The News Thread

[Baroque]

You just played yourself and I didn't even set it up.

Makes no sense. You said Antifa is not anti-nazi. I implied that for the nazis there are anti-nazis. Who do you think are the anti-nazis if not them?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

That the idea that a race or ethnicity is superior to others not be allowed to spread. That it be stopped before it becomes more widespread.

It isn't a matter of "I disagree with this. It shouldn't be allowed to be said" it is a matter of "they're advocating for the extermination of non-whites people" and that can not be allowed.

If you could have prevented the genocide of your own people, would you not have wanted the people expressing ideas about the inferiority of the Armenian people to be silenced? If it could have stopped that from happening would you not have crushed those holding that sentiment?

Knowing you, I think you would have done everything possible.

Are you kidding me? You are going to compare extreme white nationalism of today to a genocide of millions of people in 1915? You are going to compare two nutcase groups duking it out in the middle of buttfuck nowhere to a nation of christians that got murdered when they were part of the ottaman empire? Are you really doing this right now? wow. Are you implying there is a chance that one day the whites will rise to power and start wiping out the rest of the country because of a few retards in the woods? once again .... are you kidding me?

Every nation in that empire that wasnt islamic was looked at in an inferior way from the beginning. That is not what the genocide was about though. The Armenian genocide resulted from jealousy and betrayal(among other things), not inferiority. Please at least get the facts down before approaching such a topic.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

call them what they are, and what some of them call themselves. what term do you prefer? white supremacist? kkk? it's all shit

Yes, both of those would be correct. A real nazi party does not exist today, so henceforth there are no real nazis today. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, just ask mort and his friends

never even said violence was justified. i said the other side has a moral high ground over white supremacists. do you disagree? you think they are equal morally?

not at all, but i dont think most of the other side is driven by "morals"

hmm who is the one being violent here

those were all examples(flamethrower, bats) from your "peace protestors"

 

[Dak]

Makes no sense. You said Antifa is not anti-nazi. I implied that for the nazis there are anti-nazis. Who do you think are the anti-nazis if not them?

"Unite the Right" and similar recent events were a response to Antifa attacking people attending Coulter or Milo events with bats and locks. Antifa are anti anyone who is not a Coalition of the Fringes, which includes far more than white supremicists. Those who most identify with the label "fascist", not in small part due to the media demonizing (and their equal simplicity) are upset enough to fly from all over to join the battle. I'm upset enough to shake my head at supposed intellectuals who are happy to swallow wholesale whatever journelists hand them.

 

[rms]

Nazism and the Confederacy are as un-American as it gets, we fought wars to stop both of them. And they try to call themselves patriots..

You're advocating for BLM but aren't even representing them properly. They would definitely state that white supremacy, in the form of slavery and eugenic based science in the late 19th and early 20th century (calling people nazis is rather lazy these days imo, they aren't state reformers) has been apart of America since the founding and will likely always be.

Anyways, the most annoying thing from this white on white violence has been this Twitter and Reddit investigative crew that is over stepping it's bounds and making mistakes and putting mistaken people on blast.

And then the idea that if everyone just publically shames a shitty group of people, this time "Nazis," but just a few decades ago the mentally I'll or drug addicted, suddenly fixes all these problems. Leftists really have no consistency to their policy and I truly fear the short future when their shitty ideology takes over the mainstream.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

@Baroque, lol at trying to explain the "us" part. I capitalized us ... the citizens of the United States. I thought you were implying that WE won the war. Wouldn't be the first time ive heard someone claim that it was the United States that defeated nazi germany. But yes, true socialism has no place here. Which side do you think resembles socialism more?

 

[Einherjar86]

"Unite the Right" and similar recent events were a response to Antifa attacking people attending Coulter or Milo events with bats and locks. Antifa are anti anyone who is not a Coalition of the Fringes, which includes far more than white supremicists. Those who most identify with the label "fascist", not in small part due to the media demonizing (and their equal simplicity) are upset enough to fly from all over to join the battle. I'm upset enough to shake my head at supposed intellectuals who are happy to swallow wholesale whatever journelists hand them.

