're also saying that you agree with most of the rest of it? So do you disown this video or not?

 

 

 

 

Proof? Facts don't care about your feelings and you're getting awfully close to mindreading here.

 

Not once did i say i disavow the video. I disagree with parts as nitpicks, but i said it was goodstuffs and i stand by the rest. again, i singled out one part, as the only part i was using to add context. and said the rest is goodstuffs. again you miss nuance. one part was used, the rest was disregarded, but not disavowed. come on, keep up.

 

 

When you tell your children, who believe unconditionally in you as an adult, that the police are actively out to get you, you are harming your child's development. When you tell them they have to work twice as hard to get the same results as other races, you are harming your child's development. When you instill in their minds that racism permeates everything in their culture, while simultaneously having a slot on a national tv show to do so, you are harming your child (and unassuming viewers's) development. When you attempt to use experiences that everybody goes through to justify your claim that cops are out to get black people, you are harming your child's development. When you do all of this at once, on camera, forcing your children to internalize this bullshit, you are unquestionably abusing your child.

 

 

I wasn't referring to the Tucker Carlson video in the slightest, I was referring to when he said that this victimization complex of black people makes them more likely to become victims of ISIS recruiting and displayed the dude who shot at the police. I'll hook you up with the timestamp, since you don't seem to be capable of watching the full video in order to understand what I'm talking about. Why would I switch videos when I said I was apprehensive at watching one? Come on man.

 

https://youtu.be/ggEKsLRR32Q?t=648

 

 

The discussion is about how I'm saying that you shouldn't converse or platform racists and your evidence against it about how two civilized people handle things are... an anti-spencer person speaking with another person who also says he doesn't agree with Spencer's views in the slightest and is just there to see the shitshow. Like, if it wasn't a reasonable discussion with a fascist then what was the point of linking it? So we know people like to see shitshows? Wow, great breakthrough.

He's wrong about the ISIS thing (one of the nitpicks), but he's right about blacks, and most other races being told they shouldn't have pride in their country, and being told their country is racist. He's right about the anti-authority indoctrination leading many black people into situations that a calm, rational _insert race and gender here_ would easily get out of. He's also right about the tendency to attack cops. "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is one of the signature chants of the BLM variant of npc. The fact that the cop shooters are in fact the same kinds of people who believe the police are out to get them for no reason other than black people get arrested higher, which spurs them to commit more crimes against cops, which gets more of them arrested. it's a self feeding cycle. He hits the nail on the head at 15:30.

 

 

Your argument flies directly in the face of what universities do. They grant platforms from different ideologies, and if you don't wish to watch them, then agree or not, you don't have to go. My point using two people who are against spencer, is that many rational people understand that spencer is likely not the kind of person they share ideals with, but they still wish to hear him out, because they hold freedom of speech in high regard. Of course white supremacists, white nationalists, and various other forms of white people want to go, but the point is that even if they disagree, they agree that spencer deserves the right to speak where everybody else does, and he shouldn't be de-platformed simply for his beliefs. as for finding a fascist, most of the people you (and others) label fascist are not. You simply label them as such, and then decide they don't deserve the right to speak on any platform because you think they're a fascist. there are far fewer fascists in america than you seem to think.

[Proto]

being a racist is nothing like being a theif, a murderer, or a rapist. the latter 3 are actual crimes, because they are actions that cause harm to people. the former is a belief. do not conflate the two. If i were a racist, and advocated moving away from white people, that would not be harmful to anybody, but it would still be a racist action. You can do no such thing as a rapist or a murderer. A racist can murder, steal or rape, but those are all actions, they are not directly related to being a racist (though being a racist is one of the things that can trigger them) can you not see the difference?

 

All races have their variety of pride, they just aren't blasted in the news for it, or granted the victim narrative buff for it. Replace asian with white or black and the reaction would be vastly different. 

I'm saying the social stigma is about akin to it. Like, I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Why do you think they had a Kavanaugh hearing? It's not like anyone was going to press any criminal charges against him. No, it was to smear his character as someone who committed sexual assault. Either way, I'm not saying it's a crime to be a racist, I'm saying that openly embracing that sheet post-adpocalypse after the PewDiePie hitler sheet when a majority of your following is on youtube is not a good look at all that would not only jeopardize your ability to reach people and lower your income substantially. As thus, there's no reason that he'd admit to it while he's effectively a promoter because that would not only potentially ruin his deals, but he'd get kicked off the platform.

 

It was posted in 2011 and some random rapper that nobody's ever heard of is not a funking political commentary figure. I already said I denounced asian pride repeatedly. You're literally stuck on loop, your brain's incapable of creating a proper argument against what I presented two posts ago so you're just regurgitating the stupidest examples in order to distract from my argument. Grow up.

 

 

Not once did i say i disavow the video. I disagree with parts as nitpicks, but i said it was goodstuffs and i stand by the rest. again, i singled out one part, as the only part i was using to add context. and said the rest is goodstuffs. again you miss nuance. one part was used, the rest was disregarded, but not disavowed. come on, keep up.

Sure sounds like you don't want to talk about the rest of it whenever I end up pointing out something stupid he says in it.

 

 

 

 

When you tell your children, who believe unconditionally in you as an adult, that the police are actively out to get you, you are harming your child's development. When you tell them they have to work twice as hard to get the same results as other races, you are harming your child's development. When you instill in their minds that racism permeates everything in their culture, while simultaneously having a slot on a national tv show to do so, you are harming your child (and unassuming viewers's) development. When you attempt to use experiences that everybody goes through to justify your claim that cops are out to get black people, you are harming your child's development. When you do all of this at once, on camera, forcing your children to internalize this bullshit, you are unquestionably abusing your child.

Okay, none of this is proof that they were lying. Nice job deflecting and hiding again. I'm not arguing the moral standpoints because that's objective and I don't give a funk about objective sheet. I'm saying, you said they were lying. He says they were lying. Where's the proof?

 

 

 

He's wrong about the ISIS thing (one of the nitpicks), but he's right about blacks, and most other races being told they shouldn't have pride in their country, and being told their country is racist. He's right about the anti-authority indoctrination leading many black people into situations that a calm, rational _insert race and gender here_ would easily get out of. He's also right about the tendency to attack cops. "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is one of the signature chants of the BLM variant of npc. The fact that the cop shooters are in fact the same kinds of people who believe the police are out to get them for no reason other than black people get arrested higher, which spurs them to commit more crimes against cops, which gets more of them arrested. it's a self feeding cycle. He hits the nail on the head at 15:30.

 

 

Your argument flies directly in the face of what universities do. They grant platforms from different ideologies, and if you don't wish to watch them, then agree or not, you don't have to go. My point using two people who are against spencer, is that many rational people understand that spencer is likely not the kind of person they share ideals with, but they still wish to hear him out, because they hold freedom of speech in high regard. Of course white supremacists, white nationalists, and various other forms of white people want to go, but the point is that even if they disagree, they agree that spencer deserves the right to speak where everybody else does, and he shouldn't be de-platformed simply for his beliefs. as for finding a fascist, most of the people you (and others) label fascist are not. You simply label them as such, and then decide they don't deserve the right to speak on any platform because you think they're a fascist. there are far fewer fascists in america than you seem to think.

Do you have any proof that this is the rationale for the cop shooters? I love how you cite the part of the video that he says himself are absolutely unquantifiable. So you're going on that feeling-based "common sense" sheet that means that you don't have to look into any evidence. There's absolutely no proof or citeable evidence that proves that black people are more ornery or noncompliant then other people, you have no statistics on the matter. Neither is that black people with "victimization complexes" or black lives matter activists have a higher tendency to attack cops. You're making assertions out of your ass.

 

I'm anti-nationalism so you won't find any complaints with me about someone being not "proud of their country". I care about citizens, I really don't give a funk about what "America"s pride is. Also, pretty odd that you can place this filter around people, needing to be "proud of their country" yet still be an advocate for free speech. The same people complaining about snowflake censorship at university are the same people who are destroying Nike shoes and called for Kaepernick to be fired or claim that their kids shouldn't know about trans people in school or claim that black people shouldn't speak about their experience in front of their kids. What happens to "muh second amendment" when it comes to speech like that? Why is it that false flagging and mass reporting any video that has to do with criticizing the alt-right or white nationalism such a popular thing? Why is this ONLY toted around when it's to protect racist white people by the right?

 

 

 

Your argument flies directly in the face of what universities do. They grant platforms from different ideologies, and if you don't wish to watch them, then agree or not, you don't have to go. My point using two people who are against spencer, is that many rational people understand that spencer is likely not the kind of person they share ideals with, but they still wish to hear him out, because they hold freedom of speech in high regard. Of course white supremacists, white nationalists, and various other forms of white people want to go, but the point is that even if they disagree, they agree that spencer deserves the right to speak where everybody else does, and he shouldn't be de-platformed simply for his beliefs. as for finding a fascist, most of the people you (and others) label fascist are not. You simply label them as such, and then decide they don't deserve the right to speak on any platform because you think they're a fascist. there are far fewer fascists in america than you seem to think.

Sure, there are people that disagree with me, big whoop. One of these people is someone who's made a literal career off of reacting to white nationalists, as in that's his 9 to 5 so I doubt that's any sort of ideological stance for him rather then "it's how he puts food on the table". The other is literally just some college kid coming to watch a shitshow. None of this says anything about their opinion on "freedom of speech" regarding racists.

 

Universities shouldn't allow outdated knowledge like white nationalism that has been debunked over and over again in numerous fields to be spoken upon, it's the equivalent of letting a flat earther speak on the campus, it's literally perpetuating debunked lies for the sole purpose of appeasing to racists.

 

Who have I labeled a fascist that isn't? Can't use Melkor again because I explained why I said that. Don't funking strawman me with that bullshit argument. "oh everyone's a nazi to the left" is such a bullshit argument. I have attacked white nationalists and white supremacists. I've played by your funking word games. You don't get to pretend that I'm some sort of squealing college strawman anymore.

[vla1ne]

I'm saying the social stigma is about akin to it. Like, I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Why do you think they had a Kavanaugh hearing? It's not like anyone was going to press any criminal charges against him. No, it was to smear his character as someone who committed sexual assault. Either way, I'm not saying it's a crime to be a racist, I'm saying that openly embracing that sheet post-adpocalypse after the PewDiePie hitler sheet when a majority of your following is on youtube is not a good look at all that would not only jeopardize your ability to reach people and lower your income substantially. As thus, there's no reason that he'd admit to it while he's effectively a promoter because that would not only potentially ruin his deals, but he'd get kicked off the platform.

