|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 14 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:08 IgnE wrote:On July 14 2018 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Like I said, you don't know what that conversation was about. Just to refresh things here for people this is your actual words in question. So let me start by addressing why Vox Day's 14th Point ("The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.") is not about white supremacy. SourceYou literally tried to claim the 14 words were not about white supremacy. There are no if's or but's about it. you didnt quote the 15th point laid out there in the source post about how the alt right supposedly doesnt believe any race is superior to any other. xdaunt is reading "white supremacy" as not necessarily inherent to a white ethnostate hypothetically capable of peacefully coexisting with nonwhite ethnostates. its basically a vision of "separate but equal" and you can obviously question the coherence of such a view but plansix's constant harping on xdaunts posting of vox day is misrepresentative. xdaunt did put in bold that vox day's views were not his own That 15th point is a clear effort to try and sanitize white nationalist ideology for the public, as detailed in the article posted previously showing Vox Day was working with white nationalist to do just that. It is fruitless to discuss the writings without discussing the fact that they were written with the intent to obfuscate their origins. My issue with Dauntless isn’t that he posted the 14 words or what he believes, but the fact that he has refused to engage with the source material for that ideology. And that the source material is so tainted that anything that follows afterwards is poisonous. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. The article What "source material?" That Buzzfeed article concerns Milo. Not Vox Day. The Alt Right isn't some monolithic entity. As I have written before, it has a variety of factions with varying beliefs ranging from something to the right of me to Adolf Hitler. Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an “ignorant savage,” and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.
“Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive,” Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.
“Most of it is great but I don’t want to rush a major long form piece like this,” Marlow wrote back. “A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.” The 16 points you are talking about was a collaborative work between Milo, several white nationalist, Nazis and Vox Day. Defining the Alt-Right was the work of Nazis and white Nationalists. He is literally referenced in the article. The have the god damn emails he sent. You're conflating a lot of things. The "collaborative work" that you're referring to is Milo's survey article of the Alt Right. As far as I know, the 16 points are strictly Vox Day's formulation of the Alt Right. Are you telling me that you believe that Vox Day, a guy that calls blacks savages and who worked on a collaborative project with known white nationalist and Nazi, did not just rebrand white nationalist propaganda for his audience? You really believe that given what you just read? Again, you're conflating a lot of things. First, it's a stretch to say that Vox Day "collaborated." Milo sent him a copy of the Alt Right article for comment, and Vox Day duly commented. Second, Vox Day is very clearly pro white nationalist, which is a point that is explicit in my original post from last year. So I don't know why you're now making the argument about "whether xDaunt thinks Vox Day is a white nationalist." Third, no, I don't think that Vox Day has simply rebranded old Nazi propaganda. His ideas are quite distinct. However, as I have said before, there are elements of the Alt Right that are simply rebranded Nazism. You're so triggered by this conversation that you're not following stuff at all. White Nationalist are white supremacist. Creating a nation of all white people is simply a way to obtain complete control over a nation and all levers of power. And then that power can be used to obtain more power from non-white nationalist nations through war or political subversion. There is no way the ideology of white nationalism ends as the border of the pure white nation. Or the pure white nation is obtained without committing terrible crimes against non-white races.
Where exactly is this written in stone?
And more to the point, do you think that this expansionist tendency is unique to white nationalists? How about black nationalists? Chinese nationalists? Hispanic nationalists?
|
On July 14 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2018 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:08 IgnE wrote:On July 14 2018 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Like I said, you don't know what that conversation was about. Just to refresh things here for people this is your actual words in question. So let me start by addressing why Vox Day's 14th Point ("The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.") is not about white supremacy. SourceYou literally tried to claim the 14 words were not about white supremacy. There are no if's or but's about it. you didnt quote the 15th point laid out there in the source post about how the alt right supposedly doesnt believe any race is superior to any other. xdaunt is reading "white supremacy" as not necessarily inherent to a white ethnostate hypothetically capable of peacefully coexisting with nonwhite ethnostates. its basically a vision of "separate but equal" and you can obviously question the coherence of such a view but plansix's constant harping on xdaunts posting of vox day is misrepresentative. xdaunt did put in bold that vox day's views were not his own That 15th point is a clear effort to try and sanitize white nationalist ideology for the public, as detailed in the article posted previously showing Vox Day was working with white nationalist to do just that. It is fruitless to discuss the writings without discussing the fact that they were written with the intent to obfuscate their origins. My issue with Dauntless isn’t that he posted the 14 words or what he believes, but the fact that he has refused to engage with the source material for that ideology. And that the source material is so tainted that anything that follows afterwards is poisonous. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. The article What "source material?" That Buzzfeed article concerns Milo. Not Vox Day. The Alt Right isn't some monolithic entity. As I have written before, it has a variety of factions with varying beliefs ranging from something to the right of me to Adolf Hitler. Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an “ignorant savage,” and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.
“Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive,” Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.
“Most of it is great but I don’t want to rush a major long form piece like this,” Marlow wrote back. “A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.” The 16 points you are talking about was a collaborative work between Milo, several white nationalist, Nazis and Vox Day. Defining the Alt-Right was the work of Nazis and white Nationalists. He is literally referenced in the article. The have the god damn emails he sent. You're conflating a lot of things. The "collaborative work" that you're referring to is Milo's survey article of the Alt Right. As far as I know, the 16 points are strictly Vox Day's formulation of the Alt Right. That just 'happens' to include the 14 words in a 'totally not supremacist' way. Seriously, how the fuck can you not see the connection here, its a flashing neon sign.... Has it ever occurred to you that Vox Day is trolling everyone while still making his point? Have you ever considered that he was deadly serious?
Of course he's serious. The difference between us is that you're reading way more into it than I am.
|
On July 14 2018 05:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:55 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:08 IgnE wrote:On July 14 2018 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:[quote]Just to refresh things here for people this is your actual words in question.[quote] SourceYou literally tried to claim the 14 words were not about white supremacy. There are no if's or but's about it. you didnt quote the 15th point laid out there in the source post about how the alt right supposedly doesnt believe any race is superior to any other. xdaunt is reading "white supremacy" as not necessarily inherent to a white ethnostate hypothetically capable of peacefully coexisting with nonwhite ethnostates. its basically a vision of "separate but equal" and you can obviously question the coherence of such a view but plansix's constant harping on xdaunts posting of vox day is misrepresentative. xdaunt did put in bold that vox day's views were not his own That 15th point is a clear effort to try and sanitize white nationalist ideology for the public, as detailed in the article posted previously showing Vox Day was working with white nationalist to do just that. It is fruitless to discuss the writings without discussing the fact that they were written with the intent to obfuscate their origins. My issue with Dauntless isn’t that he posted the 14 words or what he believes, but the fact that he has refused to engage with the source material for that ideology. And that the source material is so tainted that anything that follows afterwards is poisonous. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. The article What "source material?" That Buzzfeed article concerns Milo. Not Vox Day. The Alt Right isn't some monolithic entity. As I have written before, it has a variety of factions with varying beliefs ranging from something to the right of me to Adolf Hitler. Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an “ignorant savage,” and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.
“Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive,” Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.
“Most of it is great but I don’t want to rush a major long form piece like this,” Marlow wrote back. “A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.” The 16 points you are talking about was a collaborative work between Milo, several white nationalist, Nazis and Vox Day. Defining the Alt-Right was the work of Nazis and white Nationalists. He is literally referenced in the article. The have the god damn emails he sent. You're conflating a lot of things. The "collaborative work" that you're referring to is Milo's survey article of the Alt Right. As far as I know, the 16 points are strictly Vox Day's formulation of the Alt Right. Are you telling me that you believe that Vox Day, a guy that calls blacks savages and who worked on a collaborative project with known white nationalist and Nazi, did not just rebrand white nationalist propaganda for his audience? You really believe that given what you just read? Again, you're conflating a lot of things. First, it's a stretch to say that Vox Day "collaborated." Milo sent him a copy of the Alt Right article for comment, and Vox Day duly commented. Second, Vox Day is very clearly pro white nationalist, which is a point that is explicit in my original post from last year. So I don't know why you're now making the argument about "whether xDaunt thinks Vox Day is a white nationalist." Third, no, I don't think that Vox Day has simply rebranded old Nazi propaganda. His ideas are quite distinct. However, as I have said before, there are elements of the Alt Right that are simply rebranded Nazism. You're so triggered by this conversation that you're not following stuff at all. White Nationalist are white supremacist. Creating a nation of all white people is simply a way to obtain complete control over a nation and all levers of power. And then that power can be used to obtain more power from non-white nationalist nations through war or political subversion. There is no way the ideology of white nationalism ends as the border of the pure white nation. Or the pure white nation is obtained without committing terrible crimes against non-white races. Where exactly is this written in stone? And more to the point, do you think that this is expansionist tendency is unique to white nationalists? How about black nationalists? Chinese nationalists? Hispanic nationalists?
