"Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt fact-checking?

[Joe]

It is a self evident truth that fact checkers are biased. They hate lying motherfuckers.

[Hermit]

...when was the last time you fact checked something?

Our member from Yellowknife fact-checks everything. Always has.

Qanon, his primary source of facts, has gone a bit quiet lately, but that is not a problem. Qnuts is the new Qanon.

[Cunt]

I fact-checked some of the claims about some of the 'alt-right' characters.

Like Crowder, who does a series of 'fact-checking the fact-checkers', where he walks you through some of the examples.

If you want them, that is. I'm not sure what you think you will convince me of. That authoritarian government overreach is bad? Suppression of opposition voices is an example of a fascist Biden administration?

[Joe]

I fact-checked some of the claims about some of the 'alt-right' characters.

Like Crowder, who does a series of 'fact-checking the fact-checkers', where he walks you through some of the examples.

If you want them, that is. I'm not sure what you think you will convince me of. That authoritarian government overreach is bad? Suppression of opposition voices is an example of a fascist Biden administration?

Did you fact check the left characters? A good fact checker with rip a liar, no matter their politics. Those are the ones I value.

[Cunt]

So check him out. He admits to being 'right-wing' (which is more courtesy than many offer) and provides sources while trying to be funny.

Or enjoy his recent suspension from youtube. I think he got in trouble for being a crass comic again.

[Joe]

Been there, done that. As a fact checker, Crowder's a comic, and plays to his audience rather than the truth. I'm more concerned with accuracy than bias, so his candor is misplaced.

I don't blame him for making a living though.

[Seabass]

Cunt. Have you read Ur Fascism?

You haven't read it, have you, Cunt. You won't do even a barest minimum amount of work needed to understand fascism. You won't take 10 minutes out of your life to read a well-known essay on fascism, and yet you'll tell like five people that you know fascism better than they do.

"If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent ... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." —David Dunning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

Congrats, Cunt. You are the perfect Dunning-Kruger specimen.

[Cunt]

I don't think you are good at spotting fascism.

Whatever books you read, they haven't helped.

[Seabass]

I don't think you are good at spotting fascism.

Whatever books you read, they haven't helped.

How do you know, if you've read 0 pages on fascism?

Aren't you old enough to be Stephen Crowder's dad? Why on earth do you get your opinions from that muscle-bound, gay bashing meathead? I mean, It would be understandable if he were a genius, but he's clearly a moron.

[Brian Peacock]

So check him out. He admits to being 'right-wing' (which is more courtesy than many offer) and provides sources while trying to be funny.

Or enjoy his recent suspension from youtube. I think he got in trouble for being a crass comic again.

This feeds into what I said about Gno and the Proud Boys etc being your sources about who and what they are: you're happy to take their descriptions of themselves in good faith, but you don't extend that principle when it comes to Antifa, or the Left generally - in fact you take the descriptions of the Right about the Left over the Left's description of itself. In each case you're abandoning all hope of being objective and unbiased and, more importantly, you're never looking at what either the Right or Left stand for on this-or-that issue. This inevitably frames the debate in terms of unproductive he-said-she-said antagonisms.

We know that groups like the Proud Boys are fascist by what they say and what they do; by their political ideals and goals and by the actions they advocate and take. As Joe says, if it walks like a duck etc...

You pretend to know nothing about far-Right in the political sense. Instead you seem to prefer to see them only in terms of people whose freedom of speech and basic human rights are being subverted and oppressed by unreasonable others. Again, by adopting this apparent veil of ignorance about the far-Right your focus is only on what you see as the moral failings and political impoverishment of those unreasonable others - and so the Left and Antifa etc become the 'bad guys' and what the Proud Boys etc stand for, and do, becomes totally irrelevant to the discussion.

At this juncture I'd just like to point out that this is exactly how the far-Right like to frame the debate around their political ideals and aims: their political ideals and aims, and the potential consequences of their politics for the community, society, or the nation (should they acquire political control of the state) are never the issue - the issue is that they're disagreed with and opposed by unreasonable and malign forces who are oppressing their rights and freedoms for no good reason.

