US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 71
Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On August 19 2017 13:00 KwarK wrote: Pence, turning fruits into vegetables. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe if the rant had content it would be taken more seriously. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On August 20 2017 13:20 oBlade wrote: Meanwhile, this is a proud mod: On August 19 2017 13:00 KwarK wrote: Pence, turning fruits into vegetables. Dark jokes about how the VP electrocutes gay people, too far! VP electrocuting gay people, that's cool? Yeah, it's fine. Humour is how we deal with this incredibly fucked up scenario where half the country decided that people like Mike Pence were their model leaders. Fuck your phony concern. | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2017 12:07 KwarK wrote: At least he didn't attempt to explain why the 14 words were nothing to with white supremacism and that anyone who disagrees is a retard. So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote: So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional. I think the people you listed are pretty much the only people you'll be able to find who will believe that you weren't defending the 14 words when you wrote that long rant defending the 14 words. And only because they're highly skilled in selective facts. You can't use them in a non white supremacist way. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote: 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. And let me preface this by saying now that some of you are going to feel really retarded by the time that I'm done, because everything that I'm about to say is right in the 16 Points. Point 15 is the first big hint: Just in case there's any ambiguity here, let's look at Points 10 and 16, respectively: Here, Vox Day is clearly advocating for peaceful coexistence among peoples and advocating directly against the supremacy/imperialism of one people over another. Not exactly the typical skinhead dribble, right? So now let's talk about his reasoning for ethnostates. We see it stated right in Point 11: Now, unlike the previous points, I am willing to cut people a little bit of slack for not fully understanding the significance of what Vox Day is communicating here given the terseness of the statement and the fact that most probably have not had the opportunity to read or hear Vox Day elaborate on this point. But his argument is basically as follows: history shows that conflict -- often violent conflict -- occurs when different cultures either a) exist in close proximity to each other, or b) find themselves in a situation whether they otherwise have to compete with each other over the same resources. Stated another way, multiculturalism breeds strife that is not easily repressed and eliminated until there is some degree of convergence between the cultures because people tend to be assholes to "the other." It's just who we are and what we do. Vox Day's solution to this human condition is to keep everyone separated and allow each people the right to national self-determination. This is stated in Point 5: Accordingly, securing the future of white people is merely the logical extension of this principle. The goal, is the preservation of Western Culture, of which Vox Day writes in Point 4: For the numerous posters who struggle with reading, let me make the following abundantly clear: All of what I have said so far is what Vox Day thinks. Not necessarily what I think. Like I have said many times before, my primary disagreement with the Alt Right lies in its preoccupation with race. And this is where I deviate from Vox Day as well. Here is what he writes in the summary section of his 16 Points: While I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some genetic variation between races, I do not accept the idea that this variation is significant enough to affect the ability of members of a given race to be able to embrace, or assimilate into, a certain culture, particularly if we are to assume tabula rasa immersion into that culture (ie taking a baby from one race/culture and raising it in another race/culture). Stated another way, Vox Day thinks that race and culture are largely inseparable. I don't. Now, for practical purposes, I can see why race might be a useful proxy for culture given that every culture is the product of predominantly one race, but it doesn't change the basic point that a member of any race can, in theory, adopt any culture. So let's turn to IgnE's post: First, I mentioned that "political pluralism" is a pillar of western civilization, referring mostly to the idea that we value truly democratic and representative rule, as opposed to some form of autocratic or even single party rule. As for cultural pluralism, it really boils down to a matter of degree. While I reject outright multiculturalism, I do think that there is some room for variation within a culture. Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider. We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Note that Vox Day made that point his 14th point. I wonder whether xDaunt thinks it's coincidental, or if he accepts that it is a deliberate reference to the 14 words but is about to tell us that he's referencing them in a non Nazi way. xDaunt's argument comes down to "but everyone gets separate but equal homelands so how can that even be racist?" | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote: So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? You picked a rather sympathetic group of folks to ask, so I think you know what answer to expect. I don't think it unfair to treat the question as effectively rhetorical. That being so, I have one for you: why continue to engage Kwark in discussion? You know what you can expect from him, and you know that he is not likely to change and no one is likely to reel him in to make him debate charitably or avoid engaging in piss-fights at every turn. There is of course something to be said for defending yourself, but at this point we all know the score on that front. That being so, what is there to gain from it? Because frankly, given that the moderation staff essentially permits any degree of Kwark shitposting, the only remaining recourse is "don't feed the troll." Of course once in a while we all get baited, but I think that's the only real way forward. | ||
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote: So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional. I'm not on the right but it's probably not intentional, he wouldn't keep doing this if he saw himself, some people are too busy/noisy/wound up to be dispassionate about subtle things. On August 20 2017 13:37 KwarK wrote: Dark jokes about how the VP electrocutes gay people, too far! VP electrocuting gay people, that's cool? Yeah, it's fine. Humour is how we deal with this incredibly fucked up scenario where half the country decided that people like Mike Pence were their model leaders. Fuck your phony concern. -The VP doesn't electrocute gay people or want to, try Snopes -Gay people aren't fruits -You aren't on 4chan, post better The US has been electing Republicans for over a century, it's only you who didn't notice it and now thinks the sky is falling, if you need a personal way to cope then maybe look into therapy, which has had booming demand after the election so might help. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