Do you really want to use the Chinese as an example? The nation so set on homogeny that it is exterminating minor cultures within its borders. That is set on wiping out an entire religion and culture in Tibet.
If you dig into any nation that is looking for culture and racial homogeny, you will only find actions that are repugnant and counter to anything a liberal democracy is supposed to value. There is no way to achieve these ethno states without becoming monsters.
Furthermore, the racial homogeneous areas breed racism. You are creating a nation that is doom to devalue the people outside of it and endlessly justify the means to obtain cultural homogeny.
|
White Nationalism (the belief that white identity politics should be accepted, allowed, and utilized to its fullest extent to "secure a future" or whatever) does not imply that other races are inferior; it's those people's way of saying "I think we should be on teams based on race, but only my team isn't allowed to play ball." It doesn't say that "those (non-white here)s aren't civilized enough for us proper people" or anything like that, the other groups can have their own ethnostate over there (I.e. anywhere not near me) in a white nationalist view.
White supremacy, however, is just straight up racism. No holds barred, no punches pulled, just straight up "you're savages who will never adapt to civilized life."
The problem, that I don't think people are explaining, is that white supremacists can co-opt and hijack the message of white nationalists because their short-term goals are awfully similar (whether you think this a coincidence or not, is up for you to decide). Vox Day added that 15th point to establish that he's not a racist (I still think he is, but that's not the point) and that he advocates for white nationalism and strictly not white supremacy. That's why xDaunt says it's not white supremacy, and he's right in that technical sense.
I still think it's a problem because it's so easy to turn into a white supremacist message by keeping every word of that point intact and just omitting the "races are equal" part because that first goal is the same. He's trying to say that white nationalists would stop at an ethnostate (I don't believe that for a second), but white supremacists would continue to campaign for the slow suffocation or the non-white peoples.
Edit--------
FWIW, I don't think there is a very large distinction, because "why would you not want to live with other races? What makes them bad enough neighbors that you want a pure nation?" The answer is usually gobbledygook about how multiculturalism is bad and that they won't assimilate to the majority or that "they want us below them! That's not equality, it's a power grab!" Those strike me as having racist subliminals, considering what I've seen in families with differing generations of immigrants (gf's grandpa refuses to learn English because it's inferior, her mom took the gaokao and specialized in English, gf can't speak Chinese perfectly well and uses English to everyone but her family) being unable to assimilate if just given time.
|
One would think as Americans we could feel comforted by the fact that this investigation could be working things out, and rooting out law breakers. Only problem is everyday is a knife edge as one political party holds all the keys and has willing shown they have no intention of protecting the people who are working on this, or limiting the President's power to handicap it.
And holy shit if a sitting Congressman actually sought the help of the GRU to steal a political opponents secrets, and voting data.
|
On July 14 2018 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
One would think as Americans we could feel comforted by the fact that this investigation could be working things out, and rooting out law breakers. Only problem is everyday is a knife edge as one political party holds all the keys and has willing shown they have no intention of protecting the people who are working on this, or limiting the President's power to handicap it.
And holy shit if a sitting Congressman actually sought the help of the GRU to steal a political opponents secrets, and voting data.
I keep seeing the thing about the congressman but I can't find the article about it. Can you please link>
|
On July 14 2018 05:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
One would think as Americans we could feel comforted by the fact that this investigation could be working things out, and rooting out law breakers. Only problem is everyday is a knife edge as one political party holds all the keys and has willing shown they have no intention of protecting the people who are working on this, or limiting the President's power to handicap it.
And holy shit if a sitting Congressman actually sought the help of the GRU to steal a political opponents secrets, and voting data.
I believe it was specifically noted to be a Congressional candidate, rather than a sitting Congressman. It's unclear whether they won or were seated at the time (not sure whether they'd be called a candidate if they were currently in office, I don't speak indictment-ese).
Here's a link if folks want to read into it.
