Political Violence

[Sunshine Jesse]

Again, Richard Spencer believes that white people need an ethnostate for a "safe space". A safe space from what? I understand the larger goal of figuring out where the real problems are, and that's why I see no value in talking with Richard Spencer, because he is personally advocating for those problems. The beliefs make sense to him because he is a Neo-Nazi. Acknowledging when someone is a Nazi has become something of a "boy who cries wolf" scenario. It's used as a way to describe someone when it may not be necessarily true, but it is absolutely true that Spencer fits the bill.

 

I've already seen enough to understand Spencer's motivations. He perceives Jewish people as a threat, and thinks that, as a white man, he is part of an oppressed minority. The problem is that his fears are completely irrational, and your suggestion operates on the assumption that when two people are arguing, there is a common problem that neither side is recognizing, but both sides could learn what this is. Except, for a white supremacist? They are the problem. I feel comfortable recognizing that they're delusional, horrible monsters because they have clearly presented themselves as the real problem, and we need to deal with the threat they represent, and banning them from universities to deny them a platform is perfect for them. Neo-Nazis can think they're striving for a greater good, but they're not. For say that Dad and I don't know what empathy is, but that's why I so fiercely oppose white supremacy; it comes from a lack of empathy.

 

The fact that "Neo-Nazi" is even a thing does perfectly display what you say about how people will just keep coming back until you deal with those problems, but, again, this implies that Hitler and Spencer's hostilities towards Jewish people are symptomatic of some other problem. There is no other problem that we should be looking towards instead. If you're a white supremacist, then you can play the victim all the like, but don't be surprised when people then turn around and perceive you as a threat in return. White supremacists can play the victim all they like, but when their very identity hinges on removing people of other races from America, if not murdering them outright, then that proves that they won't make any effort to fix any supposedly underlying problems. Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt that they believe their goals will achieve some greater good when their beliefs and actions inherently run counter to "the greater good"?

 

Because "greater good" means different things to different people, and their greater good happens to run counter to yours. I'm by no means saying it's equally valid, or even close to being so, but I am asking you to understand why they think the way they do so you and others can start to understand just why political violence does more harm than good, instead of just being opposed to it as an arbitrary moral position.

 

And by "not understanding empathy," I mean the fact that you seem to think empathizing automatically means feeling sorry for them. It doesn't. You can feel greater contempt for people you empathize with. It has nothing to do with sympathy.

 

The problem is that his fears are completely irrational, and your suggestion operates on the assumption that when two people are arguing, there is a common problem that neither side is recognizing, but both sides could learn what this is. Except, for a white supremacist? They are the problem.

 

I'll give an example pertinent to the situation so you can see what I'm talking about.

 

Many people on every side hate the mainstream media. Some blame corporations, some blame liberals, some blame the Jews, and some blame any combination of the above. Can you really say that the actual problem is with the people who blame the Jews? Or is the media itself the biggest problem here? You can blame prejudices for leading people to their conclusions, sure, but the media itself is the universally agreed-upon problem, so what use is there in putting so much energy into targeting the people who actually blame the Jews? It's counterintuitive. If the media was no longer such a huge problem, one of the things that could use to convince others that Jews/liberals/etc were the problem could no longer be used to support their case. In other words, targeting the media instead of the alt-right means that you can actually slow down the spread of their ideology.

 

Meanwhile, primarily targeting the alt-right feeds into the victim narrative that can be used to sway others to their side. Just look at Winter, someone we've seen slowly adopt alt-right talking points in real time (whether he realizes it or not) because people keep giving the alt-right, him, and his side fuel for their victim narrative, making them seem more sympathetic. It'll still be his fault if he takes that plunge just like it's my fault for me being close to doing so, but it's something your side probably could've stopped, or at least slow down to some degree, by actually going after the right targets instead of him and what he believes (and will likely believe) in.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait what...

[Phantom Roxas]

Because "greater good" means different things to different people, and their greater good happens to run counter to yours. I'm by no means saying it's equally valid, or even close to being so, but I am asking you to understand why they think the way they do so you and others can start to understand just why political violence does more harm than good, instead of just being opposed to it as an arbitrary moral position.

 

And by "not understanding empathy," I mean the fact that you seem to think empathizing automatically means feeling sorry for them. It doesn't. You can feel greater contempt for people you empathize with. It has nothing to do with sympathy.