 

It was posted in 2011 and some random rapper that nobody's ever heard of is not a funking political commentary figure. I already said I denounced asian pride repeatedly. You're literally stuck on loop, your brain's incapable of creating a proper argument against what I presented two posts ago so you're just regurgitating the stupidest examples in order to distract from my argument. Grow up.

 

 

Sure sounds like you don't want to talk about the rest of it whenever I end up pointing out something stupid he says in it.

That is what's called theorycrafting. By that metric, i could say you hold X position because you deny it vehemently.  Gavin has been doing what he does since well before pewdiepie happened. and he has not only denounced rascists, He has actively cursed them out when they share the stage with him. you're gonna need more than basic insinuations to make your accusation. He says he isn't. He has done nothing that implies he is, and he has spoken on the behalf of multiple races in the past. Where are your trying to go with this?

 

"namely in the fact that other "prides" don't exist besides black pride"

Clearly it exists. I found a case, and even one single case proves that it does indeed exist (especially since the comments are filled with people who wholly support the concept of asian pride, and even taut it in the comments section.). Whether or not it's a grand political movement does not negate the fact that other races have pride in their respective races. While they don't strut it about like a peacock, it does indeed exist. I can pull up dozens more sources for multiple races, but this is one of the simplest things to let drop, please don't waste our time trying to defend this pointless point. Claiming racial pride of any kind does not exist, is an argument that cannot be defended, as even one case of it, as in this instance, destroys the argument of nonexistence.

 

disregard and disavow are two different things. and i already explained the point.

 

 

 

 

Okay, none of this is proof that they were lying. Nice job deflecting and hiding again. I'm not arguing the moral standpoints because that's objective and I don't give a funk about objective sheet. I'm saying, you said they were lying. He says they were lying. Where's the proof?

 

 

Do you have any proof that this is the rationale for the cop shooters? I love how you cite the part of the video that he says himself are absolutely unquantifiable. So you're going on that feeling-based "common sense" sheet that means that you don't have to look into any evidence. There's absolutely no proof or citeable evidence that proves that black people are more ornery or noncompliant then other people, you have no statistics on the matter. Neither is that black people with "victimization complexes" or black lives matter activists have a higher tendency to attack cops. You're making assertions out of your ass.

 

I'm anti-nationalism so you won't find any complaints with me about someone being not "proud of their country". I care about citizens, I really don't give a funk about what "America"s pride is. Also, pretty odd that you can place this filter around people, needing to be "proud of their country" yet still be an advocate for free speech. The same people complaining about snowflake censorship at university are the same people who are destroying Nike shoes and called for Kaepernick to be fired or claim that their kids shouldn't know about trans people in school or claim that black people shouldn't speak about their experience in front of their kids. What happens to "muh second amendment (really?)" when it comes to speech like that? Why is it that false flagging and mass reporting any video that has to do with criticizing the alt-right or white nationalism such a popular thing? Why is this ONLY toted around when it's to protect racist white people by the right?

 

 

The people in said video made the claims, they do not back them. As the saying goes, that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Especially since the very existence of affirmative action and anti discrimination laws destroy the entire damn argument. Not to mention that wasn't even the main gripe either gavin or myself had with the article. The main gripe is the attempt to indoctrinate children into thinking that the police and society are so intent on holding down or killing blacks, while ignoring the culture in black communities that leads to the high death rate (the same culture that leads to the absurdly high inter-community murder rate). We have a black supreme court judge. The most powerful position in the land barring the presidential title. How much higher do you think black people need to climb before you understand that people are not being held down by anything more than their own excuses.

 

So you're anti nationalist, but care about the citizens of the nation? The two aren't exactly the same, but they generally don't oppose each other. How did you even get to such a position?

 

Yeah, you can support free speech and still think that people should be proud of their country. i'm not telling you you can't do something, i'm saying you should have pride in your country and your people. the people upset at censorship are not the same people calling for kavenaugh to be fired. for most intents and purposes, the left was the main side rallying against kavnaugh, while the right is the main side advocating freedom of speech. I really don't know or care about whose burning shoes. probaly the right, but that's stupid, and a waste of good shoes and money, so i don't support it. kids don't even know what trans is, nor do they need to. The concept of maturity is the argument there. if they want to know, don't hold them back, but making them take classes on it in elementary and even kindergarten? That's flat out stupid. as for black parents, they can speak about their own experiences in front of kids, my mom did, they should not, however, attempt to imprint upon their child that society is attempting to drag them down. that's patently false. and there's even programs made by society to lift black people up higher. Flip that. it's the alt right and white nationalists who get flagged. not the other way around. i rarely see anybody flagging left wing videos, and it's not the right that attacks every single right wing protest with cries of "NAZI!!". freedom of speech is touted for both sides where i'm sitting. I can't recall one time i've said that somebody deserves to have their right to speak taken away, or that violence should be used to prevent anybody from speaking. In fact, i'm the main person here arguing against de-platforming. i don't speak for others, but i know where i'm sitting, the people on my side argue against instigating violence or rioting in response to political opponents.

 

 

 

Sure, there are people that disagree with me, big whoop. One of these people is someone who's made a literal career off of reacting to white nationalists, as in that's his 9 to 5 so I doubt that's any sort of ideological stance for him rather then "it's how he puts food on the table". The other is literally just some college kid coming to watch a shitshow. None of this says anything about their opinion on "freedom of speech" regarding racists.

 

Universities shouldn't allow outdated knowledge like white nationalism that has been debunked over and over again in numerous fields to be spoken upon, it's the equivalent of letting a flat earther speak on the campus, it's literally perpetuating debunked lies for the sole purpose of appeasing to racists.

 

Who have I labeled a fascist that isn't? Can't use Melkor again because I explained why I said that. Don't funking strawman me with that bullshit argument. "oh everyone's a nazi to the left" is such a bullshit argument. I have attacked white nationalists and white supremacists. I've played by your funking word games. You don't get to pretend that I'm some sort of squealing college strawman anymore.

tim sits on the fence and leans to the left side of the fence. he's about as unbiased as you can get, the other guy is a regular person who simply holds views and wants to explore other views, whether he beleives in them or not. and it says quite a bit. it shows you what calm and rational people do in reaction to somebody whose views they object to. they don't throw a fit, and threaten (or actively engage in) violence to get the platform shut down, they either go and listen/protest non violently, or just don't go. tims views are well known on the topic, he's against violence and supports freedom of speech, the other kid's decision, from everything we know of the topic at hand, reflects what his views are likely to be. aka, whether o not he objects to your views, he's willing to at least listen like a civilized human being.

 

Flat earthers are actually still allowed to speak on campuses. They don't, but they have the ability to if they wish to book a session. Disagree or not, we don't get to tell them the cannot speak.

 

You use quite a few labels that you attempt to place on people who they don't fit, but if we're talking only fascism, then unless you were only talking about melkor when you made your statement, then that's at least me, (considering that reply implied plural). likely milo is a target of yours, i'm betting you wish to also use spencer as well, (which would be strange, considering he doesn't actually advocate violent suppression in the same manner as the group that opposes him) but go ahead and list more people you believe are fascists. Though i bet you'll be a bit more sparing with the label now.

[Proto]

That is what's called theorycrafting. By that metric, i could say you hold X position because you deny it vehemently.  Gavin has been doing what he does since well before pewdiepie happened. and he has not only denounced rascists, He has actively cursed them out when they share the stage with him. you're gonna need more than basic insinuations to make your accusation. He says he isn't. He has done nothing that implies he is, and he has spoken on the behalf of multiple races in the past. Where are your trying to go with this?

 

"namely in the fact that other "prides" don't exist besides black pride"

Clearly it exists. I found a case, and even one single case proves that it does indeed exist (especially since the comments are filled with people who wholly support the concept of asian pride, and even taut it in the comments section.). Whether or not it's a grand political movement does not negate the fact that other races have pride in their respective races. While they don't strut it about like a peacock, it does indeed exist. I can pull up dozens more sources for multiple races, but this is one of the simplest things to let drop, please don't waste our time trying to defend this pointless point. Claiming racial pride of any kind does not exist, is an argument that cannot be defended, as even one case of it, as in this instance, destroys the argument of nonexistence.

 

disregard and disavow are two different things. and i already explained the point.

 

It's not really theorycrafting and my basis is not based off of what he "denies vehemently" I spent the last ten funking pages giving you more and more information about why there is clear evidence of him being a racist. He's done nothing to imply that he is besides make a 20 minute video calling all black people liars, saying they're likely to be recruited by ISIS, that stop and frisk was good and making 70% of that video about the completely unrelated topics of black rapists and the muslim sniper who's actions had NOTHING TO DO with his point besides painting black people to his white audience as potential rapists, murderers and hysterical. 

 

You're strawmanning me, how the funk am I saying asian pride doesn't exist when I OPENLY DENOUNCED IT.

 

 

 

 

I am not behind asian pride despite being a Korean,

 

I said you don't see it earlier in the conversation because it's not popular! Because there's no reason for it to be! There's an idea of it to prevent East Asian folk with a particularly bad history of murdering eachother like the Chinese and Japanese to put their weapons down but it is absolutely unfruitful! The fact that you had to dig back 7 years ago in order to find a video regarding it proves my point that it's very much not a thing. You're just constructing strawmen because that's the only thing that the reactionary brain can actually take down.

 

The people in said video made the claims, they do not back them. As the saying goes, that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Especially since the very existence of affirmative action and anti discrimination laws destroy the entire damn argument. Not to mention that wasn't even the main gripe either gavin or myself had with the article. The main gripe is the attempt to indoctrinate children into thinking that the police and society are so intent on holding down or killing blacks, while ignoring the culture in black communities that leads to the high death rate (the same culture that leads to the absurdly high inter-community murder rate). We have a black supreme court judge. The most powerful position in the land barring the presidential title. How much higher do you think black people need to climb before you understand that people are not being held down by anything more than their own excuses.

 

So you're anti nationalist, but care about the citizens of the nation? The two aren't exactly the same, but they generally don't oppose each other. How did you even get to such a position.

 They made claims and said to their children why they happened man. They probably have an arrest record hell one of the woman was even RECOUNTING to her son who then NODDED about an incident that happened WITH HIM IN THE CAR. Yet you're saying she's lying so the man in the suit is right. Clearly this woman is abusing her child so much she fed him a story that he was going to recite on camera SURELY. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest if you believe that a woman is legit going to drop down and start giving data/proof to a funking six year old. The fact that you see them as lying immediately should tell you your bias. Hell, they've got social media, go ask them yourself if you're curious but you can't just say that they're a liar with no proof.

