|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 27 2016 03:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:34 Slaughter wrote:
Yeaaa race does not equal culture and trying to marry the two is a ridiculous notion, especially in a country like the United States..
People clearly don't know how culture works or what race is. It all depends upon how you want to define the tribe. For me, culture is what matters. Race is basically irrelevant.
It still is too simplistic a concept. Trying to hard define culture as something where you can objectively draw lines around is non sense. They are just making artificial boundaries based on skin coloration and calling it a day. Its lazy and shows a complete lack of knowledge in social theory.
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. Show nested quote +The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. Show nested quote +The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. Show nested quote +You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. Show nested quote +But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context.
What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump.
|
On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two. Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme.
Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope.
As for standing out, I entertained your request even though what I claimed was that he makes a lot of racist remarks, not that he makes exceptionally overt racist statements such as 'x race is inferior' which seems about the only thing that would convince you.
|
On August 26 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2016 10:22 Aquanim wrote:On August 26 2016 10:19 xDaunt wrote:...
conservatives rightly perceive that Muslims get a free on these issues when the positions of most Muslims {EDIT: specifically, those who choose to immigrate to the US?} are 100x worse than anything that a conservative believes. [Citation needed] Note that I am specifically not arguing about the policies of Saudi Arabia and the like - I am speaking of the general opinion among those people who choose to, and are allowed to, emigrate to the United States. Nor am I interested in isolated instances of Muslim bigotry, since I can find isolated instances of that in pretty much any population subset you choose to name. Citation to what? Go look up what Sharia law is and how many countries adhere to it. This stuff is self-evident as far as I am concerned.
Pray do tell what you think Sharia law is based on what you've looked up, Im pretty sure you havent a clue since Sharia law is like the most blanket term ever, a buzzword that people have picked up as something to demonize. Its like Saying Christian law which isnt really a monolithic thing..
|
Canada11279 Posts
Incidentally, I was curious about Andrew's claim that his (Daily Stormer) was the most popular alt right website because he could be completely full of it. However, after finding a list of alt right sites and firing them through Alexa, he would appear to be correct by a decent amount... of course some of the alternatives, the Occidentals, aren't much better- clearly White Nationalist and suspicious of the Jews (Connecting "The Holocaust"-scare quotes theirs- to Jews being able to refute unopposed the idea of different races, which in turn allowed the Jews to tear down the immigration laws based on racial discrimination opening the floodgates of non-White immigrants. In effect, the Jews orchestrated White Genocide through "The Holocaust".) They just are not quite so Hitlerian. None of them come close to Team Liquid's ranks, but as far as I can tell, he is correct.
|
On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump.
Lol supporting Cruz is not normal
|
Stormfront has been the go to site for white nationalists for a while now. They have a big overlap with /pol/ and 8chan.
|
On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump.
Like I said earlier, I don't know if I am part of the "Alt Right" because I don't even know what being part of the "Alt Right" means given the breadth of its constituency. It literally can encompass everyone from Hitler-worshipers to disenfranchised republicans. A tent that big has little descriptive meaning. All that I am doing is accurately reciting what Milo has said. And there certainly are some points in his article that I agree with. However, if there's one mistake that Milo has made, it is in trying to co-opt a label that, as far as I can tell, was first adopted by real racists. I understand why he has done it, but I don't agree with it.
And I haven't changed. I'm just fearless in my application of critical thought. I've found republican policy and political efficacy highly wanting in many regards, so I'm willing to think outside of the box and look at alternatives. Even if I don't agree with them, I do like reading about other people's ideas and considering them.
|
On August 27 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump. Lol supporting Cruz is not normal
Templar, you have I have found common ground. We should mark this day as something beyond National Dog Day.
|
On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two. Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope.
Exactly, is he homophobic?
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 27 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump. Lol supporting Cruz is not normal
Sure, like Bush or Rubio are more conventional Republicans and Cruz is a bit of a Tea Party outlier but the point is that he's still within the generally accepted political field.
|
On August 27 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump. Lol supporting Cruz is not normal Sure, like Bush or Rubio are more conventional Republicans and Cruz is a bit of a Tea Party outlier but the point is that he's still within the generally accepted political field.
He received lost the primary to Trump, receiving less votes than him.
The literal definition of 'less normal'.
normal
[nawr-muh l]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
Trump votes are more regular than both Cruz and Rubio votes. It logically follows that to support Trump is more normal than to support Cruz.
or if you rather, to support Cruz is less normal than to support Trump
makes no difference to me
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 27 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:
Stormfront has been the go to site for white nationalists for a while now. They have a big overlap with /pol/ and 8chan.