 

They have established that they think the way they do because they believe that Jews are somehow oppressing white people. I understand why they think the way they do, and I disagree with them. This is not some arbitrary moral position.

 

Yes, political violence does more harm than good. And yet when they actually murder someone in cold blood, Winter turns it right around and says that citing Heather Heyer is somehow "shilling." It is frustrating trying to point out that harm because Winter condemns the understanding you are asking for. Though I really shouldn't expect any better for someone who has constantly asked for my state to get invaded and bombed. He asks for political violence all the time, and it is genuinely frightening to me.

 

You're right I can feel greater contempt for people to empathize with. However, your initial responses seemed to be suggesting that I did not understand empathy because I showed that contempt, which is why I took your comment to mean that empathy had to mean feeling sorry for them in this case.

 

I'll give an example pertinent to the situation so you can see what I'm talking about.

 

Many people on every side hate the mainstream media. Some blame corporations, some blame liberals, some blame the Jews, and some blame any combination of the above. Can you really say that the actual problem is with the people who blame the Jews? Or is the media itself the biggest problem here? You can blame prejudices for leading people to their conclusions, sure, but the media itself is the universally agreed-upon problem, so what use is there in targeting the people who actually blame the Jews? It's counterintuitive. If the media was no longer such a huge problem, one of the things that could use to convince others that Jews/liberals/etc were the problem could no longer be used to support their case. In other words, targeting the media instead of the alt-right means that you can actually slow down the spread of their ideology.

 

Meanwhile, primarily targeting the alt-right feeds into the victim narrative that can be used to sway others to their side. Just look at Winter, someone we've seen slowly adopt alt-right talking points in real time (whether he realizes it or not) because people keep giving the alt-right, him, and his side fuel for their victim narrative, making them seem more sympathetic. It'll still be his fault if he takes that plunge just like it's my fault for me being close to doing so, but it's something your side probably could've stopped by actually going after the right targets instead of him and what he believes (and will likely believe) in.

 

The media is by no means universally agreed to be the problem. When Trump makes attacks on the media, there is a split between people who agree with him, and others still who point out that Trump's attacks on the free press are the problem. For those people, the blame shifts over to Trump, which destroys the idea that there could be any consensus that the media is the problem.

 

That said, I do understand your point that targeting the alt-right supports their narrative. However, I don't think that my side could've prevented the victim narrative by going over the "right" targets. Going back to your point about the media, think a bit more deeply. "Mainstream media" is still fairly broad. What outlets in the media are the greatest offenders? One relevant example that comes to mind would be Breitbart, a media outlet where Milo was a senior editor, that heavily promoted white supremacist and alt-right talking points, and was co-founded by Steve Bannon, who was also the former chief strategist for Trump.

 

I apologize if this seems like I'm trying to dismiss you. My intention here is to continue the position that I've been arguing from while trying to build on your examples. You say that my side could have prevented the fuel for the alt-right's victim narrative if we focused on the right targets. You also gave the mainstream media as an example of a far more appropriate target that people should be focusing on. The way I see it, these are not two separate targets, where people are focusing on one more than they should be focusing on the other. It's that they are both symptomatic of an even larger problem; specifically, the alt-right's influence on mainstream media. Rather than trying to delegate the focus between two different targets, challenge where they overlap. That may sound like a cop-out answer, but basically I'm trying to kill two birds with one stone to address what both you and I think are the greater problems here.

[vla1ne]

Woo, you said you only took a little time with this one and it funking shows mate.

 

 

it's not being ok with fascism. There is nuance. there are indeed aspects that mirror it, but that does not a fascist make. there are good things in many systems including fascism. Extracting those quality values from the corpse of fascism is not a bad thing. That is what you are calling fascism when it is not. It's merely utilizing the aspects of fascism that are beneficial to society, and discarding the negative aspects. We do the same with capitalism and socialism, we regulate the greed of capitalist values, and the altruism of socialist values, finding a balance in the middle. we add an aspect of fascism to the mix, but the aspect is nothing more than regular nationalism. you seem to be confusing these things.

 

He's related to the founding of shows on both sides of the fence. yet the only point you attack him on is the right leaning aspect of it.

