|
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 February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts.
It happened in Canada? Granted the distinction between a problem that's perceived to be imported as opposed to the white nationalism we export I don't think that really matters to my point that we see the shallowness of the majority of anti-Muslim/Arab rhetoric/policy.
You may want to rethink your understanding to the degree that many of the shooters have been native born to their country, and are often responding not just to what the West is doing in the ME but what westerners are doing to them and people they care about right where they live.
|
On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl.
His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler.
Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart.
On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are.
Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two.
I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something?
|
On February 03 2017 07:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:42 Nevuk wrote:
Is the difference basically that one group (non-breitbart) will say "white christian values" while the other group says "christian values"? I still disagree with the latter, but I can understand why people would ascribe to that view much better than I can the more racially tinged version. It's not exactly a religious argument either, from my understanding, moreso a cultural one, an easy shorthand for traditional american culture because there's so few historical commonalities in the average american's history besides Christianity (there have always been non-christians, a far lesser number).
Both groups seem to post in Breitbart's comment section, but the comment section on news websites is typically a pretty poor source to judge what the writers actually believe in. Not really. The Breitbart definition doesn't even necessarily encompass religion. It's unifying elements seem to be nationalism and populism. And the more limited definition of Alt Right isn't even necessarily strictly about race. It's generally agreed now that there are two factions to the Alt Right: the Alt White and the Alt West. The former is concerned with race whereas the latter is concerned with culture. For obvious reasons, I think that the Alt White is at a dead end politically. The Alt West, however, will likely be the popular vanguard of the Alt Right if the Alt Right goes anywhere.
Alt West as in western culture? That makes more sense, as the alt right never seemed religious in the slightest. Christian culture seems more like a generic fox newsy term that got jumbled into my mind somehow. I'm wondering if there's any difficulty reconciling some of the more socialist european country's stances with that ideology? Like I hear criticism of European immigration problems referenced all the time, but I rarely see an attack on the Swedish style of health care - it seems like they just flat out don't care, or at the least consider it far less important than preserving culture?
Alt white seems dead on arrival, but opponents are going to endlessly try to conflate the members of the two groups, as it is highly in their benefit - it makes it easier to discredit them and makes racially charged accusations more likely to stick. The most recent one is that Bannon is an "anti-semite", I see that cropping up a lot with extremely little evidence but still getting repeated.
|
On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler.
"THE INTELLECTUALS
There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: 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 — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.
The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right.
The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
Please...
|
On February 03 2017 06:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:14 Doodsmack wrote:Didn't realize how important racial anxiety was to this guy's message. Wow. Third and most important, the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional niceties. Because they are.
...
This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. But I thought Republicans were dominating Congress and state governships and legislatures since 2010?? lol Demographics are Destiny is an important concept in progressive political discourse, and this thread in the last thousand pages has had dozens of pages referring to the political views of new immigrants from traditionally third-world countries. Give it a read. Oh, and because everybody is getting touchy on labels now, read the article and tell me if you think "racial anxiety" is a fair characterization of the message. We've heard from people in this thread, real living breathing typing people, that reduce Milo to nothing but hate, so I'm just interested if Doodsmack is an outlier or mainstream. Just in the interest of understanding your levels of empathy and reflection.
Racial anxiety is an important part of the message and the parts I quoted all but explicitly say so. Don't think it has to be the case that new immigrants vote Democrat, unless your party actively opposes them.
Let's remember that the birther king succeeded the first black president.
|
On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are. Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two. I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something?
What state do you live in if you don't mind me asking? Just curious since the border wall is a main concern of yours. I'm wondering how you've been affected by illegal Mexican immigration, if at all, or if it's just on principle.
|
On February 03 2017 06:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Also just a fun aside... Breitbart published 6 or 7 stories on the Quebec Mosque attack, but 0 of them identify the correct shooter as the only shooter. Basically they dropped the story the moment the shooter was properly identified. As did pretty much the entire right. We all know how differently this would have been handled if the shooter was Muslim (or even just had a middle eastern name) regardless of even if it was some dude slept with a chick he was into and he went crazy for that and posted about ISIS for the first and only time on the way to do it. I mean you can see it right there in the stuff they said while they thought it was a Muslim shooter. I've seen you mention this hypocrisy multiple times. Keep in mind white nationalism is innate to the country, it isn't being imported. Muslim extremism is similar to christian extremism, but it is still a largely external problem. This is an important distinction because one is easy to prevent with stringent immigration, the other is very hard and requires generations of cultural shifts.