 

A mentality like this is why people don't come up to talk about their abusers until they are absolutely sure they won't face social repercussions. I'm supposed to believe Gavin at his word with plenty of evidence to the contrary that him and his gangs are violent thugs led by a racist man because he said it himself, but you can't believe what they're saying at their word?

 

I wonder what's the difference between Gavin and them, what makes him a beacon of truth while others are skeptical at best? Especially when Gavin straight up lied repeatedly in his video. I can only conclude you believe him because if you don't your whole argument falls apart.

 

I'm anti-nationalist because I don't care about the dickwaving of country values. I don't subscribe to the idea that every resident needs to uphold the same culture or standard or even language in order to contribute to a country. And archaic rules that were only intended to be used by white anglo-saxon protestant landowners. And I believe that borders should eventually be opened up. I believe that nationalism at its core is fairly unlogical. Because ultimately this rat race of trying to compete against the rest of the world and have the biggest dick is going to bite us when we all need to join together to get to space or clean up the atmosphere.

 

 

Yeah, you can support free speech and still think that people should be proud of their country. i'm not telling you you can't do something, i'm saying you should have pride in your country and your people. the people upset at censorship are not the same people calling for kavenaugh to be fired. for most intents and purposes, the left was the main side rallying against kavnaugh, while the right is the main side advocating freedom of speech. I really don't know or care about whose burning shoes. probaly the right, but that's stupid, and a waste of good shoes and money, so i don't support it. kids don't even know what trans is, nor do they need to. The concept of maturity is the argument there. if they want to know, don't hold them back, but making them take classes on it in elementary and even kindergarten? That's flat out stupid. as for black parents, they can speak about their own experiences in front of kids, my mom did, they should not, however, attempt to imprint upon their child that society is attempting to drag them down. that's patently false. and there's even programs made by society to lift black people up higher. Flip that. it's the alt right and white nationalists who get flagged. not the other way around. i rarely see anybody flagging left wing videos, and it's not the right that attacks every single right wing protest with cries of "NAZI!!". freedom of speech is touted for both sides where i'm sitting. I can't recall one time i've said that somebody deserves to have their right to speak taken away, or that violence should be used to prevent anybody from speaking. In fact, i'm the main person here arguing against de-platforming. i don't speak for others, but i know where i'm sitting, the people on my side argue against instigating violence or rioting in response to political opponents.

 

Woo, so you read Kaepernick as Kavanaugh and then misspelled his name three different ways. (Did you think he was the black supreme court judge you were talking about?) Kids should know who trans people are so they don't treat them like sheet later. Left wing videos get flagged all the time whenever it's not someone on John Oliver level and the fact that you don't know about that shows me that you haven't explored that at all (understandable because you thought Rubin was a heckin' leftist). I could go in detail about that but it's not super important and it'd give you another way out of the conversation. 

 

They're speaking on their experiences, how is that different then the motto that Gavin keeps toting? Seethe and resist? They're just acting more brutal about it because well, times are brutal. Kids are getting shot for wearing samurai cosplays and having water guns. Now does that make police officers superkillers? No. But it does instill a parent with the need to make sure the child doesn't get killed.

 

You use quite a few labels that you attempt to place on people who they don't fit, but if we're talking only fascism, then unless you were only talking about melkor when you made your statement, then that's at least me, (considering that reply implied plural). likely milo is a target of yours, i'm betting you wish to also use spencer as well, (which would be strange, considering he doesn't actually advocate violent suppression in the same manner as the group that opposes him) but go ahead and list more people you believe are fascists. Though i bet you'll be a bit more sparing with the label now.

I use a lot of labels? Name 'em. I don't think I use that many and I've validated most of them. If you think I was calling you a fascist when I wasn't replying to you, you've mistaken, I used plurals basically because it flowed well with the joke more then anything. It was to make him feel less special amongst a horde of other right wing authoritarian nerds rather then painting everyone with it. But hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

I wouldn't call Milo a fascist just because I don't think he cares about politics outside of Trump. He's more like a clown for the fascists, someone who'll dance to their game because they think they're on the winning side. I would call Spencer a fascist due to the fact that he pretty constantly evokes Nazi imagery and actually seems to have plans. White supremacy will always involve violent suppression if they end up getting their way.

[Phantom Roxas]

It targeted them because many skeleton's  devolve into chanting mobs after a few programmed statements.

[spoiler=These are the kinds of people we call NPC" s]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E61BTum2OI

 

People who devolve into a violent incoherent mob, literally attacking the homes of the people (or just the people) who they disagree with. Those who resort to violence the second they don't get their way, those who don't think, people who don't think their one sided ideologies can't backfire on them. the kinds of people who do sheet like this are the people we call NPC's, and the term applies on both sides.

 

 

I can show you clip after clip of rational discussion devolving into frenzied chanting initiated by mobs of npcs. it's not verbal abuse anymore than it would be verbal abuse to tell them they weren't thinking for themselves. It's a hilarious form of criticism because all that needs to be done to disprove it is engage in rational discussion. The main people against it are those who can't take a joke. twitter banned everybody, even the people who merely had it as an avatar. It's not porn, nothing about the meme deserved such a wide backlash, aside from some unhappy people at twitter realizing the meme applied to them.

 

 

He sincerely believes that whites in america (and across europe) are becoming a persecuted class (which i tentatively agree with), and that they need to reestablish themselves in their homelands. The man also seriously believes (for some dumbass reason) that white people are the only natural citizens of places like europe, canada, and america. he calls for separation of the races, in actual separate but equal division, which is surprisingly popular these days on the left as well. He also casually brushes aside the contributions of other races to america, and asserts that only white people have contributed anything to any white country. there's more as well, but i'm short on time. Where he's joking though, is when he plays the nazi card, the genocide card, and other things of that calibur. People try to call him (and everybody else nowadays) a nazi, so he does it just to piss them off. He does not condone violence, and while his views can be sen as offensive, he himself is (while definitely racist) a pretty chill guy. He's wrong in his beliefs, but he is respectful, sincere, and honest to a fault (you can be wrong and still be all those things). He doesn't care about other races, but he does not wish them harm, nor does he hate them, he  wants them out of (what he believes to be) his country.

 

 

Your own point was rather muddy to me. You appeared to be going with guilt by association. You only stated they were both nazis and hung out together. He does hold some similarities, but there are differences in the degree of beliefs that make it inaccurate to label him nazi. They hold a few similar beliefs, but they branch out in different directions, and come from different places. spencer beleves whites are being persecuted, and wishes to protect his race. nazis, while they may hold similar views, do not wish to protect their own race, so much as harm other races.  they both view their races highly, but they diverge on other subjects far enough to not fit under the same umbrella. they may be friendly, but if i sat down with a nazi, i would bet we could come to terms on 

 

 

That's not what i mean. I mean words do not harm people. even up on a podium, words do nothing. words always have meaning, but only actions have power. people can say whatever they like, it is only when they act that they have any power. de-platforming is not the solution. it's one of the problems. there are no unbiased arbiters, and  if people cannot speak on a soapbox, then others will question why, and want to hear for themselves, look at alex jones. nobody cared about him till he got shut down, and then his base blew up 200% (it shrank slowly after, but remains more inflated than it once was)

 

 

You are correct, it is not the right to be heard, but if you don't want to hear it, just don't go. You can even tell other people you don't think they should go, but when people actively threaten to riot on a campus, that is no longer the same thing. that is active censorship. these people do not abuse privledges, they do what every other speaker does. they go onstage and state their views to an audience that is willing to at least listen. it is not abusing privileges to hold and state views. no matter how controversial.

 

Holding right wing beliefs will indeed get you attacked and de-platformed on the basis of wrong think. Allison got out kicked for life from a comicon just for daring to be publicly right wing. Jeremy got banned by magic because of a smear campaign that led to him being physically attacked. Gab got de-funded and de-hosted because of one violent person who had pages on all platforms (yet only gab gets attacked), Dave Rubin gets attacked from the left all day long over who he brings on his show. The killstream incident lead to their stream for charity being shut down and fully refunded by force, because people with the wrong opinions were on it. Diversity in comics went on a public tv show and was edited to hell so that he would look as evil as possible, a gamer on youtube got banned simply for killing a feminist npc in a game (a LITERAL npc). the list goes on. Wrong think is an actual thing, and unfortunately, it's been marketed so that when it happens to people on the right, or who even lean right, it's always disguised as them having done something wrong. even when they've done nothing wrong.

 

 

the npc meme was made up as a joke comparison. and it was found that it applied well. the person in question actually was once rather far on the left, then he got screwed over by the left, came over to the center, and made a joke that took off like a rocket. he's by no means irrational, and the joke applies to both sides.

 

Again you boast as if your sense of humor somehow gives you an advantage. It's not that you "can take a joke", it's that these are insults that attack the person instead of critiquing their arguments. "NPC" or "skeleton" are pejoratives that serve to make sweeping generalizations against people who dare to hold more progressive ideals. You don't get to insult people, and then demand that they are the ones who now need to be rational to "prove" it wrong. Claiming that's all people need to do is a hollow, because you throw around those insults regardless. If you want people to behave rationally, you can start by addressing the arguments, not resorting to cheap labels that serve only to belittle people.

 

If Richard Spencer doesn't like being called a Nazi, then him doing what people expect of him is the dumbest reaction. If your trolling just means that more people will believe you're a Nazi - especially when you just said that he's sincere - then congratulations, you've managed to prove everyone right.

 

No, you wrongly interpreted my arguments as guilt by association, and I have been trying to clarify that ever since. You still have yet to prove why neither of them are Nazis, merely saying that being a Nazi is totally different from being a white supremacist. I understand that, and I maintain that they're both still Nazis, or at least genuinely agree with select Nazi ideologies. You assumed that I was calling them Nazis. simply because of who he hangs out with. I've been telling that you that they personally use Nazi rhetoric in complete sincerity. Your attempts rebuttals have just been "It's just a joke!", and that is simply not good enough. One moment you try to argue about how sincere Richard Spencer is, except when I point to evidence that shows why he may be a Nazi, then you suddenly claim that he was joking. I see them as Nazis because of what they have done on their own, regardless of who they associate themselves with. You've taken that to mean that I've somehow been saying that they're only Nazis because they hang out with other Nazis, when I've been trying to tell you that they associate with those Nazis because they held preexisting beliefs. That's not guilty by association; it's about who they already were before they joined in with other groups.