Stormfront was, which is where I used to go to see what the supremacists were up to... I get the sense from the Daily Stormer that they view Stormfront as a bunch of fuddy duddys- it seems like a generational split.
edit. (A complete aside)
While I was at it, it turns out Vox Day (another Alt Righter that likes to call African Americans 'savages' or 'half savages', women shouldn't vote, etc) is completely full of it when he said his site was more popular than John Scalzi)
|
United States42008 Posts
On August 27 2016 03:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump. Lol supporting Cruz is not normal Sure, like Bush or Rubio are more conventional Republicans and Cruz is a bit of a Tea Party outlier but the point is that he's still within the generally accepted political field. He received lost the primary to Trump, receiving less votes than him. The literal definition of 'less normal'. normal [nawr-muh l] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. Trump votes are more regular than both Cruz and Rubio votes. It logically follows that to support Trump is more normal than to support Cruz
I wrote conventional but surely you get my point that there is a fairly standard mold and that Trump falls outside of that. Also Trump brought in a lot of people who don't normally vote in the primaries, the primary was not necessarily a reflection of the historical base of the party.
Either way don't do that dictionary.com quoting thing. You're above that kind of shit. We both know what normal means and we both know how language works without an absurd appeal to the authority of a dictionary.
|
On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two. Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic?
According to himself, yes. He even said he'd cure gayness if he could and that morality is based on the bible and every place without christian heritage is has shitty morals. (paraphrasing)
|
On August 27 2016 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:55 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 27 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 27 2016 03:39 KwarK wrote:On August 27 2016 03:31 xDaunt wrote:On August 27 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:https://archive.is/1FoFyAn article by Milo explaining who the alt right are. I'll let him use his own words The alt right are distinct from old school racist skinheads due to intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people So, like racist skinheads but too smart for that crowd? People who want to be football hooligans but don't like leaving their mother's basements perhaps? More like people who have taken the time to critically examine some social norms and axioms and found them wanting. He does a thorough job describing exactly what he's talking about in the article, which you just gloss over. The alt-right do not hold a utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritise the interests of their tribe, they recognise that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – are likely to do the same. As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples. Note, this is literally a case for racial discrimination. The alt right claim that is is right to prioritize the interests of ones own group at the expense of others because of, and I know this is a loaded term but it's literally what he's saying, racial darwinism. That each race should favour itself because they assume that every other race will act similarly and it is necessary to act in such a way to protect the race (hence "diversity = white genocide"). Wait, you now say. He said groups and culture, he didn't specify the different races were in competition and that the whites must prioritize their own to win the war against the blacks, you've added your own racial emphasis there. You're imparting judgment where there is none. What he's describing is not that these Alt Right thinkers are making the case for how things should be so much as they are observing how things are. If you get right down to it, the success of democrats in the US is almost completely predicated upon precisely the type of crass racial (or other types of) discrimination that you are now objecting to. What do you think all of the pandering to the black vote or to the Hispanic vote is all about? Given these present circumstances, the logical question to ask is "why are white people (or other members of the traditional majority) prohibited from engaging in the same tribalistic behavior that other groups engage in for political gain?" This is hardly a controversial proposition. It's merely the logical extension of the crass identity politics spearheaded by the left. The alt-right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race. The alt-right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved. A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to alt-righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness. Okay, so he just wants whites to discriminate against other races. It's not like the alt-right are full on going for a literal race war. No, he's just making another observation. How much shit have I and other posters caught around here for suggesting that "black culture" is a significant cause of the current straits that many American black communities are in? We were labeled racists for even making the suggestion. So I don't see why you liberals would find the Milo's observation of the link between culture and race to be so objectionable when many of you have made the exact same arguments previously. You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in alt-right online communities: that’s because many of them instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows. In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. Okay, so we're discriminating against non whites because different races are fundamentally incompatible and in competition with each other and we will inevitably find ourselves in a nationwide race war. Good to know. No, what Milo is describing is the Alt Right's rejection of multiculturalism. And again, the Alt Right is very diverse in its composition, so this rejection comes in many flavors depending upon which element of the Alt Right that you choose to look at (which you seem to be repeatedly forgetting in your cherry picking of quotes). The ugly truth is that history has shown that large, culturally-distinct populations often have problems coexisting. And yes, this ugly truth applies to our enlightened Western culture as well. Just take a gander at what's going on over in Europe. But in the words of Katrina Pierson, these are just the words he's using, we shouldn't pay attention to those. Focus on what you feel to be true without listening to facts. The problem is that you aren't even paying attention to his words. This works better when you leave everything in context. What happened to you xDaunt? Like a year ago you were a normal Republican and were supporting Cruz or something and now we're here and you're with the alt-right and spreading propaganda about the Islamic takeover of Europe to a European. Do you not see yourself? You should go back and read some of your older posts laying into Trump. Lol supporting Cruz is not normal Sure, like Bush or Rubio are more conventional Republicans and Cruz is a bit of a Tea Party outlier but the point is that he's still within the generally accepted political field. He received lost the primary to Trump, receiving less votes than him. The literal definition of 'less normal'. normal [nawr-muh l] Spell Syllables Examples Word Origin See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. Trump votes are more regular than both Cruz and Rubio votes. It logically follows that to support Trump is more normal than to support Cruz I wrote conventional but surely you get my point that there is a fairly standard mold and that Trump falls outside of that. Also Trump brought in a lot of people who don't normally vote in the primaries, the primary was not necessarily a reflection of the historical base of the party. Either way don't do that dictionary.com quoting thing. You're above that kind of shit. We both know what normal means and we both know how language works without an absurd appeal to the authority of a dictionary.