Every country that has a majority thinks they are the rightful "heirs" to the country. I find that to be a dangerous statement because of what happened in the 30s and 40s. Any nationalism is dangerous and serves to stir violence against others. I can't explain it, but that sentence just irks me something terrible. It feels like you're condoning white racism under the guise of nationalism.
|
On February 03 2017 06:12 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:10 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 03 2017 05:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 03 2017 05:38 RealityIsKing wrote:On February 03 2017 05:17 ChristianS wrote:
Jesus Christ, so xDaunt spent the last ten pages or so arguing that the right has far fewer violent extremists than the left*, that the left just wants to end conversations, and that calling people racist, sexist, and xenophobic is anti-free speech.
For starters we just had an entire election in which we were perpetually told the right can't be generalized by their more extreme supporters. Looking at the fucking meme monsters of 8chan calling themselves Nazis and worshipping Donald Trump as Fuhrer we were supposed to say "oh, well, you know, not everybody on the right is like that, some of them are just upset about outsourcing or something." Now an unknown number of possibly-students at Berkeley start some riots and we're supposed to write off the entire left?
If we're gonna start holding political leaders responsible for the actions of some of their worse supporters Donald Trump has a fucking lot to answer for. If we're not, then stop trying to generalize the entire left by some stupid fuckers that punched somebody at a protest or something. The left doesn't want to shut down conversation, which is why they're doing so much talking right now.
Almost unrelated, but calling someone's position "racist," if used correctly, is supposed to be a substantive criticism of their position. The position conflicts with a generally agreed-upon belief that different races are equal and should be treated equally. Considering how many stupid fucking names conservatives have come up with for liberals over the years to marginalize them (Feminazi, blame-America-firster, SJW to name a few), this self-righteousness about branding opponents to marginalize them rings awfully hollow to me. Hell, that's basically Trump's signature move.
*citation very needed If you are on the Left and isn't doing anything to stop people from escalating violence on the Left, then you are part of the problem. If you are <in this country> and aren't doing anything to stop people from <committing X problem in this country>, then you are part of the problem. So thank you for being the cause of all problem in your country. I'm doing my part in stopping violent people from the Left by telling the Left to take care of their own because most of the time, if you don't identify with their politics, no matter how clear you are, they won't listen. Better make some of the sane Leftiest tell themselves to change. That's amazing signaling there. Do you go around with a badge proclaiming you as part of the right? No one will listen to you because you can't help but shout out something like "Gun Rights" before any statement? It's incredible how everyone knows you aren't part of their political identity immediately.
I'm more of a reformed Leftiest.
I had a lot think outside of the standard box and be more forward thinking.
But in the last year, some of the tactic utilized by the Left to get a woman into the office have been downright disgusting with all the media attacks that Trump received.
|
On February 03 2017 07:24 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart. On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are. Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two. I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something? What state do you live in if you don't mind me asking? Just curious since the border wall is a main concern of yours. I'm wondering how you've been affected by illegal Mexican immigration, if at all, or if it's just on principle.
I live in Southern California. I travel to Mexico several times a year. My city has over 300,000 people with less than 20% English spoken at home (last I checked) and over 75% Hispanic. I am the only native English speaker in my apartment community of around 200. I know most of my neighbors; their children are born-citizens, something around 10%-20% of the adults are legal immigrants/green card holders, the remaining 80-90% are illegal immigrants primarily from Mexico, with less from Central America and South America. I'm very exposed to my state's particular challenges from high rates of illegal immigration, but this isn't a state discussion it's national. It's normally as they apply to the larger national issue, as Trump puts it, "A Country without Borders is not a Nation," that I post here.
|
On February 03 2017 07:22 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. "THE INTELLECTUALS There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: 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 — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought." Please...