Still pretty amazing even if it was "just" a candidate, though.
|
Guys, secret: you aren't going to get anything out of xDoublespeak. He doesn't care that he's unashamedly thrown out white supremacist nonsense. He is probably well aware that his sources are intimately involved in that culture, it would be bloody hard to not be.
It's quite an accurate reflection of the attitudes of the GOP in politics in our very own poster. Truth, history, responsibility are all to be discarded when convenient, ignored until they become a weapon against the opponent.
This is like arguing with a fox about how best to guard the hens.
On a more general note, something that very much scares me about the political future of the west is increasing political involvement and mobilization of the right fringe. Many online communities have been cesspools in years past, but I never noticed such a strong, political presence. It feels like a newer phenomenon, and I worry about the damage it can do before society adapts.
|
On July 14 2018 04:34 IgnE wrote:
to put it in harold bloom's terms we might consider vox day's deliberate misprision to be the "clinamen" altering previous iterations via the 15th point. vox day bends the words through the lens of his "enlightened" white identity activism which ratifies "separate but equal" in place of concentration camps. its the difference between slavery and jim crow; a distinction not always worth pointing out.
ok ill drop it now. but the libidinal investment you guys have in hanging anyone who might make such a distinction is kind of disturbing
I mean I assume you know this but the point is that "14" is literally neonazi code for "Hitler was right the jews must die" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words) and that way predates Vox Day or the modern notion of the altright. So when someone writes a an article about white identity that is all "only" about jim crow style segregation but they make the 14th point the 14th words it's not so much a dog whistle as a bull horn for anyone who knows what "14" stands for. At that point it literally does not matter if the rest of the post is all "seperate but equal", at the point where you invoke "14" it becomes really hard to view the article as anything but "I will bring the death camps back as soon as it is within my power to do so and I want my allies to know that".
The remaining question is weather xdaunt knows the reference and chooses to equivocate anyways, in which caseI guess he is just here on this forum recruiting for the future death squads, or if he actually didn't know. But harping on the article is in my view entirely justified... people need to know that for all his talk about a "white identity" or whatever Day is just a neonazi.
|
did you read what i wrote about deliberate misprision? its iteration w difference. go back
|
On July 14 2018 05:27 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
White Nationalism (the belief that white identity politics should be accepted, allowed, and utilized to its fullest extent to "secure a future" or whatever) does not imply that other races are inferior; it's those people's way of saying "I think we should be on teams based on race, but only my team isn't allowed to play ball." It doesn't say that "those (non-white here)s aren't civilized enough for us proper people" or anything like that, the other groups can have their own ethnostate over there (I.e. anywhere not near me) in a white nationalist view.
White supremacy, however, is just straight up racism. No holds barred, no punches pulled, just straight up "you're savages who will never adapt to civilized life."
The problem, that I don't think people are explaining, is that white supremacists can co-opt and hijack the message of white nationalists because their short-term goals are awfully similar (whether you think this a coincidence or not, is up for you to decide). Vox Day added that 15th point to establish that he's not a racist (I still think he is, but that's not the point) and that he advocates for white nationalism and strictly not white supremacy. That's why xDaunt says it's not white supremacy, and he's right in that technical sense.
I still think it's a problem because it's so easy to turn into a white supremacist message by keeping every word of that point intact and just omitting the "races are equal" part because that first goal is the same. He's trying to say that white nationalists would stop at an ethnostate (I don't believe that for a second), but white supremacists would continue to campaign for the slow suffocation or the non-white peoples.
Edit--------
FWIW, I don't think there is a very large distinction, because "why would you not want to live with other races? What makes them bad enough neighbors that you want a pure nation?" The answer is usually gobbledygook about how multiculturalism is bad and that they won't assimilate to the majority or that "they want us below them! That's not equality, it's a power grab!" Those strike me as having racist subliminals, considering what I've seen in families with differing generations of immigrants (gf's grandpa refuses to learn English because it's inferior, her mom took the gaokao and specialized in English, gf can't speak Chinese perfectly well and uses English to everyone but her family) being unable to assimilate if just given time.