 

Claiming that nobody cared about Alex Jones before he got shut down is a lie. His words did have power precisely because of the platform he possessed. Trump complains about "Fake News" all the time, except that's exactly what Alex Jones was, and yet Trump relied on Alex Jones. He claimed that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and labeled the families of the victims as "crisis actors", a line that has since been the GOP's go-to excuse for dismissing the scale of mass shootings. Words do have power because of the platform Alex Jones had; he repeated lies long enough that people started to believe them. The entire point of the "NPC" criticism is to dismiss people as though they've been programmed to believe a certain way, except whereas the NPC meme is a pitiful attempt to address a problem that is not actually there, and instead just gets used as another way to harass people, Alex Jones successfully managed to make people deny the truth. Words may not carry nearly as much power as actions, but they still have some power. It's enough to influence people as well as their actions.

 

You're still misrepresenting what censorship actually is. People may threaten to riot against a campus, but that's not actually censoring Spencer. When Spencer wants to use a campus, he is borrowing someone else's property to use for his own purposes. If the university does not want to lend the use of their property to him, then that is not censorship. It is really just "I don't want you here." And when Richard Spencer participates in a mob that uses torches and refuses to condemn murder, then he has abused certain privileges. He may not have abused them at that specific university, but when he has already proven that his rallies will result in murder, why should a university take the risk?

 

GamerGaters and ComicsGaters get punished for more than just wrong-think. They threaten to rape or murder people, and it's really not that hard to make Richard Meyer look bad when his community is just that guilty. Sticking with your idea that denying a platform people who have abused privileges is somehow censorship, Antarctic Press was already on the fence about publishing Meyer's work, and when Mark Waid brought up how Meyer has harassed people, the publisher cancelled the book. The company was well within their rights to cancel his book, and did so because of Meyer's actions. None of these are because of they simply because they held believes deemed to be "wrong"; they were punished because their actions caused more harm than good, and they were punished appropriately.

[vla1ne]

It's not really theorycrafting and my basis is not based off of what he "denies vehemently" I spent the last ten funking pages giving you more and more information about why there is clear evidence of him being a racist. He's done nothing to imply that he is besides make a 20 minute video calling all black people liars, saying they're likely to be recruited by ISIS, that stop and frisk was good and making 70% of that video about the completely unrelated topics of black rapists and the muslim sniper who's actions had NOTHING TO DO with his point besides painting black people to his white audience as potential rapists, murderers and hysterical. 

 

You're strawmanning me, how the funk am I saying asian pride doesn't exist when I OPENLY DENOUNCED IT.

 

I said you don't see it earlier in the conversation because it's not popular! Because there's no reason for it to be! There's an idea of it to prevent East Asian folk with a particularly bad history of murdering eachother like the Chinese and Japanese to put their weapons down but it is absolutely unfruitful! The fact that you had to dig back 7 years ago in order to find a video regarding it proves my point that it's very much not a thing. You're just constructing strawmen because that's the only thing that the reactionary brain can actually take down.

 

There's no proper basis for your claim. You wove your own views into it and presented it forth with nothing else tying it in. That's pretty much theorycrafting. No, you haven't. If you were saying Spencer were racist, you'd have an argument, Gavin, is nowhere near rascist, and all you've done is pull false information and what at this point, i'm considering willful misinterpretations of him. he didn't say all blacks are liars, He said those people, the ones in the video, and those who would indoctrinate their kids with that kind of bullshit, are lying to their children, and that it was basically child abuse, which is was.and yeah, he's blatantly wrong on the stop and frisk, and on the argument that their actions are leading to essentially isis. but that's two fails in a sea of solid points. I'm a black man, also calling them liars. His point about the sniper was tied into the video right he mentioned it, namely that due in part to these kinds of "talks", tensions between the police and black people has reached a point where black people, believing they're going to die anyways, will voluntarily attack cops. the point wasn't so far back that you would have to struggle to find it. he's clearly saying that due in part to these kinds of talks, many black people are taking actions that sensible people would not take in relation to police encounters. and i agree. because i see it firsthand. You wanna tell me you've got more authority on the topic than i do?

 

"...namely in the fact that other "prides" don't exist besides black pride..."

It's not strawman, it's exactly what you said. Yeah, you contradicted yourself, but that's on you, not me. If your argument is that you denounce other prides, then that is not an argument so much as it's your personal opinion. As such, you would still be better of dropping the topic. Your exact words were, that other prides don't exist. and from the context, you even stated it as fact (...namely in the fact that ...). Those are your words, not mine. You might at best be able to call it a misunderstanding, but there's not a chance in hell you could call it a strawman, as i quoted an exact claim before making the point. and addressed said claim directly. You misspoke, but that's on you. not me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 They made claims and said to their children why they happened man. They probably have an arrest record hell one of the woman was even RECOUNTING to her son who then NODDED about an incident that happened WITH HIM IN THE CAR. Yet you're saying she's lying so the man in the suit is right. Clearly this woman is abusing her child so much she fed him a story that he was going to recite on camera SURELY. You're being extremely intellectually dishonest if you believe that a woman is legit going to drop down and start giving data/proof to a funking six year old. The fact that you see them as lying immediately should tell you your bias. Hell, they've got social media, go ask them yourself if you're curious but you can't just say that they're a liar with no proof.

 

A mentality like this is why people don't come up to talk about their abusers until they are absolutely sure they won't face social repercussions. I'm supposed to believe Gavin at his word with plenty of evidence to the contrary that him and his gangs are violent thugs led by a racist man because he said it himself, but you can't believe what they're saying at their word?

 

I wonder what's the difference between Gavin and them, what makes him a beacon of truth while others are skeptical at best? Especially when Gavin straight up lied repeatedly in his video. I can only conclude you believe him because if you don't your whole argument falls apart.

 

I'm anti-nationalist because I don't care about the dickwaving of country values. I don't subscribe to the idea that every resident needs to uphold the same culture or standard or even language in order to contribute to a country. And archaic rules that were only intended to be used by white anglo-saxon protestant landowners. And I believe that borders should eventually be opened up. I believe that nationalism at its core is fairly unlogical. Because ultimately this rat race of trying to compete against the rest of the world and have the biggest dick is going to bite us when we all need to join together to get to space or clean up the atmosphere.

 

Woo, so you read Kaepernick as Kavanaugh and then misspelled his name three different ways. (Did you think he was the black supreme court judge you were talking about?) Kids should know who trans people are so they don't treat them like sheet later. Left wing videos get flagged all the time whenever it's not someone on John Oliver level and the fact that you don't know about that shows me that you haven't explored that at all (understandable because you thought Rubin was a heckin' leftist). I could go in detail about that but it's not super important and it'd give you another way out of the conversation. 

 

They're speaking on their experiences, how is that different then the motto that Gavin keeps toting? Seethe and resist? They're just acting more brutal about it because well, times are brutal. Kids are getting shot for wearing samurai cosplays and having water guns. Now does that make police officers superkillers? No. But it does instill a parent with the need to make sure the child doesn't get killed.

I use a lot of labels? Name 'em. I don't think I use that many and I've validated most of them. If you think I was calling you a fascist when I wasn't replying to you, you've mistaken, I used plurals basically because it flowed well with the joke more then anything. It was to make him feel less special amongst a horde of other right wing authoritarian nerds rather then painting everyone with it. But hey, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

I wouldn't call Milo a fascist just because I don't think he cares about politics outside of Trump. He's more like a clown for the fascists, someone who'll dance to their game because they think they're on the winning side. I would call Spencer a fascist due to the fact that he pretty constantly evokes Nazi imagery and actually seems to have plans. White supremacy will always involve violent suppression if they end up getting their way.

No, i'm saying the cops are not out to get you. People get pulled over every day. People deal with jabroni cops every day, no matter the race. People are bastards to cops every day, no matter the race. to try and imprint upon your child that because of their race, that the police are after black people specifically, is to lie to your child and to teach your child to internalize a hatred of (or at the very least fear of) cops from such a young age, is to do nothing but stunt your child's ability to deal with authority later on in life. I'm not calling them liars because of their stories, i'm calling them liars because they're trying to teach their children that they got arrested because of their race, and not because they broke the law. Gavin said it best, "They're leaving out other details too, like how they acted around the cops" this is what makes them dishonest. Teaching their kids that it was race, not attitude that got them deeper into sheet, is why they're liars.

 

 

I'm going to drop this here. it's a discussion that deserves it's own thread, and could literally provide material for page long responses were we to travel down that road.

 

 

My bad. Completely misread that statement. I haven't thought about kapernick for a while, so i completely fell off there. kids can ask about trans if they get curoious, forcibly teaching them before they're even at a stage of sexual maturity does nothing for them. If it's that populous, then that just means people on both sides need to stop doing so. I trust we can agree on that much?

 

 

Speaking your experiences is one thing. Teaching your children that the police are out to get them for their race, is another thing entirely. The kid got shot because he waved around an item with the appearance of a gun, and aimed it at police officers. As for the samurai cosplay, according to the report, the man lunged at them with the sword, took three shots to the chest, started running, and they shot him down before he could potentially endanger any other people, while it was a tragedy, You DO NOT make threatening motions towards the police, especially when confirmed to have any form of weapon. and you damn sure do not run, with said weapon in tow, if you are not immune to bullets. you put the weapon down slowly, and back away from it with your hands in the air. Teach kids not to wave guns around anybody (my mother had the sense to). Teach people not to run from the cops, ESPECIALLY when confirmed to have a weapon, and ensure that toy guns, look like toy guns. 

[spoiler=cops have learned from the past tragedy, but it is till a bad idea to wave anything even remotely gun looking towards the police]

 

 

 

white supremacist, facist, racist, three's a crowd.  

[spoiler=a few quotes]

"Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism… How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist!" - Adolf Hitler, "Why We Are Anti-Semites," August 15, 1920 speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.

 

"We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! " - Gregor Strasser, Nazi political strategist, 1926.

 

"England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished, socially enslaved, and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs. Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums. Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly brands him the worst kind of rascal." - Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propagandist, 1939.

 

 

Spencer would have to be spouting socialist views if you were attempting to pin the nazi label on him. Nazis had touches of fascism, but they were first and foremost, socialists. In fact, in my journey searching for the recording of his debate with the person i mentioned to roxas, i came across an interview he had with tree of logic, in which he actually was allowed to lay his views out bare. and I have to say, he's mostly isolationist, along the likes of china and japan. the way he came to said conclusions were flawed, but the end conclusions were pretty much isolationism.