Hmm ... media empire coalesced around ... website would become a center of alt-right thought. Okay let's contrast.
"Thinkers as diverse as NAME NAME NAME" "movement NAME." Give me a break, are you even trying here, or were you remembering some different article and are trying to scrounge around in this one to find something that's not there?
|
We have borders. Naturally occurring ones at that. To block off access to "the land of the free" doesn't make it so any longer. I also live in SoCal and I understand your argument. Southern immigration is more dire than any other part of the country, but there are better ways than slamming the door and telling everyone "Fuck off please."
|
On February 03 2017 07:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:24 Tachion wrote:On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart. On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are. Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two. I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something? What state do you live in if you don't mind me asking? Just curious since the border wall is a main concern of yours. I'm wondering how you've been affected by illegal Mexican immigration, if at all, or if it's just on principle. I live in Southern California. I travel to Mexico several times a year. My city has over 300,000 people with less than 20% English spoken at home (last I checked) and over 75% Hispanic. I am the only native English speaker in my apartment community of around 200. I know most of my neighbors; their children are born-citizens, something around 10%-20% of the adults are legal immigrants/green card holders, the remaining 80-90% are illegal immigrants primarily from Mexico, with less from Central America and South America. I'm very exposed to my state's particular challenges from high rates of illegal immigration, but this isn't a state discussion it's national. It's normally as they apply to the larger national issue, as Trump puts it, "A Country without Borders is not a Nation," that I post here.
what happens when you report such a high concentration of illegals to INS?
how often do they (INS) come around?
|
On February 03 2017 07:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:56 Mohdoo wrote:On February 03 2017 06:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On February 03 2017 06:12 plasmidghost wrote:
Politics in America has been hijacked by the extremists on both sides, I think we're heading for full-scale rioting. Sad thing is, I'm very left-leaning (usually) and I believe that it's going to be the losing side if things go beyond rioting since the military's almost definitely going to side with Trump
Military as a whole will follow the lawful commands given to it. There are whack-jobs in there that wouldn't mind pulling the trigger or whatever on a citizen if ordered. There will be division and there will be people who refuse to follow along. Mainly because their families might be the persons staring down a barrel. America has been hijacked by religious views and closed mindedness. The inability to entertain differing opinions in a calm manner has led to people sticking plugs in their ears and not listening to giving discourse a chance. When this happens, they only see what their political party tells them and they go after it. Right now, I believe we're living in a pseudo 1984 and V for Vendetta kind of reality. Its a weird dynamic. In a strange way, people feel empowered and strong by being a part of something that is unbending and absolute in its resolve. By being a mindless pawn, the feel like they are kind of surrendering their sense of self to the collective might of the military or "chain of command" or whatever stupid shit they come up with. Sad world. As I was in the USMC not too long ago, I can say that the hive mind, drone, lemming mentality is real. No one thinks to question the things they are ordered and simply go along with it. But there were those people who could reason and blink long enough to know that some things were just down right stupid. If martial law does happen, we'll need those same people to step forward.
Would you say that this hive mind dynamic is empowering? I imagine a big component in people surrendering themselves and their inner sense of morality to the hive is because they then identify as this powerful thing. They stop being Mohdoo and start being "the military". Did you ever get that feeling? Not to say you experienced it, but that there were people who felt motivated to "trade themselves in" for a new identity as a part of this strong collective?
|
I hope Trump voters are the ones drafted for any war with Iran. The rest of us voted for diplomacy.
On Thursday, Trump reiterated his administration’s warning to Iran, writing in a tweet that Tehran was “formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile.”
Later, Trump told reporters that “nothing is off the table” regarding a possible response to Iran’s missile test, but gave no specifics.
In Tehran, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, fired back, saying that “the American government will understand that threatening Iran is useless,” according to the Reuters news agency, citing local media.
“This is not the first time that an inexperienced person has threatened Iran,” the adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, said. “Iran does not need permission from any country to defend itself.”
The Washington Post
There are also reports that new sanctions are being prepared against Iran.
|
On February 03 2017 07:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We have borders. Naturally occurring ones at that. To block off access to "the land of the free" doesn't make it so any longer. I also live in SoCal and I understand your argument. Southern immigration is more dire than any other part of the country, but there are better ways than slamming the door and telling everyone "Fuck off please."