I just think the line of attack was factually incorrect. I'm merely being descriptive here of what the state of affairs is.
"You used to be a normal republican who supported someone like Cruz"
The normal republican does support Trump
He was selected by the republican primary to represent his party over people like Cruz/Rubio
I see how Trump falls out of the standard mold of your normal Republican politician, but there's obviously a disjoint between the Republican establishment and the average normal Republican voter
This is nothing new. Most voters support gay rights and are okay with stricter gun laws, but most Republican politicians are against both of these. There is a disconnect between the politicians and the people they are elected to represent here
I don't think trying to shame him for being 'abnormal' is very charitable to his points at all, not to mention that it's just being factually incorrect
|
Oh, and lest we forget, we can't conflate Milo's analysis of the Alt Right with what he actually believes. From the article:
Not all alt-righters will agree with our taxonomy of the movement. Hacker and white nationalist Andrew Auernheimer, better known as weev, responded in typically jaw-dropping fashion to our enquiries: “The tireless attempts of you Jews to smear us decent Nazis is shameful.”
Delving into the depths of the alternative right, it quickly becomes apparent that the movement is best defined by what it stands against rather than what it stands for. There are a myriad of disagreements between its supporters over what they should build, but virtual unity over what they should destroy.
For decades – since the 1960s, in fact – the media and political establishment have held a consensus over what’s acceptable and unacceptable to discuss in polite society. The politics of identity, when it comes from women, LGBT people, blacks and other non-white, non-straight, non-male demographics is seen as acceptable — even when it descends into outright hatred.
Any discussion of white identity, or white interests, is seen as a heretical offence.
...
The current consensus offers, at best, mild condemnation of identity politics on the Left, and zero tolerance for identity politics on the right. Even for us – a gay man of Jewish descent and a mixed-ethnic half-Pakistani – the dangers of writing on this topic loom large. Though we do not identify with the alt-right, even writing an article about them is akin to prancing through a minefield.
|
On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two. Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic?
He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination.
|
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) claimed that his Republican Senate colleagues are more inclined towards Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump—whether or not they admit it in public.
“From a Senate perspective, in a secret ballot, Hillary gets a lot of votes out of the Republican caucus. Potentially she even commands a majority of the Republican caucus in a secret ballot because people really do respect her,” Whitehouse told Buzzfeed News in an interview published Thursday.
The Rhode Island senator recalled a group of Republican senators expressing praise for Clinton during a briefing on a “highly classified matter.”
“Two of them, her very prominent antagonists in this election, and one looked over at the other and said ‘Boy, she’s good.’ The other one leaned back and said, ‘Yeah, she’s really good,’" Whitehouse said. "And that’s the Hillary that they know. Not the talking points Hillary or the caricature, but the real person."
While some Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), have said they cannot support Trump, no sitting senator, as of yet, has openly said they would vote for Clinton.
Whitehouse said his Republican colleagues have reason to be wary of how a president Trump would interact with Congress.
“Once the back-and-forth and the nonsense and the election is over, she has a very strong base of credibility, good will, confidence, and relationships to go to, particularly in the Senate,” Whitehouse said. “Donald Trump, on the other hand, has such temperamental problems that it’s hard to see how he would work with us. But he’s also so badly damaged people who have tried to help him. Look at what he did to poor Chris Christie who tried to be his friend and is now almost a national laughingstock as a result of what he’s done to him.”
Source
|
On August 27 2016 04:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 03:45 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 03:11 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 02:25 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 02:12 oBlade wrote:On August 27 2016 01:16 Dan HH wrote:On August 27 2016 00:57 xDaunt wrote:As for Milo himself and what he believes, I think he very clearly illustrates the problems with the present, over-expansive definition of racism. And he does this using inflammatory rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but when you actually listen to what his message is, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. You got me there, if we ignore everything racist that he says, it becomes quite clear that he's not a racist. Milo Yiannopoulos has made hundreds of racist statements: of the worst that you remember, name two. Using triple paranthesis whenever tweeting about someone that happens to be jewish, which is not some the_donald meme (well it might be now, I guess) but straight up neo-nazi jargon. Then there's using 'apes' when talking about black people. Is that racist enough? I don't think so if that's what stood out in your mind, because he's Jewish and dates black people (I can't imagine wanting to date someone who was racist against you). Who'd he put parentheses around, himself? Other people "reclaimed" that meme. Being gay doesn't stop him from claiming lesbians don't exist or being against gay marriage, so why would having some distant Jewish relative stop him from being anti-semitic? Not to mention that he himself distances himself from it and claims to be more catholic than the pope. Exactly, is he homophobic? He has spoken out against gay marriage before and I believe he opposed laws that provided discrimination protection for gays. Being gay is mostly about him getting what he wants, to supporting other gay people might face discrimination.
Those are interesting issues and it serves no purpose to discredit someone for not falling in line like a good homosexual. This is the whole problem of the left blob now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