 

 

Again you boast as if your sense of humor somehow gives you an advantage. It's not that you "can take a joke", it's that these are insults that attack the person instead of critiquing their arguments. "NPC" or "skeleton" are pejoratives that serve to make sweeping generalizations against people who dare to hold more progressive ideals. You don't get to insult people, and then demand that they are the ones who now need to be rational to "prove" it wrong. Claiming that's all people need to do is a hollow, because you throw around those insults regardless. If you want people to behave rationally, you can start by addressing the arguments, not resorting to cheap labels that serve only to belittle people.

 

If Richard Spencer doesn't like being called a Nazi, then him doing what people expect of him is the dumbest reaction. If your trolling just means that more people will believe you're a Nazi - especially when you just said that he's sincere - then congratulations, you've managed to prove everyone right.

 

No, you wrongly interpreted my arguments as guilt by association, and I have been trying to clarify that ever since. You still have yet to prove why neither of them are Nazis, merely saying that being a Nazi is totally different from being a white supremacist. I understand that, and I maintain that they're both still Nazis, or at least genuinely agree with select Nazi ideologies. You assumed that I was calling them Nazis. simply because of who he hangs out with. I've been telling that you that they personally use Nazi rhetoric in complete sincerity. Your attempts rebuttals have just been "It's just a joke!", and that is simply not good enough. One moment you try to argue about how sincere Richard Spencer is, except when I point to evidence that shows why he may be a Nazi, then you suddenly claim that he was joking. I see them as Nazis because of what they have done on their own, regardless of who they associate themselves with. You've taken that to mean that I've somehow been saying that they're only Nazis because they hang out with other Nazis, when I've been trying to tell you that they associate with those Nazis because they held preexisting beliefs. That's not guilty by association; it's about who they already were before they joined in with other groups.

 

Claiming that nobody cared about Alex Jones before he got shut down is a lie. His words did have power precisely because of the platform he possessed. Trump complains about "Fake News" all the time, except that's exactly what Alex Jones was, and yet Trump relied on Alex Jones. He claimed that Sandy Hook was a hoax, and labeled the families of the victims as "crisis actors", a line that has since been the GOP's go-to excuse for dismissing the scale of mass shootings. Words do have power because of the platform Alex Jones had; he repeated lies long enough that people started to believe them. The entire point of the "NPC" criticism is to dismiss people as though they've been programmed to believe a certain way, except whereas the NPC meme is a pitiful attempt to address a problem that is not actually there, and instead just gets used as another way to harass people, Alex Jones successfully managed to make people deny the truth. Words may not carry nearly as much power as actions, but they still have some power. It's enough to influence people as well as their actions.

 

Is it though? Are the people waving signs outside tucker Carlson house making an argument when they break his door? Are the people who resort to/ advocate violence instead of discussion making an argument that holds any addressable value? Is banning a person who GTS's a RDR2 npc making an argument? Are the people who resort to calling people nazis and fascist after two or three lines of dialogue doing anything but replicating the behavior described by the NPC meme? An insult (of the meme variety) holds no weight that you do not give it. if you blow up the issue, the meme will gain power, if you do not, then the meme will disperse. but that's enough about the npc meme. It's just a meme. A powerful meme, but it has a ways to go before it hits pepe levels of power.

 

Which brings me to a discussion he had with tree of logic, he discussed with her in depth, the objections and views they both shared. and it was one of the few discussions i could find where both parties hashed out their views fully. Put simply, from that interview, the most concise one i've seen to date, The flaw with spencer is that he, like many other groups, plays far too much into identity politics. something additional that I have to say after watching that interview, he might deny being a sympathizer, but in this interview especially, he squirms like hell when asked does he denounce Hitler's hatred of the jews. So on the question of him being a nazi, i stand by my answer of no. but i have to say he himself, by his own words, damn sure shook my faith in him not at least being a sympathizer. As i've stated before, I go by what the people themselves endorse and believe, and this was, in it's purest form, Spencer hiding from a question that he should have had no problem answering directly. I'm perfectly willing to admit that spencer himself has now proven to me that even if he's not a nazi, he is completely unable to condemn the worst aspects of the regieme, which definitely places him far beneath standard decency. 

[spoiler=the interview in question if you want to see the context starting at @22:57, but at it's mot obvious at 24:11 ]

 

On this topic, as far as spencer is concerned, he himself destroyed my own defense of him. You get this argument hands down. and i cannot defend Spencer on it at all.

 

 

 

I've said this repeatedly, the person themselves is the arbiter. Spencer, bluntly states he is not a Nazi, and engages in the activity in the form of tongue in cheek humor. as i've stated above, he himself blew up much of my defense for him not being a sympathizer, but i stand by my point that he himself is not actually Nazi. At this point, that defense for him is far more tentative though, so i'm willing to concede the point, because he himself isn't even capable of defending it (i trust we still agree that wanton violence is not the answer though?). On the topic of Gavin, he does not fall under the same blanket. He has, on multiple occasions, vocally denounced white supremacy, and Nazis, has very powerfully advocated and raised funds for peace in Israel, for both Jews and Muslims (he disagrees with Islam, but the point stands), and has publicly cursed out prominent members of white supremacist groups (like duke). His actions fly directly in the face of Nazi behavior and run counter to the narrative to the point where even Jewish presses defend him when he is accused of such. He does make a few jokes, but everybody does, and he considers himself a comedian, so it makes some sense. It takes more than jokes for me to consider somebody a Nazi or a racist. Spencer, has proven himself out of my defense, but Gavin is well beyond the label of Nazi.

 

Alex Jones was, and is, a living meme. A couple other nutjobs took him seriously, so i suppose i can't say nobody at all cared, but He also falls under the category of npc. A gloriously hilarious one who should definitely voice the doom guy but an npc nonetheless. He holds the right to speak falsehoods. He holds the right to be an idiot and an jabroni. Conspiracy theorists like alex jones are a walking example of why makes freedom of speech so wonderful. Yes, words have power, but outside of inciting violence, that power is perfectly legal, no matter who objects to them. He has the right to make conspiracy theories, he has the right to be uncouth and ignorant, that's the kind of thing that freedom of speech was made for. with or without alex, conspiracy theorists were gonna make up conspiracies, but letting them air themselvs out is how you show the freedoms. And look at how it ended up. The hoax thing took off about as well as the 911 was an inside job conspiracy. It floated for a bit, and then, like alex jones, became a joke to all but the most hardcore conspiracy theorists. as for trump relying on alex jones, not to any real extent. some? Yeah, trump's a living meme as well, so they have that meme synergy, but jones had very little effect on the 2016 election overall. I heard nothing about him swaying any minds towards trump. definitely bonus promotion, but that doesn't really mean much on such a large scale.

 

 

 

 

 You're still misrepresenting what censorship actually is. People may threaten to riot against a campus, but that's not actually censoring Spencer. When Spencer wants to use a campus, he is borrowing someone else's property to use for his own purposes. If the university does not want to lend the use of their property to him, then that is not censorship. It is really just "I don't want you here." And when Richard Spencer participates in a mob that uses torches and refuses to condemn murder, then he has abused certain privileges. He may not have abused them at that specific university, but when he has already proven that his rallies will result in murder, why should a university take the risk?

 

GamerGaters and ComicsGaters get punished for more than just wrong-think. They threaten to rape or murder people, and it's really not that hard to make Richard Meyer look bad when his community is just that guilty. Sticking with your idea that denying a platform people who have abused privileges is somehow censorship, Antarctic Press was already on the fence about publishing Meyer's work, and when Mark Waid brought up how Meyer has harassed people, the publisher cancelled the book. The company was well within their rights to cancel his book, and did so because of Meyer's actions. None of these are because of they simply because they held believes deemed to be "wrong"; they were punished because their actions caused more harm than good, and they were punished appropriately.

 

It is when the campus closes the discussion because of it. it's closing a venue under threat of violence, in those cases, it's less the campus than the rioters faults, but the fact remains, it's forcibly silencing opposition. which is the trademark of censorship. if the university itself says no, then that's no platforming him, which, while i consider that censorship lite, i agree that it's well within their rights. Spencer actually does vocally condemn violence, (which i would consider to include murder seeing as it's a form of violence) and has been attacked, but has not attacked anybody.

 

They get slandered in the same vein as most right wingers. There are those who make such threats, and they deserve to be punished appropriately, but most figures I've seen in the movement, high and low, condemn violence, and speak against harassment. Richard Meyer does not harass people. That was a slander on his name, Meyer was lied about, and while he has been harsh in his criticisms, he does not harass people. He may well air them out, and sheet on their comics (he is a comic book reviewer) but he does not harass them.

[spoiler='This the kind of treatment the media gives him.]

 

Look into the comments to see just how well this kind of hack-job goes over. This is the kind of treatment Richard gets. this is what people throw at him, and people like him. He is slandered, and his points are never faced directly, only balled up under the guise of _insert -ist- here_ to be protested against for no reason.

 

 

 

 

[Proto]

You're bloating this again because you need to gishgallop and obscure all of your mistakes with wordiness so we're going bullet points again.

 

1. You still bring no actual evidence that the black people in that video are lying besides "you HAVE A HUNCH they are because they didn't bring a shitton of evidence to talk to their own funking children". You put the evidence of proof on the parents but you never make Gavin substanciate his claim that the man only got his tooth broken because he was in Chicago or some other brutal crime area, so why is the burden of proof on the mothers and fathers explaining things to their kids rather then the literal news host who is supposed to be "debunking" these claims? 

 

2. You pull the race card. A lot. I'm black too, my experiences matter just as much as yours do. Your skin color doesn't make you any less wrong for assuming people's experiences. 

 

3. I explained why it didn't exist in my paragraphs which you still haven't responded too because you can't. By don't exist I don't mean literally nobody uses the word "race" + pride I mean that their practices are absolutely illegitimate and on the small scale to the point of absolute obscurity when it comes to a grand scale. You're using this one sentence out of a near essay's worth of proof otherwise as an "out" or a "gotcha" that would never fly in an actual debate because anyone with half a brain would be able to determine what I meant there if they actually PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAID. because of what I cited in my original argument that after telling you again and again to refer back too you never did. You're either not reading my points, or you're choosing to ignore them because you have no argument against them.

 

4. The assumption that they were "acting out" is no more then that, an assumption that is not based in any actual evidence that you tote as proof because you with all your heart absolutely refuse to believe a man that labels himself the same thing David Duke does can be racist. Do you have the police reports, vla1ne? Did Gavin provide the black man who he claimed to be arrested in Chicago's address? Did either of you provide ANY proof that they were acting wild towards the police or was that just a hunch you have because they're black and talking about the police?