Let me channel my inner Trump. We want a big wall with a bright big beautiful door in it. We don't have a southern border, we have a swiss cheese border that has let millions through, and in crises like the unaccompanied migrants in that record breaking year of 2014. So we disagree. Hell, even about what Trump said being an example of "slamming the door." I have weekly and monthly conversations with illegal aliens that are big Trump supporters because of job fears (oh god economic anxiety!) housing pressures and overcrowded schools. They didn't think it was slamming the door, and I don't pretend to speak for them like they should feel an ethnic connection to tomorrow's illegal immigrants.
|
On February 03 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:22 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. "THE INTELLECTUALS There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: 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 — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought." Please... Hmm ... media empire coalesced around ... website would become a center of alt-right thought. Okay let's contrast. "Thinkers as diverse as NAME NAME NAME" "movement NAME." Give me a break, are you even trying here, or were you remembering some different article and are trying to scrounge around in this one to find something that's not there?
So we have dangerously bright individuals who look down on true racism and "coalesce around" a true racist's magazine and choose a true racist's site as a center for developing their thought.
Do you really not see the problem there, or are you trying really hard not to see it?
|
On February 03 2017 07:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 06:42 Nevuk wrote:
Is the difference basically that one group (non-breitbart) will say "white christian values" while the other group says "christian values"? I still disagree with the latter, but I can understand why people would ascribe to that view much better than I can the more racially tinged version. It's not exactly a religious argument either, from my understanding, moreso a cultural one, an easy shorthand for traditional american culture because there's so few historical commonalities in the average american's history besides Christianity (there have always been non-christians, a far lesser number).
Both groups seem to post in Breitbart's comment section, but the comment section on news websites is typically a pretty poor source to judge what the writers actually believe in. Not really. The Breitbart definition doesn't even necessarily encompass religion. It's unifying elements seem to be nationalism and populism. And the more limited definition of Alt Right isn't even necessarily strictly about race. It's generally agreed now that there are two factions to the Alt Right: the Alt White and the Alt West. The former is concerned with race whereas the latter is concerned with culture. For obvious reasons, I think that the Alt White is at a dead end politically. The Alt West, however, will likely be the popular vanguard of the Alt Right if the Alt Right goes anywhere. Alt West as in western culture? That makes more sense, as the alt right never seemed religious in the slightest. Christian culture seems more like a generic fox newsy term that got jumbled into my mind somehow. I'm wondering if there's any difficulty reconciling some of the more socialist european country's stances with that ideology? Like I hear criticism of European immigration problems referenced all the time, but I rarely see an attack on the Swedish style of health care - it seems like they just flat out don't care, or at the least consider it far less important than preserving culture? Alt white seems dead on arrival, but opponents are going to endlessly try to conflate the members of the two groups, as it is highly in their benefit - it makes it easier to discredit them and makes racially charged accusations more likely to stick. The most recent one is that Bannon is an "anti-semite", I see that cropping up a lot with extremely little evidence but still getting repeated.
Generally speaking, the Alt West sees Christianity as being integral to Western Culture.
|
On February 03 2017 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 07:22 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. "THE INTELLECTUALS There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: 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 — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought." Please... Hmm ... media empire coalesced around ... website would become a center of alt-right thought. Okay let's contrast. "Thinkers as diverse as NAME NAME NAME" "movement NAME." Give me a break, are you even trying here, or were you remembering some different article and are trying to scrounge around in this one to find something that's not there? So we have dangerously bright individuals who look down on true racism and "coalesce around" a true racist's magazine and choose a true racist's site as a center for developing their thought. Do you really not see the problem there, or are you trying really hard not to see it?