I've tried to lead you through this many times in the hope of encouraging us towards a discussion of what the far-Right actually stand for and represent and what they'd like to achieve politically, but for some reason you will only talk about this and in terms of how those who disagree with the far-Right's brand of domineering misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, anti-Semitic/Islamophobic, anti-migrant/foriegner/non-white, anti-Liberal, anti-democratic politics should and must be opposed at all costs.

Those who invoke the concepts of freedom of speech and basic human rights to advocate and agitate for, and to defend, exclusionary political ideals and aims which, if enacted, would necessarily undermine, downgrade, limit or remove wholesale the freedoms and human rights of everyone they disagree with (or who disagree with them) are fascists - and specifically those who think that if/when people do disagree with them then it's legitimate to use force in order to compel society to comply, even if it means doing away with the inconvenient common agreements of democratic processes and institutions.



Whether what you type here are your actual views or whether you're merely repeating the views of others to see how they'll take: whether you've always thought this way or whether you've been radicalised, it makes little difference here, online. I fear that what you say here defines you not as a defender of free speech or as someone who is interested in serious political debate and merely adopts the role of a Devil's Advocate for far-Right thinking, but as far-Righ yourself.

Is that who you really are? If not, how and why are your views not far-Right? If so, why do you feel compelled to maintain the charade that you're not?

[Cunt]

We know that groups like the Proud Boys are fascist by what they say and what they do; by their political ideals and goals and by the actions they advocate and take. As Joe says, if it walks like a duck etc...

No - WE don't. You claim.

Where is your info? From your membership? Their charter?

Or is it from unfavourable reports?

You pretend to know nothing about far-Right in the political sense. Instead you seem to prefer to see them only in terms of people whose freedom of speech and basic human rights are being subverted and oppressed by unreasonable others. Again, by adopting this apparent veil of ignorance about the far-Right your focus is only on what you see as the moral failings and political impoverishment of those unreasonable others - and so the Left and Antifa etc become the 'bad guys' and what the Proud Boys etc stand for, and do, becomes totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Again, you are claiming to have some insider info about them.

I don't believe you.

When you claim someone is 'alt-right', is it to define their position before you consider it carefully? Or is it an insult meant to suggest they are moral failures, especially next to you?

At this juncture I'd just like to point out that this is exactly how the far-Right like to frame the debate around their political ideals and aims: their political ideals and aims, and the potential consequences of their politics for the community, society, or the nation (should they acquire political control of the state) are never the issue - the issue is that they're disagreed with and opposed by unreasonable and malign forces who are oppressing their rights and freedoms for no good reason.

I haven't changed my position on free speech yet.

Good try, though.

Maybe try joining a media smear against people you don't know. That might convince me.

I've tried to lead you through this many times in the hope of encouraging us towards a discussion of what the far-Right actually stand for and represent and what they'd like to achieve politically, but for some reason you will only talk about this and in terms of how those who disagree with the far-Right's brand of domineering misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, anti-Semitic/Islamophobic, anti-migrant/foriegner/non-white, anti-Liberal, anti-democratic politics should and must be opposed at all costs.

You've tried with the general term.

I reject your view as hilariously biased.

You have tried with individuals occasionally.

That hasn't been all that convincing either.

Is Richard Spencer 'alt-right'? Did he support Biden this last election?

Those who invoke the concepts of freedom of speech and basic human rights to advocate and agitate for, and to defend, exclusionary political ideals and aims which, if enacted, would necessarily undermine, downgrade, limit or remove wholesale the freedoms and human rights of everyone they disagree with (or who disagree with them) are fascists - and specifically those who think that if/when people do disagree with them then it's legitimate to use force in order to compel society to comply, even if it means doing away with the inconvenient common agreements of democratic processes and institutions.

I get it. You are threatened by political positions that aren't your own.

You want to pretend that free speech tramples on human rights, but I don't see it.

Or you want to pretend that if the other side gets in, they will ruin free people's rights.

I don't buy it.