 

5. Nazis weren't actually socialist in policy, philosophy or actual action. Their words were literal propaganda to incite a country which had been funked over by capitalism to give away all of their social freedom to a totalitarian state. Hitler himself mentions the mundanity and looseness of his definition of socialism in the following quote: "Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." It was what you might call "virtue signalling" to a country where communism was a popular sentiment. He cared not for the tenets of Karl Marx, for he was a jew.

 

6. Autopsy said he was shot from behind, there's footage of him running and police shooting behind him and police approaching him when he clearly WAS NOT aggressing any passerby like the report says and if the statement was so clear cut, 

 

Also explain how he was running with the sword still sheathed if he lunged at the police officers in question? 

 

Additionaly, why did they do a $900,000 settlement with his mother instead of just facing the facts that hey, he lunged at them so they were in all the right authority? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-utah-samurai-sword-shooting-agrees-settlement-article-1.2975581

 

7. Even if all the shootings were simple inconsequential tragedies I'm still not seeing how it's child abuse to tell your child to be more careful around police officers if kids are getting murdered for noncompliance for doing things like running with a sheathed sword, having a b.b. gun or being a black man in their OWN APARTMENT and getting shot by a police officer. I'd teach my children to be afraid because funk it, I'm afraid. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Is it though? Are the people waving signs outside tucker Carlson house making an argument when they break his door? Are the people who resort to/ advocate violence instead of discussion making an argument that holds any addressable value? Is banning a person who GTS's a RDR2 npc making an argument? Are the people who resort to calling people nazis and fascist after two or three lines of dialogue doing anything but replicating the behavior described by the NPC meme? An insult (of the meme variety) holds no weight that you do not give it. if you blow up the issue, the meme will gain power, if you do not, then the meme will disperse. but that's enough about the npc meme. It's just a meme. A powerful meme, but it has a ways to go before it hits pepe levels of power.

Can you go one post without trying to deflect? At every possible turn, instead of focusing on the actual subjects of our discussion, you simply go "What about these other people?" They are not the people who we were talking about, so stick to the topic at hand.

 

Which brings me to a discussion he had with tree of logic, he discussed with her in depth, the objections and views they both shared. and it was one of the few discussions i could find where both parties hashed out their views fully. Put simply, from that interview, the most concise one i've seen to date, The flaw with spencer is that he, like many other groups, plays far too much into identity politics. something additional that I have to say after watching that interview, he might deny being a sympathizer, but in this interview especially, he squirms like hell when asked does he denounce Hitler's hatred of the jews. So on the question of him being a nazi, i stand by my answer of no. but i have to say he himself, by his own words, damn sure shook my faith in him not at least being a sympathizer. As i've stated before, I go by what the people themselves endorse and believe, and this was, in it's purest form, Spencer hiding from a question that he should have had no problem answering directly. I'm perfectly willing to admit that spencer himself has now proven to me that even if he's not a nazi, he is completely unable to condemn the worst aspects of the regieme, which definitely places him far beneath standard decency. 

[spoiler=the interview in question if you want to see the context starting at @22:57, but at it" s mot obvious at 24:11 ]

 

On this topic, as far as spencer is concerned, he himself destroyed my own defense of him. You get this argument hands down. and i cannot defend Spencer on it at all.

 

 

 

So if I understand your point correctly, while you still maintain that he is not a Nazi himself, you're at least willing to see him as a sympathizer? I would agree with that much, because as you said, denouncing those beliefs should be ridiculously easy, and yet he could not even do that.

 

I've said this repeatedly, the person themselves is the arbiter. Spencer, bluntly states he is not a Nazi, and engages in the activity in the form of tongue in cheek humor. as i've stated above, he himself blew up much of my defense for him not being a sympathizer, but i stand by my point that he himself is not actually Nazi. At this point, that defense for him is far more tentative though, so i'm willing to concede the point, because he himself isn't even capable of defending it (i trust we still agree that wanton violence is not the answer though?). On the topic of Gavin, he does not fall under the same blanket. He has, on multiple occasions, vocally denounced white supremacy, and Nazis, has very powerfully advocated and raised funds for peace in Israel, for both Jews and Muslims (he disagrees with Islam, but the point stands), and has publicly cursed out prominent members of white supremacist groups (like duke). His actions fly directly in the face of Nazi behavior and run counter to the narrative to the point where even Jewish presses defend him when he is accused of such. He does make a few jokes, but everybody does, and he considers himself a comedian, so it makes some sense. It takes more than jokes for me to consider somebody a Nazi or a racist. Spencer, has proven himself out of my defense, but Gavin is well beyond the label of Nazi.

 

Yeah, we're still in agreement against violence. However, I have no interest in discussing Gavin. That seemed to be someone you're discussing with Proto about, and to be honest, I just skip over Proto's posts, and likewise your responses to him, so I really cannot offer any comment on Gavin. I was talking about Milo, not Gavin. I won't press the "It's just a joke!" excuse just yet, mostly because it seems that you were making that argument in defense in Gavin, rather than Milo, and I'd rather not assume your argument applies to both of them.

 

Alex Jones was, and is, a living meme. A couple other nutjobs took him seriously, so i suppose i can't say nobody at all cared, but He also falls under the category of npc. A gloriously hilarious one who should definitely voice the doom guy but an npc nonetheless. He holds the right to speak falsehoods. He holds the right to be an idiot and an jabroni. Conspiracy theorists like alex jones are a walking example of why makes freedom of speech so wonderful. Yes, words have power, but outside of inciting violence, that power is perfectly legal, no matter who objects to them. He has the right to make conspiracy theories, he has the right to be uncouth and ignorant, that's the kind of thing that freedom of speech was made for. with or without alex, conspiracy theorists were gonna make up conspiracies, but letting them air themselvs out is how you show the freedoms. And look at how it ended up. The hoax thing took off about as well as the 911 was an inside job conspiracy. It floated for a bit, and then, like alex jones, became a joke to all but the most hardcore conspiracy theorists. as for trump relying on alex jones, not to any real extent. some? Yeah, trump's a living meme as well, so they have that meme synergy, but jones had very little effect on the 2016 election overall. I heard nothing about him swaying any minds towards trump. definitely bonus promotion, but that doesn't really mean much on such a large scale.

 

Alex Jones is being sued for defamation - again - and defamation is not protected by freedom of speech. While he has yet to be found guilty, I do personally believe that his behavior constitutes defamation, and as such cannot be cited as an example of why freedom of speech is so wonderful. I hate sounding like a broken record, but the First Amendment does not actually protect as much as you think it does, given how often you've been using freedom of speech as a catch-all for why this behavior should be allowed.

 

It is when the campus closes the discussion because of it. it's closing a venue under threat of violence, in those cases, it's less the campus than the rioters faults, but the fact remains, it's forcibly silencing opposition. which is the trademark of censorship. if the university itself says no, then that's no platforming him, which, while i consider that censorship lite, i agree that it's well within their rights. Spencer actually does vocally condemn violence, (which i would consider to include murder seeing as it's a form of violence) and has been attacked, but has not attacked anybody.

 

They get slandered in the same vein as most right wingers. There are those who make such threats, and they deserve to be punished appropriately, but most figures I've seen in the movement, high and low, condemn violence, and speak against harassment. Richard Meyer does not harass people. That was a slander on his name, Meyer was lied about, and while he has been harsh in his criticisms, he does not harass people. He may well air them out, and sheet on their comics (he is a comic book reviewer) but he does not harass them.

[spoiler='This the kind of treatment the media gives him.]

 

Look into the comments to see just how well this kind of hack-job goes over. This is the kind of treatment Richard gets. this is what people throw at him, and people like him. He is slandered, and his points are never faced directly, only balled up under the guise of _insert -ist- here_ to be protested against for no reason.

 

 

 

It's not closing the discussion. Spencer can take his efforts elsewhere, so the campuses are telling him that if he wants to hold a discussion, he should take it elsewhere. While people should not have threatened to riot, if they had pursued other methods of persuading the campus to ban Spencer. A protest would have been fine. Actually, do you have any source that they specifically threatened a riot, and not a protest? Because I can easily see it that they said that they would have participated in a peaceful protest, but considering how Spencer uses "Antifa" to conflate peaceful protesters and violent rioters as though they were one in the same, I'm not exactly willing to believe the threat was as dangerous as you're presenting it.

 

If Spencer does condemn violence, I would think it would have been easier for him to condemn James Fields.

 

Here is a thread from someone that Richard Meyer did personally harass. Make of it what you will. I assume you'll dismiss her allegations of harassment, mostly because you keep denying that people like Richard Meyer are actually guilty of what they're accused of, but I might as well try.

[vla1ne]

Can you go one post without trying to deflect? At every possible turn, instead of focusing on the actual subjects of our discussion, you simply go "What about these other people?" They are not the people who we were talking about, so stick to the topic at hand.

 

 

So if I understand your point correctly, while you still maintain that he is not a Nazi himself, you're at least willing to see him as a sympathizer? I would agree with that much, because as you said, denouncing those beliefs should be ridiculously easy, and yet he could not even do that.

 

 

Yeah, we're still in agreement against violence. However, I have no interest in discussing Gavin. That seemed to be someone you're discussing with Proto about, and to be honest, I just skip over Proto's posts, and likewise your responses to him, so I really cannot offer any comment on Gavin. I was talking about Milo, not Gavin. I won't press the "It's just a joke!" excuse just yet, mostly because it seems that you were making that argument in defense in Gavin, rather than Milo, and I'd rather not assume your argument applies to both of them.

It's not deflecting to point out that npc accurately describes a large subset of people. it is not deflecting to point out that we call angry mobs, and people who default to identity politics in the absence of actual points, npc's. i told you that said people fit well within the category of NPC, that's well within the topic of the discussion.

 

 

Yes. if he can't even say plainly that hitler was wrong, then even if he's not a nazi himself, there is no possible way he cannot call himself a nazi sympathizer (or at the vey least a hitler sympathizer.)

 

As far as milo goes, i repeat what i said earlier, he's a provocateur. he stands up for the rights of many different groups, and he's shared panels and discussed many, many topics with people of all backgrounds. while he is unquestionably an jabroni, he's not a nazi, or a sympathizer of any kind. He denounces their actions , he merely uses their image, as he does with most images, to piss people off. Also, he's a gay jew, so, it'd be kinda strange if he were a nazi sympathizer. in his own words: "“They call gay Jews who never shut up about black dick Nazis,”

 

 

 

Alex Jones is being sued for defamation - again - and defamation is not protected by freedom of speech. While he has yet to be found guilty, I do personally believe that his behavior constitutes defamation, and as such cannot be cited as an example of why freedom of speech is so wonderful. I hate sounding like a broken record, but the First Amendment does not actually protect as much as you think it does, given how often you've been using freedom of speech as a catch-all for why this behavior should be allowed.