 

and the asian/mexican/black nationalist says I love being black, it's something i'm proud of, and i don't want my culture diluted. does that make them a nazi? nazis want total control, white nationalist simply have pride in their country and race, while happening to be white. what you are looking for in your attack, is an ethno-nationalist. if you can't tell the difference between a white nationalist and a nazi, then your sense of nuance is shot.

 

 

Nothing i said entails him hating other races. there was no backpedal. again, you've lost the thread. He wants to preserve the white race, white culture, and the white majority, in relation to majority white countries. There is 0 problem with that. and if you have a problem, tell that to every other country that has a majority race and a minority race. I might disagree with his view that they're under threat, but wanting to maintain a majority in the counrty your race originates from is not something that i condemn.

 

I got the story from source that had the most right to condemn him. they did not, and they expanded upon the context, proving your point blatantly wrong. as for the videos, some videos are forced down by the sites they're hosted on, such as the scrubbed video i mentioned earlier with spencer. you yourself have seen this with the video you posted that was hidden and restricted by YouTube. not all videos are allowed to remain up. in addition ,the site i linked gave you full context of his response to the racists who actually took his video seriously. odds are he simply didn't want racists to use satire as inspiration.

 

 

The alt right has a ton of aspects to it, from memes, to full on amendment supporters, to anti establishment  supporters, to racism. What aspect did he endorse? hell, if we're talking alt-right, by meme or amendment standards, i'm alt as funk, yet if we're talking racism, i'm by no means alt-right. so be specific. it doesn't mean the same things to the same people. Gamer gate was alt right, it only cared about games. What part of the alt-right are we talking here?

 

 

And? having somebody on your show does not mean you are on their side. Rubin put it best:

https://twitter.com/rubinreport/status/822602564713742336?lang=en

and considering his credentials:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/mother-jones-smears-progressive-personality-dave-rubin-interviewing-alt-right/

the point stands tall. Even a left leaning person such as rubin gets dragged through the mud for discussing the points. Why exactly would you believe that gavin wouldn't get attacked and slandered even more visciously? He doesn't support the narrative of the left, he doesn't fit into the box you're trying to check off for him. and he's already on record speaking up for the jews, among other groups.

 

It's called drawing lines. Most people do it. There is a clear line between nationalist and supremacist. Ever stop to think they actually do draw the line there? No, you don't.you instead, invent reasons for them and label them whatever you like. Think about your comment for a minute. If he has to draw line, whether or not he's hiding his racism, why would he need to draw that line? people like you, Gavin, and me already condemn david duke, and his potential supporters are all on his side already. What reason do you want to invent for him to need to hide his real views? that they're already bad enough? He's already got everybody who's ever going to agree with his views on his side, and even now people like me are against him and groups like antifa condemn and attack him already, so what reason is there to hide it? You aren't making an sense with this one.

 

 

Did you even read the description of the video you posted? if not: Gavin McInnes Swings at a Violent Leftist after Being Provoked at the Deploraball Protest. Antifa and several other groups have been protesting outside of the gathering all night, setting fire to flags and pushing people around. One man was struck on the back of the head with a flag pole and had to seek the ambulance

 antifa had already started the violence at the rally. That said, yeah, i agree, gavin was clearly wrong in this case. Just like the second half of the video shows antifa stealing the hat on an innocent man.

 

 

 

I've said it before, he's a provocateur. he's his own level of dicking on the media. Nothing milo does actually counts against him, because he does ALL of it to get your reaction. He's an advocate of free speech, and does so by using whatever manner of speech is the most offensive. just to prove that you can say whatever you like in america. it's what he does. and all they did was meme. Singing the national anthem is not a rascist act. this was effectively a comedy routine.

 

 

You realize i placed the full context video of that in an earlier post right (the full context, 100% of the video). this is about how seriously they take the proud boys levels.

it's pretty much a joke.

 

you have already used two of his videos, and upon watching them, i have explained just how far out of context you have taken them, while citing articles as proof. so yeah, you're taking everything far out of context. you have a habit of doing so, and at this point, i'm not sure you can even tell that you are, which is why i break it down for you every time you do. go read the comment you quoted again. it's all in there for you.

