|
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 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote.
He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened."
|
On August 17 2017 07:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. Vox Day is a racist, sexist failed video game developer that learned he can make a living being a racist sexist blogger/activist some time after 2014. So he paraphrased a classic white supremacist slogan. This isn't complex, the dude is a charlatan.
Vox Day's criticism of some kinds of atheism actually has brief moments of genuine insight, but that was all the way back in 2008 iirc.
|
You do realize how quickly you could turn that around and apply that religion to conservatives, gun owners, neo nazis, alt right, which of course is something completely different (lol). People like living in absolute worlds and having clearly defined morals that make them look like the good guys and people who not share them the devil. Doesn't mean liberals are more prone to that then other political groups. I don't have to tell you that Trump is taping into that feeling of belonging to a larger group of similarly minded people and won the presidency by doing that. People just want to belong.
|
"multiple ethnostates" sounds like the setting for some fictional dystopian Young Adult Novel involving a brown haired white girl with a spear that that will save everyone if she can just get over this love triangle with two deeply boring boys.
|
On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote.
It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them.
And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white.
|
On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white.
Except you're not leading him anywhere. You're asking him to find the conclusion you drew from the list. And what does Vox Day not being white have to do with it? If he's listing those as the tenets of the alt-right and he believes in him and isn't white... he still believes in them.
|
I am loving that ethnostate, Nazis, Fascists, and racists are now in the overton window. I feel like a great weight of political correctness has been lifted in the last 48 hours. We had to keep pretending like race issues were some kind of "BLM is going to far" nonsense. But now we have out and out white nationalists trying to push an ethnostate on the loose.
And then the Republican President equivocates for them! To the condemnation of large numbers from his own party! Against the advice of his staff! The masks are all sliding off fast. Loving it.
EDIT: poor FOXy princess, can't equivocate about some of the racists being good people amongst the Nazi throng without being judged. Great clip if you like racist tears.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened."
So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates?
|
On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white.
Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy
|
On August 17 2017 07:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:37 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. Vox Day is a racist, sexist failed video game developer that learned he can make a living being a racist sexist blogger/activist some time after 2014. So he paraphrased a classic white supremacist slogan. This isn't complex, the dude is a charlatan. Vox Day's criticism of some kinds of atheism actually has brief moments of genuine insight, but that was all the way back in 2008 iirc.
Yeah, but we all remember when he ruined the Hugo awards with his terrible books and destroying the voting system.
|
On August 17 2017 07:43 Odawg27 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Except you're not leading him anywhere. You're asking him to find the conclusion you drew from the list. And what does Vox Day not being white have to do with it? If he's listing those as the tenets of the alt-right and he believes in him and isn't white... he still believes in them.
Watch and learn. Look at what I asked farv.
|
On August 17 2017 07:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened." So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates?
For the same reason Richard Lynn advocates on behalf of contemporary eugenics.
|
On August 17 2017 07:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened." So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates?
He is deeply racist and the concept of talking about racism scares him. So he believes we should all live in cultural purity where his feelings will be safe.
Oh, we have hit peek Xdaunt talking down to people.
|
On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy
He's American Indian.
|
On August 17 2017 07:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened." So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates? For the same reason Richard Lynn advocates on behalf of contemporary eugenics.
What is the reason? I suspect it is not the same.
|
On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian.
His listing of races has native american as last of four.
|
On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian.
English, Irish Mexican, and Native American, per his blog. Think the English and Irish are pretty dominant.
|
On August 17 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 06:32 zlefin wrote:On August 17 2017 06:03 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:54 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:35 Plansix wrote:On August 17 2017 05:30 Danglars wrote:On August 17 2017 05:09 farvacola wrote:
Why would anyone who witnessed the Republican tact of "obstruct everything Obama does" opt to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a nuanced (lol) perspective on Trump? Y'all can't cry out that the well is poisoned while doing your best to avoid admitting that you may have poured some in not long ago. Now it really seems like your caterwauling about obstruction was envy that Republicans got to do it first. The Democrats haven’t stone walled anything beyond a health care bill they were not allowed to work on. Unless you counter the Supreme Court nominee, which everyone should have seen coming after 2016. Trumps appointments are now in line with Obamas for politics positions, but Schumer's invoked the 30hour rule for confirmations, obstructing to a pace that would have unconfirmed nominees four years later. Still up to their tricks. Do you think I am stupid? Do we really need to go over how much judges were held up by McConnell? Do we need to compare it to the last 40 years of history? He reaps what he sows. Get new leadership in the senate and maybe things might be nicer. But right now, the Turtle gets exactly what he asked for. Obamas had like 180 confirmed at this point, GWB 130, and Trump's got about the same appointed but only about 50 confirmed. Start accepting the results of an election you lost, and let Trump have a shot at having his political appointees run things. It's literally that simple. PS, elections have consequences, and the republican refusal to have a vote on garland as a resul tof the election was wrong. I presume you're still unable to admit that it was wrong and a blight upon the constitution and our democracy that the republicans did so. you don't get to complain about other people doing something YOU started. "You don't get to have a staff in your executive wing" is a pretty extreme measure. You're emboldening the exact same play done right back at you. You never expect to win the executive again? Or are you just indifferent to escalation and shortsighted?
you're indifferent to escalation, and in fact have repeatedly explicitly endorsed escalating actions. why do you do so?
and again, you're simply lying about the facts of the situation. way to argue in bad faith, as usual.
you like ot punch people, then complain when they defend themselves; great attitude.
why do you choose to do that? seems like a real jerk move to me.
|
On August 17 2017 07:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:47 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:45 IyMoon wrote:On August 17 2017 07:41 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. It's much more effective and gratifying to lead people to the right conclusion than just give it to them. And for everyone who is confused as to why Kyadytim was wrong, consider the following; Vox Day isn't white. Just going off his wiki he looks pretty white to me. Source - I am a white guy He's American Indian. English, Irish Mexican, and Native American, per his blog. Think the English and Irish are pretty dominant.
Hrm, he always talks about the Native American part. Regardless, it's neither here nor there as to why his version of the alt right isn't about white supremacism.
|
On August 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 07:46 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:44 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:37 farvacola wrote:On August 17 2017 07:36 Odawg27 wrote:On August 17 2017 07:33 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Kyadytim wrote:
It's a little late to the party because I was unable to post for a while, but Vox Day's explanation of what the Alt-Right is contains the phrase "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children," which is a transparent paraphrase of the white supremacist slogan "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." Quoting that while arguing that the alt-right is not a movement where white supremacists have a large amount of representation and/or influence should be self-defeating. I bet that you really don't understand why Vox Day included that point. Care to take another shot? It's all right there in the other points. If he's incorrect and missing it and it's part of your argument you should be answering him and countering it. Not playing cutesy with asking him to take another shot. If it's right there, point it out yourself and explain why it doesn't mean what Kyadytim wrote. He's probably doing that because he mentioned "multiple ethnostates" earlier as though that somehow mitigates the racism inherent to "a thing mingled is a thing weakened." So why does he advocate for multiple ethnostates? For the same reason Richard Lynn advocates on behalf of contemporary eugenics. What is the reason? I suspect it is not the same.
call it "the determinacy of genetic rights"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