 

It's not closing the discussion. Spencer can take his efforts elsewhere, so the campuses are telling him that if he wants to hold a discussion, he should take it elsewhere. While people should not have threatened to riot, if they had pursued other methods of persuading the campus to ban Spencer. A protest would have been fine. Actually, do you have any source that they specifically threatened a riot, and not a protest? Because I can easily see it that they said that they would have participated in a peaceful protest, but considering how Spencer uses "Antifa" to conflate peaceful protesters and violent rioters as though they were one in the same, I'm not exactly willing to believe the threat was as dangerous as you're presenting it.

 

If Spencer does condemn violence, I would think it would have been easier for him to condemn James Fields.

 

Here is a thread from someone that Richard Meyer did personally harass. Make of it what you will. I assume you'll dismiss her allegations of harassment, mostly because you keep denying that people like Richard Meyer are actually guilty of what they're accused of, but I might as well try.

 

He talks sheet about a lot of people, a lot of people are going to be mad at him for it, thus, defamation lawsuits against him are not too surprising. He also says minerals in the water are turning the frogs gay, and X group of people are demons from hell. Conspiracy theory, as crazy as it is, is a beautiful example of freedom of speech because it shows you that the government is not forcing any form of views. you're allowed to believe what you wish, say what you wish, and know that big brother isn't breathing down your back for it. 

 

to put this together, what i mean is: when the campus books (or even refuses) a person who requests to speak there, that is fine. if a campus decides to go back on an agreement for a speaker, that is not fine, but it is, at least, not uncommon, nor unacceptable, no matter how little i like it. but when a campus is forced to shut down an event due to threat of violence by any group of people (be they students or outsiders) that is censorship. not by the campus, but by the people who threaten such actions. Though it don't agree with it, I can accept campuses not booking speakers. I do not like it, and i am fully against it, but i can understand campuses backing out of speeches they've scheduled, what i consider absolutely wrong though, is when events are cancelled under threat of violence. make no mistake, antifa is indeed a violent organization, and pretty much wherever they go to protest, they attack people, be they the speaker, the listeners, or even passerby. this is unacceptable behavior, and no side should endorse the actions taken by them. those are my views on the topic in a nutshell.

 

Yeah, spencer's not doing himself any favors really. he has stated on multiple occasions that he condemns violence, and that he's not willing to use or accept it's use, but then he's got other moments where he himself states something in full serious mode, and it will be something that implies, if not violence, at least force. dude's got some problems.

 

she was actually addressed right around the same time the interview aired. she declined the interview, simply because she didn't want to go onstage with him to hold a fair discussion. the worst harassment any site could find towards her were people who basically said "enough with the sjw crap, please make actual stories and not soapbox preaching" She has tried to no platform him, he's only criticized her comics, the same way he's criticized other comics. He points out sales, popularity, artwork, story, comic length, and other factors to make his arguments about her comics (and other people's). Her inclusion of social justice in comics, what he's said about it, is nothing that he hasn't said about others. not even trying to brush it off, but look around for the worst things you can find that he said about her, and it still wouldn't amount to the hit job edits they tried to nail to him. she's upset that they even let him say half a word in his defense.

 

 

You're bloating this again because you need to gishgallop and obscure all of your mistakes with wordiness so we're going bullet points again.

 

1. You still bring no actual evidence that the black people in that video are lying besides "you HAVE A HUNCH they are because they didn't bring a shitton of evidence to talk to their own funking children". You put the evidence of proof on the parents but you never make Gavin substanciate his claim that the man only got his tooth broken because he was in Chicago or some other brutal crime area, so why is the burden of proof on the mothers and fathers explaining things to their kids rather then the literal news host who is supposed to be "debunking" these claims? 

 

2. You pull the race card. A lot. I'm black too, my experiences matter just as much as yours do. Your skin color doesn't make you any less wrong for assuming people's experiences. 

 

3. I explained why it didn't exist in my paragraphs which you still haven't responded too because you can't. By don't exist I don't mean literally nobody uses the word "race" + pride I mean that their practices are absolutely illegitimate and on the small scale to the point of absolute obscurity when it comes to a grand scale. You're using this one sentence out of a near essay's worth of proof otherwise as an "out" or a "gotcha" that would never fly in an actual debate because anyone with half a brain would be able to determine what I meant there if they actually PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAID. because of what I cited in my original argument that after telling you again and again to refer back too you never did. You're either not reading my points, or you're choosing to ignore them because you have no argument against them.

 

 

 

nice projection.

 

They are attempting to say that they were arrested soley because they are black. they are not attributing other factors to the arrests, they are not even analyzing the situations they ended up in, they are merely saying "i'm black, the cops arrested me, therefore i got arrested because the cops are racist." and they're trying to imprint in the heads of their children that they will only be arrested by the cops because of their race. that is unhealthy, and i would say the same to any parent, of any race, attempting to teach such a dumbass lesson to their child. Gavin made a hypothesis on the situation, and stated what your average citizen would do if placed in the same situation. but even further than that, he was not teaching children to use his race as an excuse to fear or hate cops, which is the entire point that i have been making throughout this discussion. Teaching your kids that the cops are out to get you soley because of your race, is detrimental to your childs development, and should be considered a form of child abuse. That is my argument. Argue against that if you want to continue this line of discussion.

 

 

I've pulled the race card only in response to your own uses of identity politics as an argument. when you decide to claim he as a white person can't accurately describe them as liars, i decided to nullify that particular claim using one race card to back his own.

 

You've already admitted it exists. You yourself can denounce it all you like. Racial pride exists whether you like it or not. spanish pride, asian pride, black pride, white pride, they are all valid forms of pride.

 

 

 

4. The assumption that they were "acting out" is no more then that, an assumption that is not based in any actual evidence that you tote as proof because you with all your heart absolutely refuse to believe a man that labels himself the same thing David Duke does can be racist. Do you have the police reports, vla1ne? Did Gavin provide the black man who he claimed to be arrested in Chicago's address? Did either of you provide ANY proof that they were acting wild towards the police or was that just a hunch you have because they're black and talking about the police?

 

5. Nazis weren't actually socialist in policy, philosophy or actual action. Their words were literal propaganda to incite a country which had been funked over by capitalism to give away all of their social freedom to a totalitarian state. Hitler himself mentions the mundanity and looseness of his definition of socialism in the following quote: "Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." It was what you might call "virtue signalling" to a country where communism was a popular sentiment. He cared not for the tenets of Karl Marx, for he was a jew.

 

Teaching your kids that the cops are out to get you soley because of your race, is detrimental to your childs development, and should be considered a form of child abuse. That is my argument.

 

you have some required reading to do. namely the nazi manifest. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSDAP_25_points_manifesto

Socialism and fascism hold many similarities, but in the end, the nazi party stood under the flag of socialist. Both require the absolute power of government, and rely on a few at the top. It's undeniable that nazi manifesto borrowed heavily from fascism in the discussions of race, but the overall plans for the people were, aside from the racial purity discussions, quite socialist. The party was socialist based, every major member of the party claimed it was socialist, their policies held clear reflections of socialist thought, at the absolute lowest totem, you could say that they were socialist fascist. that i would have no qualms with, but you can't deny the fact that they held socialist views, even if they mixed them with fascist identity politics.

 

 

 

 

6. Autopsy said he was shot from behind, there's footage of him running and police shooting behind him and police approaching him when he clearly WAS NOT aggressing any passerby like the report says and if the statement was so clear cut, 

 

 Also explain how he was running with the sword still sheathed if he lunged at the police officers in question? 

 

Additionaly, why did they do a $900,000 settlement with his mother instead of just facing the facts that hey, he lunged at them so they were in all the right authority? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-utah-samurai-sword-shooting-agrees-settlement-article-1.2975581

 

7. Even if all the shootings were simple inconsequential tragedies I'm still not seeing how it's child abuse to tell your child to be more careful around police officers if kids are getting murdered for noncompliance for doing things like running with a sheathed sword, having a b.b. gun or being a black man in their OWN APARTMENT and getting shot by a police officer. I'd teach my children to be afraid because funk it, I'm afraid. 

go back and reread your article. the cops were called because a guy was walking around with a sword, when they arrived, they held a discussion with him (to my knowledge, we don't have the discussion) but shortly into the conversation, he took 3 shots to the front, as the cops stated, he made motions that they assumed were attacks, one of whom reported having to jump back due to being in such close proximity to him. They put 3 bullets in him before he ran (2 in the arms, 1 in the chest, with one of the arm chots having grazed him instead of penetrating), at which point, according to the report, as he had already (from their assumption of his motions) attacked them, and was running towards a populated area with a weapon, they put more bullets into him (which is how the story was told from the very start) and dropped him. we don't know the full details, but the bullets do indeed match the timeline described, even if the events themselves may not. he took shots to the front, two in the arms and one in the chest, and multiple rounds in the back, as he ran off.  

 

Simple, he made a motion to hand them the sword, and did so far too quickly, while in close proximity to them. This, being misinterpreted as an attack, was met with a swift retreat and retaliation shots by the police. At this point, realizing sheet has gone south, he runs away as fast as he can, hoping to avoid a fatal outcome. The cops, not realizing that he had not intended to attack them, give chase, and due to the aforementioned belief of having been attacked, chose to drop the suspect as he's fleeing with what they do not yet know is a glorified toy. thus, due to multiple horrible misunderstandings, an innocent man loses his life, and the police suffer a dark mark on their record, that will motivate hatred of the force for decades to come in the minds of those who can't empathize.

 

It's called the "they settled" game. it does nothing for any argument, because you could just as easily ask why she settled for the money instead of pushing the case. from the information we have, the man had difficulty in social situations, and made sudden motions with the sword that the cops took for an attack. which does in fact follow the current story. odds are, they simply came to a mutual understanding on the issue.