First, there is no "Antifa"--that is, no official group called "Antifa." You can't join Antifa. You can join groups that identify as antifa.

Antifa groups aren't violently anti-centrist. If they were, you'd see them shutting down way more than Coulter and Milo talks. They may not identify with centrist liberal politics, but they're not vehemently opposed to everything they stand for.

Finally, the media hasn't had to do all that much to demonize the white supremacists at Charlottesville. They did enough themselves. This isn't some media conspiracy Dak.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

This isn't some media conspiracy

yes but you dont think the left(media included) is gonna try to pick up the ball and run with it? That's exactly what they are doing. They were praying to their liberal cunt gods for a day like that to happen, now they can go full blast for a little while.

 

[Einherjar86]

Run with what actually happened, you mean...?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

i dont take you for a shallow fluffball, so i think you know exactly what i mean.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't have a problem going full blast for a while. Our president is at best ambivalent, at worst supportive of white supremacist values. That's not something I think befits a commander in chief, and a lot of fucking people agree. So let's lash the fuck out of him.

 

[CiG]

Lmfao and now you have @Mort Divine advocating for vigilante violence or at the very least mass incarceration for simply holding views (views so unpopular they won't spread among whites fast enough to outrun the birthrate of non-whites in America anyhow) even though he's a fucking Communist?

Well you know what Mort, as much as I also hate the idea of white ethno-nationalism (you a Jew and me an aboriginal would both be fucked so at least we can agree upon an equal starting point of opposition to the alt-right) I also don't agree with the oppression of modern kulaks, guilt by class, the ending of property rights and any of the other horrific and historically atrocious beliefs people such as yourself and Antifa hold.

So shove a jackboot back up your ass.

BLM is a reaction to white supremacy and an advocation of racial equality.

Fucking wrong. BLM is a reaction to a man being killed by a police officer, of whom was later found to be in the wrong by the autopsy reports, which debunked the hands up don't shoot narrative.

Any of you have evidence to back up your biased claims to the contrary?

I was going by the video that showed that Antifa set up its line in the path of the original march, in the video you see the alt-right who had permission to rally originally, walking towards another group and then you see a flag pole or a big stick hit into the alt-right and then they all clash.

If Antifa went there specifically to get in the way of the rally, with weapons that were not legally owned firearms, that in my mind means they instigated this. As they always do by the way, their MO was on full display.

That doesn't mean I support the alt-right (far from it) nor does it mean the murder was justified and so on.

Trump is being asked to apologize for white supremacist beliefs (which are a choice) that have fueled an element of his base, and he can't even do that. It's pathetic and disgusting.

Why should he if he doesn't hold those views himself? He did it right the first time, by condemning both sides. They should be condemned and Antifa should not be allowed to use a murder by the other side to slide themselves into a role of heroism. Not to mention the vigilante violence that is now being pushed for and glamorized against the alt-right.

One group is about hate, hating anyone whose color isn't white.

The other group is about trying to stop the above group's hate.

It doesn't justify violence, but the other group clearly has the moral high ground here.

Bullshit. You're defining one group as solely an opposition to hate, which renders them without any other goals or belief. Again, total bullshit.

In what way is punching a female reporter in the face an element of opposing ethno-nationalism?

Not that simple. An Islamic extremist is not representative of all Muslims, nor does he indicate the general temperament or values or Islamic beliefs (I've had that argument before with CIG and while I don't think I changed his mind, he didn't change mine). In other words, a Muslim who kills a Christian doesn't stand for the anti-Christian bias of all Muslims.

On the other hand, a white supremacist who commits violence against those he despises does stand for the anti-everyfuckingbodywhoisn'tawhitemale bias of all white supremacists. That's what the entire ideology is predicated on, there's no getting around it.

So disingenuous. If you're making the comparison to Islam do it properly because right now nobody is saying a murderous white supremacist doesn't = all white supremacists, what people are saying is that these ethno-nationalist hatemongers represent THE RIGHT-WING.