Except all of that is pure rubbish in a country wear even one person is not white. In fact it is pure bullshit, because nationalism is about nationality, whether French or British. White nationalism doesn't exist. There is French nationalism, and there is British nationalism, and there is Scotish nationalism, nationalism by it definition neccesitates a nation state identity; it doesn't neccessitate a "whiteness" or a racial identity in particular. "White nationalism" is just pure smoke and mirrors for white supremacism, that it conflates culture (as if somehow all the myriad "white" cultures are the same and share common features that which is distinct and divided by race) with skin colour, as if somehow people with the same skin colour all share the same unchangeable culture and political and religious ideology, so people who advocate for white supremacism can advocate for white supremacism under a blanket that it isn't white supremacism. It's pure bullshit in a vacuum. And in context, it too is pure bullshit, it is just white supremacy, rebranded.
|
On July 14 2018 05:43 IgnE wrote:
did you read what i wrote about deliberate misprision? its iteration w difference. go back One would assume that if you wanted to 'iterate' on the idea's and move from white supremacy to white nationalism (which i'm not buying btw. the latter will 100% lead to the former) maybe, just maybe you shouldn't be copying pretty much word for word something as deeply Nazi as the 14 words.
They could have used any other phrase to make the point but there it is. the 14 words at point 14.
If you don't see that connection your just being willfully ignorant of the giant flashing neon sign in your face.
|
On July 14 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:55 m4ini wrote:On July 14 2018 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:46 m4ini wrote:Q: How can you improve relations with Russia when they have illegally occupied another country?
Trump says that happened when Obama was president. He says he does not think Putin would have done that if Trump had been president. He says, if you look at what he has done, no other president has done so much. Crimea was an Obama disaster.
He literally said that. I don't see what's wrong with Trump's statement. He's clearly stating that Russia invaded Ukraine because it knew that Obama was a weak president, and that Putin wouldn't have tried it on Trump's watch. I think it goes without saying that everyone knows that Trump has far more resolve than Obama. How twisted of a mind would you need to have to actually believe that? Russia would've invaded Ukraine either way, because there's jack shit the US can do about it. To argue otherwise is disgustingly disingenuous. Trump would've done nothing different, or do you actually think someone believes that he'd go to war with russia? I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. I don't think tough is the right word. Erratic more like. Sure there are things he's followed through on (tariffs) but there are also things he's rolled over on (tariffs). There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his strategies, and people who support him have a tendency to connect the dots as the see fit. Fewer Presidents have gotten less done in their first year or so in office than Trump. Seems like the guy is pretty impotent. Again, how many presidents have had to deal with the resistance -- from day one -- that Trump has had to deal with? The only president that immediately comes to mind without researching it is Lincoln (and he was obviously in a worse position). Let's see what happens when the new congress shows up in January.
I can't think of any President that's had more delivered to him on day one than Donald Trump. Just look at the sweetheart deal he gets form the media. He calls them 'fake news' and all they do back is fact check. They could justifiably call him a liar outright (he'd deserve it - you can't argue that) but they keep bending over backwards out of respect for the position.
Any and all resistance he's faced is due to his own actions. No one forced him to court the Russians. No one forced him to get on stage and demean disabled people, or the countless other atrocious things he's said and done. No one forces him to lie, day in, day out. It's all on him.
|
So if a congressman colluded with Russians, why are they not indicted? I'm kinda confused how that isn't the biggest story right now.
|
On July 14 2018 05:43 IgnE wrote:
did you read what i wrote about deliberate misprision? its iteration w difference. go back
I haven't read Bloom, nor am going to. I am (honestly) jealous that you have the time and energy, but yeah, if you want to make the point in a less technical manner do it.
Taking it literally as "iterating" on previous ideas I guess I disagree with the interpretation. If he wanted to iterate he could have made say the 15th point, be something like "White children deserve a future" (or whatever other bullshit with the same message). This would invoke the content as written but be devoid of the neonazi symbolism. That would be iteration in my view.
Taking the 14th point and making it the 14th words is not iteration, no matter what you put before or after, it's just symbolism. Doubly so because fascists and nazis have always been in love with politics as a stream of symbols. Choosing a particular symbol in this context means something, I cannot see it any other way.