 

 

They were not telling their kids to be careful. There is a clear difference between telling your child not to play around with the cops, and telling your child that because of their race, they are more likely to be arrested or mistreated. teaching your children that you were stopped or arrested not because your car was in poor repair, but because you were black, is effectively child abuse. and make no mistake, they blatantly glossed over the details of the stops and arrests, so that could not have been the point they were attempting to make. when teaching your child to respect the law, you don't gloss over the causes, or your own conduct, be it good or bad. Teaching your kids that they should not mess around with the law is something that parents across the globe teach their children, and they don't do like these parents did, because the way these parents did. not to mention because it's a smart lesson, and instills not fear, but respect (at least in first world countries) towards the police, who do their duties. it does not hurt to tell them that not all cops a  

[Phantom Roxas]

It's not deflecting to point out that npc accurately describes a large subset of people. it is not deflecting to point out that we call angry mobs, and people who default to identity politics in the absence of actual points, npc's. i told you that said people fit well within the category of NPC, that's well within the topic of the discussion.

 

I was refuting how using a label as an insult does not make an argument, and you instead turned it back onto how your sweeping generalizations are perfectly acceptable, without addressing how that own reliance on petty name-calling is by no means rational. You may think it's "accurate", but referring to people as NPCs and skeletons are itself a form of identity politics, since you're resorting to labels instead of actual points. You're trying to condemn identity politics, except you are guilty of it yourself within this very quote.

 

Yes. if he can't even say plainly that hitler was wrong, then even if he's not a nazi himself, there is no possible way he cannot call himself a nazi sympathizer (or at the vey least a hitler sympathizer.)

 

If we can both agree that Spencer is a Nazi sympathizer, then that's some progress.

 

As far as milo goes, i repeat what i said earlier, he's a provocateur. he stands up for the rights of many different groups, and he's shared panels and discussed many, many topics with people of all backgrounds. while he is unquestionably an jabroni, he's not a nazi, or a sympathizer of any kind. He denounces their actions , he merely uses their image, as he does with most images, to piss people off. Also, he's a gay jew, so, it'd be kinda strange if he were a nazi sympathizer. in his own words: "They call gay Jews who never shut up about black dick Nazis,”

 

Again, this is relying on the "It's just a joke!" excuse. Milo has purposefully used Nazi symbolism to troll a Jewish woman, and it got him banned for anti-Semitism. You may think it would somehow be a paradox for him to be a gay Jew and a Nazi sympathizer, but when he's shown far more interest in promoting Nazi rhetoric through Breitbart, and called for people to gun down journalists, I'm not exactly going to take his victim complex seriously.

 

I'm sure you'll once again excuse it as "It's just a joke!", but that gets to my next concern. Why are you so willing to claim that all his other comments are just jokes, but you totally believe that he's Jewish, despite him not providing any evidence of that? Someone like Elizabeth Warren was held to task for having to prove her Native American ancestry, except her DNA was such an insignificant proportion that it does not count. I think if you're going to be so willing to chalk up everything else Milo says as just a joke, then his Jewish heritage should be held to the same scrutiny, especially since it mostly comes up as a reason for him to try and "prove" why he couldn't possibly be a Nazi sympathizer. It's a meaningless gesture that only comes up to deny what people accuse him of. As I said with Spencer, if Milo is doing things just to piss people off, then he's failing at trolling. If people are calling him a Nazi, then using their image is only proving them right.

 

He talks sheet about a lot of people, a lot of people are going to be mad at him for it, thus, defamation lawsuits against him are not too surprising. He also says minerals in the water are turning the frogs gay, and X group of people are demons from hell. Conspiracy theory, as crazy as it is, is a beautiful example of freedom of speech because it shows you that the government is not forcing any form of views. you're allowed to believe what you wish, say what you wish, and know that big brother isn't breathing down your back for it. 

 

to put this together, what i mean is: when the campus books (or even refuses) a person who requests to speak there, that is fine. if a campus decides to go back on an agreement for a speaker, that is not fine, but it is, at least, not uncommon, nor unacceptable, no matter how little i like it. but when a campus is forced to shut down an event due to threat of violence by any group of people (be they students or outsiders) that is censorship. not by the campus, but by the people who threaten such actions. Though it don't agree with it, I can accept campuses not booking speakers. I do not like it, and i am fully against it, but i can understand campuses backing out of speeches they've scheduled, what i consider absolutely wrong though, is when events are cancelled under threat of violence. make no mistake, antifa is indeed a violent organization, and pretty much wherever they go to protest, they attack people, be they the speaker, the listeners, or even passerby. this is unacceptable behavior, and no side should endorse the actions taken by them. those are my views on the topic in a nutshell.

 

Yeah, spencer's not doing himself any favors really. he has stated on multiple occasions that he condemns violence, and that he's not willing to use or accept it's use, but then he's got other moments where he himself states something in full serious mode, and it will be something that implies, if not violence, at least force. dude's got some problems.

 

she was actually addressed right around the same time the interview aired. she declined the interview, simply because she didn't want to go onstage with him to hold a fair discussion. the worst harassment any site could find towards her were people who basically said "enough with the skeleton crap, please make actual stories and not soapbox preaching" She has tried to no platform him, he's only criticized her comics, the same way he's criticized other comics. He points out sales, popularity, artwork, story, comic length, and other factors to make his arguments about her comics (and other people's). Her inclusion of social justice in comics, what he's said about it, is nothing that he hasn't said about others. not even trying to brush it off, but look around for the worst things you can find that he said about her, and it still wouldn't amount to the hit job edits they tried to nail to him. she's upset that they even let him say half a word in his defense.

If he's found guilty of defamation, then that would not be a freedom of speech. His antics go beyond harmless conspiracy theories.

 

Prove that the students made specific threats of violence. I'd agree with you if that was the case, but you keep repeating that they threatened the campus, and that is what makes it censorship. I get the association you're making, but now you actually do have to prove that it's what happened. I know that Antifa is a violent organization, but Spencer's problem is that he treats non-violent people as though they were a part of it. He uses "Antifa" as a generalization, not necessarily referring to the actual organization, but generally referring to any disgust with fascism as though it was inherently violent. I endorse peaceful protest that encourages deplatforming Nazi sympathizers. Does that make my own views more clear?

 

I'm of the belief that moments like what you're referring to are more likely to reveal the truth. As I keep saying, Milo and Spencer might talk one way that convinces you that they're not as bad as I believe them to be, but when Spencer says something when he is completely serious, it shows that his more "polite" comments are really good for talking points, but do not represent his true beliefs, which he reveals in the heat of a moment. To me, the easiest way to reconcile the contradiction is to see that the statements you're referring to where he supposedly condemned violence were hollow, and that implying force or refusing to condemn Hitler do far more to show what he sincerely believes.

 

Why would you want to be in the same room as someone who has personally abused her? On Twitter, she and her friends were just getting milkshakes for lunch, and that is what prompted people who said "This is why Marvel keeps pushing diversity instead of telling good stories." Women going out for lunch by no means is "skeleton crap"; it's guys throwing a fit that women have a job at a company, and even casually saying that they'd like to sleep with one of the women, only for another guy to say she should sign a consent form, because she looks like someone who would file false rape charges. These were accusations made against women these guys did not even know, and were thrown based entirely on first impressions, simply because they're women who work at Marvel.

 

https://hornet.com/stories/comicsgate-harassment-explainer-two/

 

When Ethan Van Sciver - one of Meyer's most prominent allies - demanded that someone debate him, and the man refused, Van Sciver sent his fans to make racially charged remarks harassing Darryl Ayo, and then cheered them on when he was interviewed about that.

 

You say you're not trying to brush it off, but that's exactly what you're doing. Your responses are still deflecting back onto how the "SJW/NPCs" are totally worse while downplaying how bad someone like Richard Meyer is.

[Proto]

1. I'm not interested in your deflection of your point to "oh I think x is child abuse". My claim is that Gavin is racist, your counterexample was this video. I stated why the video was racist, ineffective if its point was to prevent child abuse and that Gavin makes multiple accusations that not even you can defend. Assuming that an Islam sect = you're ISIS that more or less proves a racial bias. He assumes they're leaving things out with no proof. That is a racial bias. Assuming they're not complying with no evidence is also racial bias. You can move onto whether x is child abuse in another thread but only IN THIS THREAD it doesn't matter. My point is that Gavin has a history of racist tendencies as this I am justified in labeling him a racist.

 

2.Your proof is again, propaganda. Not any of the Nazis actual policies. Trump says the most important book to him is the bible and claims to be a devout Christian yet hes on record cheating on his wife. What did they actually do that proves that they are more socialist then nationalist? This is completely irrelevant to the political violence point mind you but its important.

[Proto]

https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/1063408845723131904

 

Ya'll are saying telling kids that the police are against them and how to act there is child abuse and doing the "but what if my son turns out to be trans" argument. Meanwhile the GOP being literal money-funnelers for the NRA has caused it so we're teaching 10 year olds how to be mini-field medics because people keep shooting up schools.

 

Beautiful.

[Phantom Roxas]

My point is that Gavin has a history of racist tendencies as this I am justified in labeling him a racist.

 

If you haven't noticed by now, vla1ne has made it perfectly clear that he believes we're both wrong to call out anyone for being racist, while in the same breath, he will throw around labels without any qualms, because he believes it's accurate and hilarious. While I agree with you, I don't know if you'll get anywhere trying to prove that your labels are justified while vla1ne is stuck on why it's okay when he does exactly the same thing as he's criticizing you for.

[Proto]

 

If you haven't noticed by now, vla1ne has made it perfectly clear that he believes we're both wrong to call out anyone for being racist, while in the same breath, he will throw around labels without any qualms, because he believes it's accurate and hilarious. While I agree with you, I don't know if you'll get anywhere trying to prove that your labels are justified while vla1ne is stuck on why it's okay when he does exactly the same thing as he's criticizing you for.

I mean altogether I don't see much point in furthering the debate if it's just going to be back and forth and back and forth like this. At the end of the day, conservatives are literally murdering people and people are whining about some guys in masks punching racists because of some absurd slippery slope idea that ONE DAY THEY MIGHT COME FOR YOU.

 

We've essentially won the second that the massive wave of violence started in the midterms that made Melkor more or less keep his foot in his mouth on whether conservatives are more violent then the left or what political violence is justified.

 

Again, mass murderers vs some guy with a bike lock. But I agree that this discussion is basically dead. When the argument devolves into someone complaining that the Left are calling everyone on your side a Nazi... While comparing the Left to the Nazis. It's pretty clear that the will for discussion's been left in the funking gutter somewhere.

[vla1ne]

At this point i'm inclined to agree that we won't see eye to eye. So long as you still at least condemn political violence, and violence in general, then it's best to call it a day. you won't see my point, and i don't see yours.

[The Warden]

Then shall I lock this thread to prevent further discourse?