 

It's okay to be white. attempting to make whites feel guilt over their race, supressing those who want to discuss things calmly, and attacking whites for their race is what got this mess started. drop the identity politics. as for islamic extremism, those roving rape gangs have been around for a while, as have the violent attackers in europe. while the refusal of the police to do their jobs has lead to them getting bolder and bolder in their assaults. don't blame whites for problems caused by other races. that's robbing them of autonomy.

 

 

 

Richard Spencer has not actually denounced Nazis. He simply denies being one, except he hasn't made any significant effort to condemn Nazism as an idea. At best, he thinks it's a loaded term. This isn't just him "playing" with those groups. He is the one who coined the term "alt-right", which basically allows him to be a Nazi in all senses of the word without actually using "Nazi" as the exact descriptor. You just admitted that he's a white supremacist. Why is it acceptable to call him that, but somehow pointing out that he's a Nazi is a step too far? Yes, he's a provocateur, and he pisses people off because he is acting on what he genuinely believes.

 

Universities reserve the right to shut him down because they know he's a Nazi. Why give them a platform to argue them down when history is founded on how Nazi ideology revolved around genocide? They deserve to be banned from campuses, and should be censored. Allowing them onto a campus isn't "exposing people to ideas" in any positive manner. It's telling them that they should be allowed to listen to people who want them dead. Why should we give a platform to death threats?

 

Milo isn't "using the 1A to the fullest." Look up what the actual text of the 1A is, because it's Milo lying about what it actually is, just to play the victim. Twitter does not have a trigger finger against anything even remotely right leaning, because every single day I see people lamenting that Twitter does not do enough to ban Nazis, punish harassment, and in fact Jack Dorsey is often criticized because of his leniency towards anything right leaning.

he doesn't have to denounce them. so long as he isn't one, which he isn't. i have yet to hear him (seriously) say death to the jews in a speech. he does joke about it, but considering i actually understand humor, that doesn't surprise me. it's funny because it's offensive, and that's why he does it. Offensive comedy has rather high market value right now. he coined it, and it was slandered by the media. just like everything else. his explanation was one thing, the media's is another. the two are not the same.

 

No, they don't. Because he is not, they are not shutting him down because "he's a nazi" they're shutting him down because grown ass children are threatening to riot if they don't.

 

NPC meme got hammered, among other things. they might not hit smaller folk, but larger people get hammered harder, and they are often right leaning. look at gab, and it's rise, to see what kinds of people twitter are hitting. and all the coverage of twitters known shadowbans, among other things. the might not outright ban folks, but they damn sure censor them.

 

 

in short, i am against violence and censorship. that's where i stand. because when you tell somebody to shut up, you can then fill his mouth with words he's never said, and convince people that he is something that he never has been. and at that point, the violence will only escalate. i'd rather reach an understanding with a racist, and convert them proper, than attack them over their beliefs, and entrench them further, and that is where we differ on out views. you don't like people like Spencer, so you refuse to believe they are anything but the worst things you can imagine. that is why you can't comprehend that freedom of speech was made for the views that nobody can stomach. polite speech is not what free speech is protecting, who would get rid of that. controversial speech, like milo and gavin, and even spencer and duke, are what freedom of speech are for. because they are the ones who need it the most. i don't agree with their views, but i defend their right to say them, whenever and wherever. and will protect those views from slander, because when censored, they can't defend themselves.

[Proto]

Alright bullet points.

 

It wasn't Milo singing it that was the problem it was him doing it in front of neonazis nazi saluting. Plus it got leaked that his private passwords were all references to Nazi purges. But hey you said nothing he does can be counted against him, so what is he just immune to action against him because he says jk after?

 

I don't take far right spin videos at face value, no. So I don't take the video descriptions of a guy who makes BEN SHAPIRO OWNED seriously. It's just footage of what the proud boys believe is acceptable, commendable behavior which is jumping random antifa when they're along.

 

Rubin isn't left leaning and it's weird as funk that you'd suggest he is. He is at his BEST a libertarian.

 

Vice became both sides after Gavin left 10 years ago, which was my point.

 

 

Nobody smart is labeling themselves a white supremacist anymore, not even David Duke. So, I don't think white nationalists are a real thing as much as it is white supremacists finding a nicer way to market themselves. N

 

Sure alt right has a ton of aspects to it but it was created as a term by Spencer to make white nationalism more marketable ultimately, supporting them is supporting that.