This Charlottesville incident really has brought out the slimiest aspects of people.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fucking wrong. BLM is a reaction to a man being killed by a police officer, of whom was later found to be in the wrong by the autopsy reports, which debunked the hands up don't shoot narrative.

Ha, no. BLM wasn't started because of ONE black person shot by a police officer.

Why should he if he doesn't hold those views himself? He did it right the first time, by condemning both sides. They should be condemned and Antifa should not be allowed to use a murder by the other side to slide themselves into a role of heroism. Not to mention the vigilante violence that is now being pushed for and glamorized against the alt-right.

Again, there is no group called "Antifa."

And no, I'm sorry. He didn't do right, and it sends entirely the wrong message to suggest that the political views of white supremacists are as historically legitimate as those predicated on resistance to white supremacy. I can't believe this is honestly a discussion that we're having.

White supremacists have the right to assemble and protest, and our president has the right to support them. But if he does he's going to get shit for it because it's a backward and idiotic ideology that should be scrapped to the dustbin.

One side is guilty of violence and shit beliefs. The other side is guilty of just violence. They're not the same.

So disingenuous. If you're making the comparison to Islam do it properly because right now nobody is saying a murderous white supremacist doesn't = all white supremacists, what people are saying is that these ethno-nationalist hatemongers represent THE RIGHT-WING.

I'm not being disingenuous.

I'll quote Jimmy Kimmel, because he said it best. If you're not a white supremacist, and you're at a rally next to people throwing the Nazi salute and shouting "Jews will not replace us," and you don't immediately start moving away from those people, then you're not a good person. You're just as bad as the assholes around you.

 

[rms]

BLM was started by black trans people in chicago, I think, and then became mainstream with trayvon if memory serves me right.

Trump has to make it clear he has no ties to white supremacy but is not doing that for either stupidity or racist reasons. To not make it obvious is a political blunder and a moral one, if he is not a racist

 

[CiG]

Ha, no. BLM wasn't started because of ONE black person shot by a police officer.

Fair. The hashtag started as a reaction to the Zimmerman incident, but it became a mobilized movement as a reaction to Michael Brown, which is the incident I was referring to.

Again, there is no group called "Antifa."

And no, I'm sorry. He didn't do right, and it sends entirely the wrong message to suggest that the political views of white supremacists are as historically legitimate as those predicated on resistance to white supremacy. I can't believe this is honestly a discussion that we're having.

White supremacists have the right to assemble and protest, and our president has the right to support them. But if he does he's going to get shit for it because it's a backward and idiotic ideology that should be scrapped to the dustbin.

One side is guilty of violence and shit beliefs. The other side is guilty of just violence. They're not the same.

Shit beliefs are subjectively considered as such. I happen to think Communism is pretty shit.

And yes, there is a group called Antifa and it is as well defined as white supremacists or the alt-right is.

Donald Trump hasn't once from what I have seen, supported white supremacists.

I'm not being disingenuous.

I'll quote Jimmy Kimmel, because he said it best. If you're not a white supremacist, and you're at a rally next to people throwing the Nazi salute and shouting "Jews will not replace us," and you don't immediately start moving away from those people, then you're not a good person. You're just as bad as the assholes around you.

That... Is just retarded and that logic can be used to smear so many people on all sides.

Who the fuck even quotes Jimmy Kimmel? By his own logic, he was too soft on Donald Trump when he was on his show and now Kimmel is complicit in white supremacy.

Give me a fucking break.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Not that simple. An Islamic extremist is not representative of all Muslims, nor does he indicate the general temperament or values or Islamic beliefs (I've had that argument before with CIG and while I don't think I changed his mind, he didn't change mine). In other words, a Muslim who kills a Christian doesn't stand for the anti-Christian bias of all Muslims.

On the other hand, a white supremacist who commits violence against those he despises does stand for the anti-everyfuckingbodywhoisn'tawhitemale bias of all white supremacists. That's what the entire ideology is predicated on, there's no getting around it.