| ||
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On August 20 2017 15:29 KwarK wrote: I know that gay people aren't literally fruits oBlade. I'm aware they're human. I can tell the difference between humans and fruits. However fruits is used as a euphemism for homosexuals. It's a little antiquated but it's a funny line. Turning homosexuals into vegetables wouldn't be as clever. That's what I was reminding you they're not, bub. It's not clever at all, as you admitted it's just a meme you injected because you saw the VP's name and somehow thought it was relevant. On August 20 2017 15:29 KwarK wrote: And I'm aware he doesn't electrocute anyone. Few reasons for that. Firstly, by definition electrocution has to be to death. If the person survives they were shocked, not electrocuted. Secondly, even if Pence did want gays to be electrocuted he'd probably not do it himself. Thirdly, it's just gay conversion therapy he supports. He doesn't support electrocution or electroshock or anything else a pedant could conceive relating homosexuals and voltage. On August 20 2017 13:37 KwarK wrote: VP electrocuting gay people, that's cool? On August 19 2017 12:50 KwarK wrote: I mean electrocuting gays just doesn't cut it as extreme in the modern Republican party. On August 20 2017 15:29 KwarK wrote: And I'm aware he doesn't electrocute anyone. ![]() What are you trying to accomplish here? Stop being this smartass troll and at least try to set an example. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
As for whether that line is clever, maybe it's subjective. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 20 2017 14:30 xDaunt wrote: So honest question for the people on the right (Danglars, oBlade, Introvert, etc), because I really do have trouble making up my mind on this issue: Do you think that Kwark misrepresents stuff like this intentionally because of some pathology that prevents him from debating in good faith or unintentionally because he really doesn't understand the issues? And for those who are confused, the argument made was not why the 14 words have nothing to do with white supremacism. The argument made was why Vox Day's use of them had nothing to do with white supremacism. Pretty important distinction, the kind of which Kwark habitually glosses over. I just want to know whether people think it's intentional or unintentional. I think it's intentional for private humor and also to make easier arguments for himself. He really does seem intelligent enough to grasp the plain truth and debate that if that was his desire. It's fun to dodge nuance, and probably no one he respects will call him on it, then laugh at someone that he's portrayed as ridiculous. When arguing from a correct structure is boring, you just obliterate the conditionals and predicates then make a nice slanderous conclusion. Is it also in service of thread mob mentality or TL lefist tribalism? Of course, they're all secretly permissive of white supremacist ideology and harbor racist sentiments, so arguments should not be about point-counterpoint, but rather about eliciting their hidden sympathies? That's a possible third rationale, but I the first two are more easily seen. On August 17 2017 03:47 farvacola wrote: Dangles, we don't necessarily think that you're a racist, we just think you voted for someone who gave racists boners and you continue to defend the giver of racist-boners even after one of these excited racists killed someone. | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 20 2017 15:23 oBlade wrote: -The VP doesn't electrocute gay people or want to, try Snopes -Gay people aren't fruits -You aren't on 4chan, post better The US has been electing Republicans for over a century, it's only you who didn't notice it and now thinks the sky is falling, if you need a personal way to cope then maybe look into therapy, which has had booming demand after the election so might help. Anyone but a mod would get warned for this. When it's a red hammer shitting up the thread, what's there to do but follow suit? | ||
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2017 14:47 KwarK wrote: I think the people you listed are pretty much the only people you'll be able to find who will believe that you weren't defending the 14 words when you wrote that long rant defending the 14 words. And only because they're highly skilled in selective facts. You can't use them in a non white supremacist way. .... but you can use "fruits" to refer to gays in your posts and not be homophobic. Got it. | ||
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
You guys are literally getting salty over a pun. That's it. That's the whole thing. It's just a word association joke, gays -> fruits, Pence -> conversion therapy -> electroshock therapy -> comatose people -> vegetables, fruits -> vegetables. What exactly is the outrage here? In other contexts the term "fruits" being used for gays might be considered a little offensive, but it's obviously not used as a pejorative here, it's just to make the joke. If it becomes clear that Kwark regularly uses the term fruits for gays in other discussions we can talk with him about how that's not the preferred term, but when we're in a discussion about the literal physical and psychological torture of gay people, it's patently absurd to get more offended by Kwark's joke than by the practice itself. If you don't give a shit about gays, maybe you think using the word "vegetable" for comatose people is a little insensitive, but let's drop the act for a minute. oBlade, xDaunt, and Danglars are banding together to try to get everyone to use the right PC labels? I don't buy it for a second. If your quest to prove the moderation is biased, latching onto petty shit like this only makes it more likely no one ever takes your quest seriously. Danglars, imo the attitude of "I think the other side is shitty so I have a right—no, obligation—to be shitty" seems to describe your posting better and better lately, and if anything ever gets you banned, that will be it. I hope that doesn't happen, because when you aren't acting like that I think you bring a lot of value to the thread. Just my opinion, obviously, so take it or leave it. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On August 20 2017 23:17 xDaunt wrote: .... but you can use "fruits" to refer to gays in your posts and not be homophobic. Got it. Are you equating the very contextual use of the word fruits in a post attacking gay conversion therapy with defending the 14 words right now? | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'd say the pettiness of continuing to bitch on and on about his interpretation of xDaunt's post, including bringing it here, is more significant. One of the few times an admin told him to shut the fuck up was in a similar scenario. And he definitely cries foul whenever someone apparently takes him out of context, so there's an added element of hypocrisy there for sure. | ||
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
| ||
| ||