 

Gamergate wasn't alt right, it was skeptic, lot of overlap but not the same thing. Primary figures of gamergate were people like sargon and thunderf00t, both of which have hated the alt right since its inception.

 

Gavin's making his racism less obvious so he can be supported by GOP members who don't do their research.

 

 

I linked an interview. Not a sole clip for proud boy initiations, how is relaying what the founder says his ranks are determined by to public outlets like Joe Rogan and Metro taking things out of context?

[Phantom Roxas]

he doesn't have to denounce them. so long as he isn't one, which he isn't. i have yet to hear him (seriously) say death to the jews in a speech. he does joke about it, but considering i actually understand humor, that doesn't surprise me. it's funny because it's offensive, and that's why he does it. Offensive comedy has rather high market value right now. he coined it, and it was slandered by the media. just like everything else. his explanation was one thing, the media's is another. the two are not the same.

 

No, they don't. Because he is not, they are not shutting him down because "he's a nazi" they're shutting him down because grown ass children are threatening to riot if they don't.

 

NPC meme got hammered, among other things. they might not hit smaller folk, but larger people get hammered harder, and they are often right leaning. look at gab, and it's rise, to see what kinds of people twitter are hitting. and all the coverage of twitters known shadowbans, among other things. the might not outright ban folks, but they damn sure censor them.

 

 

in short, i am against violence and censorship. that's where i stand. because when you tell somebody to shut up, you can then fill his mouth with words he's never said, and convince people that he is something that he never has been. and at that point, the violence will only escalate. i'd rather reach an understanding with a racist, and convert them proper, than attack them over their beliefs, and entrench them further, and that is where we differ on out views. you don't like people like Spencer, so you refuse to believe they are anything but the worst things you can imagine. that is why you can't comprehend that freedom of speech was made for the views that nobody can stomach. polite speech is not what free speech is protecting, who would get rid of that. controversial speech, like milo and gavin, and even spencer and duke, are what freedom of speech are for. because they are the ones who need it the most. i don't agree with their views, but i defend their right to say them, whenever and wherever. and will protect those views from slander, because when censored, they can't defend themselves.

 

Being offensive does not make it funny, and you can only excuse so much of Spencer's antics with "It's just a joke." It doesn't mean that you somehow understand humor. His participation in Unite the Right was not some elaborate joke. He does enough in the name of sincerity that he has given no reason to believe that he's joking. Your argument is about as weak as someone who purposefully says something offensive just to see how many people he can hurt, only to go "Whoa, hey guys, I was just joking! No need to take it so seriously." When Spencer does it so often that it seems normal for his behavior, what am I left to think that he actually believes? If his Neo-Nazi rhetoric is just a joke, then he has nothing serious.

 

Look, this argument between you and I is getting really repetitive. I say he's a Nazi, give specific examples of how he uses Nazi rhetoric, and you just respond with "No he's not", as if that's all you have to say. He's also been banned from Sweden, so if so many institutions across different continents are banning him, it's probably easier to assume that they're banning him for his past behavior, not because they're caving into threats of riots.

 

The NPC meme was hammered because it's been used exclusively to harass people. When you harass people, and then get punished for it accordingly, you lose all right to cry about censorship. You had the chance to use a platform properly, and if you get banned for it, that's your own fault, not because of some "political agenda." It's no different from the rules here on YCM; if you break the rules and constantly prove to be a toxic presence, you will get banned. The bans are handed out in retaliation for actually offensive behavior that the banned parties have committed, not because of some arbitrary political agenda. Though as I've been talking with Jesse behavior, that is awfully convenient for a victim narrative.

 

Jesse made a much more convincing point that you cannot change people's minds, but you can at least understand them. You said you'd rather "convert" people, and that's where you've made a mistake, because trying to convert them is just as likely to further entrench them in their views. Saying that I can't comprehend what freedom of speech was made for is absolutely no better than the behavior that you're condemning.

[Proto]

To make my point, you cannot change people's minds, sure. But I already have the most basic form of empathy for these groups, however due to their ideology inherently involving the rejection of what they define as the mainstream talking points, labeling every criticism as out of context or shilling. Theres very little I have to gain from them and very little I can do to influence them besides point out what they're saying is wrong. Now I have a finite amount of time and patience for slowly unravelling the web of self-aggrandizing stuff.