Whether what you type here are your actual views or whether you're merely repeating the views of others to see how they'll take: whether you've always thought this way or whether you've been radicalised, it makes little difference here, online. I fear that what you say here defines you not as a defender of free speech or as someone who is interested in serious political debate and merely adopts the role of a Devil's Advocate for far-Right thinking, but as far-Righ yourself.

Is that who you really are? If not, how and why are your views not far-Right? If so, why do you feel compelled to maintain the charade that you're not?

Oh look, another photo of the vulnerable people being attacked by far-right.

I bet it is from January 6th, because that's all you've got.

Billions in insurance claims from other riots all year long, and this is the only one you find from the right.

Why not look a bit closer at the 'far left'? I mean, they are clearly the bigger problem.

Of course, that wouldn't agree with CNN and the 'friends of Epstein', so would likely be very unpopular.

[Seabass]

There are always big insurance claims in times of civil unrest but that does not mean the protests are not warranted. Whenever black Americans are out marching in the streets and protesting, it is ALWAYS 100% of the time for a valid reason, but all Cunt and other far right assholes see is violent uppity niggers trying to rise above their station.

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-proper ... cea9c.html


Moreover, it is a totally idiotic false equivalence to equate protests against racist, violent policing, and a fascist mob trying to overthrow an election because they don't like the result.



ETA: And what is this "friends of Epstein" shit. You mean, like Trump?

[Brian Peacock]

... There are always big insurance claims in times of civil unrest but that does not mean the protests are not warranted. Whenever black Americans are out marching in the streets and protesting, it is ALWAYS 100% of the time for a valid reason, but all Cunt and other far right assholes see is violent uppity niggers trying to rise above their station.

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-proper ... cea9c.html

Moreover, it is a totally idiotic false equivalence to equate protests against racist, violent policing, and a fascist mob trying to overthrow an election because they don't like the result....

But the Proud Boys have a charter Seabass, so they can't be the bad guys. They wouldn't actively take part in an attempt to disenfranchise every voter in the US - but if they did it would only be for the noblest of reasons, or because BLM forced them into it, or Antifa, or whatever.

Cunt thinks I'm making wild, baseless claims aboot them, and that these claims must be off because it doesn't fit with what they say about themselves. For that to be the case we'd have to ignore their origins in the women-hating MRA movement, their penchant for gay-bashing and race-baiting, their use of intimidation, their eagerness for street violence, their rhetoric about Jews not replacing them, and their participation in the Capitol Riot along with other far-Right groups Their activities have been documented far and wide and are available to anyone who wants to find out more about them - including those who might want to join. But Cunt's ready response to all the adverse reports, the criminal convictions, or the killings inspired by the far-Right, is that they're obviously unfairly prejudiced against white supremacists, ultra nationalists, and neo-Nazis - white supremacists, ultra nationalists, and neo-Nazis have rights too you know: Fascists' Lives Matter.

The more Cunt insists that it's wrong to oppose the far-Right, without offering any reasons and while spuriously naintaing that he doesn't even know what terms like far-Right or fadcist actually mean, the more far-Right he looks. He should take care - the Canadian government has just outlawed the Proud Boys as an extremist terrorist group, and we wouldn't want him turning up on a govt watch list now would we?

[Seabass]

Well, Cunt? What do you have to say about all these insurance claims? In particular the 1968 ones. You seem to be very concerned about property damage (but not at all concerned about the reasons for the civil unrest).

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-proper ... cea9c.html

Dates Location Dollars 2020 dollars
May 26-June 8, 2020 20 states across U.S. $1-2b $1-2b
Apr. 29-May 4, 1992 Los Angeles, CA 775m 1.42b
Aug. 11-17, 1965 Los Angeles, CA 44m 357m
Jul. 23, 1967 Detroit, MI 42m 322m
May 17-19, 1980 Miami, Fl 65m 204m
Apr. 4-9, 1968 Washington, DC 24m 179m
Jul. 13-14, 1977 New York, NY 28m 118m
Jul. 12. 1967 Newark, NJ 15m 115m
Apr. 6-9, 1968 Baltimore, MD 14m 104m
Apr. 4-11, 1968 Chicago, IL 13m 97m