I realize you didn't compare BLM with white supremacy, but you implied an equivalence when you suggested that Trump's response was comparable to Obama's, and that they basically reflect the same dynamic. Obama doesn't need to apologize for the fact that BLM supports him (or any black person, for that matter) because neither BLM nor blackness is prescriptively defined by extremist or violent beliefs. He condemned the Dallas shooting because it was an atrocity that needed to be condemned, but it wasn't indicative of the wider tendencies of BLM.

Trump is being asked to apologize for the fact that he has built his campaign and presidency around the persistent fueling of white supremacist values and has all but explicitly acknowledged them as a significant part of his base. This is a group that is, in fact, prescriptively defined by extremist or violent beliefs. It's very different than Obama not apologizing for BLM.

So in other words, if you support The Wall(tm), stricter immigration, banning refugees, etc, you're automatically a white supremacist. I'm against all those things, but you only prove that it isn't just about white supremacy, but the whole spectrum of identity politics.

The entire basis of "white supremacy" isn't violence. The USA was a white supremacist nation until approximately LBJ (1964 Civil Rights Act + 1965 ending of white immigration quotas), but for 100 years prior, our federal government didn't do much in the way of explicit violence. Isolationism is a major wing of the white supremacist movement. You conveniently ignored the fact that in addition to BLM, there exist more extreme organizations that support black separatist movements, which are effectively no different from white separatist movements. Not every white identitarian in Charlottesville was necessarily supportive of violence.

Obama built his administration on black identity, btw. He identified with a violent thug, Trayvon Martin, and operated an overzealous DOJ which helped to inspire many waves of race riots and marginalize the concept of self-defense, for example. His DOJ also actively supported segregation movements, launching lawsuits against local governments that were believed to have too many whites elected relative to the local demographics. Plus further lawsuits against private companies, trying to find some discrimination boogieman responsible for why engineering companies have large amounts of whites and Asians. I don't think Obama himself is a black separatist, but his administration pursued many policies which served to support and advance the black separatist cause, which culminated in the murder of five police officers on race-related grounds at a BLM protest.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Shit beliefs are subjectively considered as such. I happen to think Communism is pretty shit.

Yeah, I guess Hitler really wasn't so bad when you put it that way, since beliefs are subjective and all

Pat already explained the flaw in the relativist argument you're making:

BLM is a reaction to white supremacy and an advocation of racial equality. It did not begin as a group directed toward the hatred of whites or the mistreatment of white people. White supremacist and neo-Nazi movements began, by definition, as groups predicated on the devaluation of nonwhites (not to mention gays and single women, apparently). BLM has been involved in violent incidents, but it did not originate as a violent group. The rally in Charlottesville involved people who publicly and explicitly promote violence--there are people on tape from the rally saying as much.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nazism and the Confederacy are as un-American as it gets, we fought wars to stop both of them. And they try to call themselves patriots..

I assume you're okay with us defeating Nazi Germany, and defeating the Confederacy, with force. Why let the new Nazis have their way here in America, now?

So is communism. I suppose you love McCarthyism?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeah, I guess Hitler really wasn't so bad when you put it that way, since beliefs are subjective and all

Pat already explained the flaw in the relativist argument you're making:

Shooting a violent thug in self-defense = white supremacy. Cool story brah.

The origins show that BLM is at the very least a highly biased organization which does not serve simply to fight injustices against blacks, but instead actively invents and promotes victimhood in an effort to gain political power. The average BLM person sees ANY black person being shot by a non-black for whatever reason, their reaction isn't "Wait and see", it's automatically assumed that it was a racially-inspired attack. It's like the early 90s all over again where you have black people cheering in the streets because a black man, OJ Simpson, got off with murder. (That of course isn't to say that whites weren't/aren't similarly culpable when throwing a fit when some random white woman being murdered by a black man). Ethnic identitarianism is just a stepping stone to racism.

 

[Baroque]

So is communism. I suppose you love McCarthyism?

what? how does that reply even make sense. i'm no communist