 

I started with Gavin, now were at Milo and now were at funking Rubin. How many individuals do I need to go through until people are satisfied? It's fortunate I empathize enough to even know who these people are! And if any of them aren't a Nazi or a Nazi enabler I lose in his eyes.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeh, but it's somewhat likely that that's no longer going to be true. Too many people use social media for it to not be considered a public forum. And you can't kick people out of a public forum for speech no matter how much it bothers you

 

---

 

Arrest made in the Brooklyn synagogue vandalism case.

https://abc7ny.com/arrest-made-after-hate-graffiti-found-written-inside-brooklyn-synagogue-/4601480/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/nyregion/after-years-in-foster-care-intern-adopted-by-city-hall-catches-a-break.html

 

This was the perp: a fmr Obama canvasser/Christine Quinn intern

 

---

 

To jesse's point, I'm becoming more authoritarian, or as Proto put it, "fascist," I don't think I've been becoming more alt-right however

---

 

Roxas, Heather was either Antifa or palling around with them. If I make company of shady people, there is a good chance I share their fate. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Roxas, Heather was either Antifa or palling around with them. If I make company of shady people, there is a good chance I share their fate. 

 

Cite your sources. You asked why people bring her up, and it's because she's an example of how the alt-right's violence will result in murder. For as much as vla1ne denies that Richard Spencer is a Nazi, it's rather jarring to be so quick to insist that she had an association with Antifa.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Cite your sources. You asked why people bring her up, and it's because she's an example of how the alt-right's violence will result in murder. For as much as vla1ne denies that Richard Spencer is a Nazi, it's rather jarring to be so quick to insist that she had an association with Antifa.

I'm saying she associated with people who were ANTIFA, which was a number of people who showed up at the counter protest. What kinda proof would you like? Pictures?

 

I don't feel sorry for her, because she knew the crowd she was associating with. Likewise I wouldn't feel bad if some non Nazi rightwinger went the unite the right march and got his head bashed in. He knew the filth he was associating with and took the risk

[Phantom Roxas]

Given the purpose of this thread, it's highly counter-intuitive to be okay with her death just because of who she was associated with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Given the purpose of this thread, it's highly counter-intuitive to be okay with her death just because of who she was associated with.

Well, no. You don't see many people mourning the Nazis here do you? 

 

It's less being OK with it, and more not being really affected. Ok is condoning her murder, not being affected it not caring because she knew what she was getting into. 

 

Again, if some idiot republican marched with Nazis and stuck around even after knowing he was in the company of filth, his fate is on him. Same goes for Heather. Unlike most people, I just don't lionize her

[Proto]

Since when has anyone "lionized" her. I just pointed out that well, she's someone who died because of the political climate.

 

I could easily point to other folks that were just straight murdered by white extremists this year but she's the one that I knew you knew about when you made that claim. So I have to wonder, is it not a murder until it's someone Republican?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Again, if some idiot republican marched with Nazis and stuck around even after knowing he was in the company of filth, his fate is on him. Same goes for Heather. Unlike most people, I just don't lionize her

Reading is hard

[Proto]

Reading is hard

bro i'm not talking about your damage control response i'm just saying that your statement regarding lionizing isn't true at all, it was a legitimate response that you undermine just because of her nature as being something you don't want to look at.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

bro i'm not talking about your damage control response i'm just saying that your statement regarding lionizing isn't true at all, it was a legitimate response that you undermine just because of her nature as being something you don't want to look at.

I said the same thing before as well @ "damage control"

 

 

I'm saying she associated with people who were ANTIFA, which was a number of people who showed up at the counter protest. What kinda proof would you like? Pictures?

 

I don't feel sorry for her, because she knew the crowd she was associating with. Likewise I wouldn't feel bad if some non Nazi rightwinger went the unite the right march and got his head bashed in. He knew the filth he was associating with and took the risk

 

Yeh, but it's somewhat likely that that's no longer going to be true. Too many people use social media for it to not be considered a public forum. And you can't kick people out of a public forum for speech no matter how much it bothers you

 

---

 

Arrest made in the Brooklyn synagogue vandalism case.

https://abc7ny.com/arrest-made-after-hate-graffiti-found-written-inside-brooklyn-synagogue-/4601480/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/nyregion/after-years-in-foster-care-intern-adopted-by-city-hall-catches-a-break.html

 

This was the perp: a fmr Obama canvasser/Christine Quinn intern

 

---

 

To jesse's point, I'm becoming more authoritarian, or as Proto put it, "fascist," I don't think I've been becoming more alt-right however

---

 

Roxas, Heather was either Antifa or palling around with them. If I make company of shady people, there is a good chance I share their fate. 