|
On July 14 2018 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 05:15 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On July 14 2018 04:50 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:41 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:35 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 04:29 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 04:08 IgnE wrote:On July 14 2018 02:40 Gorsameth wrote:[quote]Just to refresh things here for people this is your actual words in question.[quote] SourceYou literally tried to claim the 14 words were not about white supremacy. There are no if's or but's about it. you didnt quote the 15th point laid out there in the source post about how the alt right supposedly doesnt believe any race is superior to any other. xdaunt is reading "white supremacy" as not necessarily inherent to a white ethnostate hypothetically capable of peacefully coexisting with nonwhite ethnostates. its basically a vision of "separate but equal" and you can obviously question the coherence of such a view but plansix's constant harping on xdaunts posting of vox day is misrepresentative. xdaunt did put in bold that vox day's views were not his own That 15th point is a clear effort to try and sanitize white nationalist ideology for the public, as detailed in the article posted previously showing Vox Day was working with white nationalist to do just that. It is fruitless to discuss the writings without discussing the fact that they were written with the intent to obfuscate their origins. My issue with Dauntless isn’t that he posted the 14 words or what he believes, but the fact that he has refused to engage with the source material for that ideology. And that the source material is so tainted that anything that follows afterwards is poisonous. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. The article What "source material?" That Buzzfeed article concerns Milo. Not Vox Day. The Alt Right isn't some monolithic entity. As I have written before, it has a variety of factions with varying beliefs ranging from something to the right of me to Adolf Hitler. Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an “ignorant savage,” and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.
“Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive,” Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.
“Most of it is great but I don’t want to rush a major long form piece like this,” Marlow wrote back. “A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.” The 16 points you are talking about was a collaborative work between Milo, several white nationalist, Nazis and Vox Day. Defining the Alt-Right was the work of Nazis and white Nationalists. He is literally referenced in the article. The have the god damn emails he sent. You're conflating a lot of things. The "collaborative work" that you're referring to is Milo's survey article of the Alt Right. As far as I know, the 16 points are strictly Vox Day's formulation of the Alt Right. That just 'happens' to include the 14 words in a 'totally not supremacist' way. Seriously, how the fuck can you not see the connection here, its a flashing neon sign.... Has it ever occurred to you that Vox Day is trolling everyone while still making his point? Have you ever considered that he was deadly serious? Of course he's serious. The difference between us is that you're reading way more into it than I am.
I highly doubt that. For someone who always smugly tells people to go back and re-read shit because they "just don't get it", I have a very hard time believing you're just reading what Day's saying and taking everything innocently at face value, without any scrutiny whatsoever. It sounds mighty convenient if you ask me.
|
some believers see the new testament as "fulfilling" the inherent truth of the old, and some see the old testament as something still in effect in all its literality. obviously there are a lot of white supremacists who are also white nationalists and obviously both isms are bad
|
On July 14 2018 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:
So if a congressman colluded with Russians, why are they not indicted? I'm kinda confused how that isn't the biggest story right now.
unknown; and we may not know for sure for some time.
here's some possibilities/factors:
1) it was a congressional candidate (this is what was stated) who didn't win. that's less of a story.
2) they don't want to indict a sitting congressperson (yet) for fear of blowback. they'd rather present evidence and let public pressure or the impeachment process handle it.
3) there's enough plausible deniability or difficulties in some other element that it'd be hard to secure a criminal conviction against that person (basic rule of high profile cases is don't miss, if you're gonna indict make sure you're gonna win) or that there's some issue as to which actual law it violated.
4) the identity of the candidate is being concealed for security reasons, or because they've already made an arrangement with the prosecutors.
5) it's not a big story because there's no name attached to it. it's hard to have a big story when we don't know if it's a somebody or a nobody, and there'se not a whole lot of information to go on. major news sources aren' gonna want to speculate on something like this. (fringe sources I'm sure are having a field day)
6) the identity is being concealed to protect other aspects of the ongoing investigation.
7) there may be a sealed indictment.
|
On July 14 2018 06:14 IgnE wrote:
some believers see the new testament as "fulfilling" the inherent truth of the old, and some see the old testament as something still in effect in all its literality. obviously there are a lot of white supremacists who are also white nationalists and obviously both isms are bad
Isn't the point that such tension can exist because Jesus didn't verbatim quote the old testament regarding vengeance and killing and punishment every 16 sentences?
|
On July 14 2018 06:14 IgnE wrote:
some believers see the new testament as "fulfilling" the inherent truth of the old, and some see the old testament as something still in effect in all its literality. obviously there are a lot of white supremacists who are also white nationalists and obviously both isms are bad
Again, the ideology of white nationalists don't exist. White nationalists is just white supremacist. It just an invented and clever rebranding to push the white supremacist agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