I never had a problem calling Spencer a ridiculous piece of scum; I had a problem saying that Milo or Breitbart said he was an intellectual. Which is why I first asked for a citation, because I don't read much Breitbart anymore.
|
On February 03 2017 08:01 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 07:58 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 07:41 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 07:22 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. "THE INTELLECTUALS There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: 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 — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought." Please... Hmm ... media empire coalesced around ... website would become a center of alt-right thought. Okay let's contrast. "Thinkers as diverse as NAME NAME NAME" "movement NAME." Give me a break, are you even trying here, or were you remembering some different article and are trying to scrounge around in this one to find something that's not there? So we have dangerously bright individuals who look down on true racism and "coalesce around" a true racist's magazine and choose a true racist's site as a center for developing their thought. Do you really not see the problem there, or are you trying really hard not to see it? I never had a problem calling Spencer a ridiculous piece of scum; I had a problem saying that Milo or Breitbart said he was an intellectual. Which is why I first asked for a citation, because I don't read much Breitbart anymore.
It's pretty obvious that the article describes him as part of that crowd, as I've quoted. But let's imagine that we drop the "intellectual" parenthesis from my initial post, are you fine with what I've said otherwise? Cause the contradiction is still completely apparent without it.
|
On February 03 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:52 Nebuchad wrote:On February 03 2017 06:47 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 06:30 Nebuchad wrote:
Working and having worked for Breitbart should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right, in my opinion. This is the guy who wrote an article where he said both that Richard Spencer was one of the "thinkers" and leaders of the alt-right, calling him an "intellectual", and that the alt-right looked down on "true racists". Those two things are mutually exclusive, and basically "having a brain" should be the only requisite to realize that, which makes the person who wrote this dishonest and worthy of dismissal. Citation needed. Best I could find is naming a magazine edited by the man and a website founded by the man (Bokhari & Yiannopoulos article) as a media-empire centerpiece when it talked on a sub-head "The Intellectuals." Aka where intellectuals of the movement congregated, in the author's opinion. Please, find the original sources not Salon or ThinkProgress hit pieces. I'd hate to go down this road and question whether StealthBlue "has a brain" and is "dishonest and worthy of dismissal" given his love of ThinkProgress and TPM. Finally, his popularity on college campuses and many invites from college Republican groups, the wider appeal beyond the alt right speaks in his favor. Like Obama became senator and president, despite being associated with radical racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and being advanced in his early political moves by noted domestic terrorist William Ayers. It's a Breitbart article that xDaunt linked before called "an establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right". There is a section called "the intellectuals" there, where Richard Spencer is mentioned because of the website AlternativeRight.com, and then true racists are mentioned as something to look down upon. Sorry, were you trying to dismiss me because of my leftist sources? Remember, that's a bad thing, freedom of speech blblbl. His website was mentioned as a watering hole for intellectuals and a magazine he edited was likewise praised. Nowhere in that section was he highlighted as an intellectual, compared to clear highlights of intellectuals like Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Jack Donovan. You've answered my question: you don't have a citation for him being called an intellectual, it's a guilt by association argument, like calling Obama racist because of Wright or a radical terrorist because of Ayers. To be honest, some of the cited luminaries are wacko and I'm prepared to agree with you on aspects of that article being brainless people or easily-dismissed intellectual arguments. Just save the tar and feathers for more than the racist water cooler. Please just remember, "[where you work] should be enough to be discredited as an honest actor in most debates involving the far right" is your opinion not mine. I'll hold you to that if you think everybody on the left side of the aisle smells like roses and there isn't a Mother Jones for every Infowars and Slate for every Breitbart. Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 06:56 Trainrunnef wrote:
xDaunt/Danglars
Honestly I have no idea how you guys manage to participate so much considering the number of people on this thread that hold very different view points on a million different topics. I was hoping that you would be kind enough to run down your top 5 list of things you want to have happen under the Trump presidency just so I could get a better idea of where your priorities are. Border wall (fence/hitech/heavily patrolled/whatever--a stop to illegal immigration at the southern border), conservative justice nomination, Obamacare full repeal & replace. I have more but I wouldn't put the rest even on the same shelf as those. I won't run down because we'll probably have current events begging for the principles in light of actual legislation or proposed legislation within a month or two. I'm confused, "manage to participate so much" isn't limited by the number of people, it's limited by time invested reading and writing. Do you mean why we stand out to you given the number of people or something?
Specifically referencing the fact that neither of you (as well as some other conservative posters) haven't given up posting out of frustration. I phrased it strangely, my bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