 

 

Reading is hard

[Proto]

I'm not gonna pursue this because it's thread derailing but let's go and open up this bag of worms that you quoted again.

 

How are you pro free speech and people shouldn't be offended. Yet you're linking some guy doing graffiti because he happened to be a leftist supporter.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm not gonna pursue this because it's thread derailing but let's go and open up this bag of worms that you quoted again.

 

How are you pro free speech and people shouldn't be offended. Yet you're linking some guy doing graffiti because he happened to be a leftist supporter.

Because your side is attempting to portray my side as the Anti-Semites when we both have our share of shitty people

[cr47t]

Because your side is attempting to portray my side as the Anti-Semites when we both have our share of shitty people

That's assuming that there can only be 2 sides to this (or really any) argument and that each side is always the opposite of the other in every single way.

 

If we want to tone down political violence, one of the most crucial steps is getting out of that mindset. This isn't about liberals vs conservatives. This is about keeping dangerous threats to our country (such as political violence of any kind) in check.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not sure how you come to that logical conclusion. He noted some Anti-Semitic people who he associated with "my side" and I'm noting a few that associate with his side. None of this says anything about there only being 2 sides. I'll look for a libertarian racist if you really want

[Proto]

Because your side is attempting to portray my side as the Anti-Semites when we both have our share of shitty people

sure, my side has some bad apples, sheet like farrakhan and the black israelite sheet is some things that, while not endorsed by left wing people are not necessarily dissuaded by them either. i think we're in the general right direction of it though due to there being less and less tolerance for this sort of speak.

 

however, we're not murdering people. ya'll are. so i believe that's a bit more of a pertinent issue. we're trying to stop lynchings before we get rid of the cross-burnings here melky.

 

also you got another one with the yoga shooting

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/yoga-studio-shooting-florida.html

 

two dead from misogyny, member of the FSU College Republicans and We Are Conservatives. woo. more right-wing internet crazies shooting people dead, but both sides?

[vla1ne]

Been a while, got some spare time, here's your responses.

Alright bullet points.

It wasn't Milo singing it that was the problem it was him doing it in front of neonazis nazi saluting. Plus it got leaked that his private passwords were all references to Nazi purges. But hey you said nothing he does can be counted against him, so what is he just immune to action against him because he says jk after?

I don't take far right spin videos at face value, no. So I don't take the video descriptions of a guy who makes BEN SHAPIRO OWNED seriously. It's just footage of what the proud boys believe is acceptable, commendable behavior which is jumping random antifa when they're along.

Rubin isn't left leaning and it's weird as funk that you'd suggest he is. He is at his BEST a libertarian.

Vice became both sides after Gavin left 10 years ago, which was my point.


Nobody smart is labeling themselves a white supremacist anymore, not even David Duke. So, I don't think white nationalists are a real thing as much as it is white supremacists finding a nicer way to market themselves. N

Sure alt right has a ton of aspects to it but it was created as a term by Spencer to make white nationalism more marketable ultimately, supporting them is supporting that.

Gamergate wasn't alt right, it was skeptic, lot of overlap but not the same thing. Primary figures of gamergate were people like sargon and thunderf00t, both of which have hated the alt right since its inception.

Gavin's making his racism less obvious so he can be supported by GOP members who don't do their research.


I linked an interview. Not a sole clip for proud boy initiations, how is relaying what the founder says his ranks are determined by to public outlets like Joe Rogan and Metro taking things out of context?

 

Was he the person telling them to salute? I doubt it, and even still, do you know how many people pull that kind of crap off? I make no excuses for their behavior, they're as dumb as the people kneeling imo, but that doesn't make them or milo nazis. It just makes them bastards. which we all agreed to before this discussion began. i did say nothing he does can be counted against him. that's because everything he does is for the sake of provoking people. it's akin to feeding a troll. the more attention you grant him, the more stupidity he pulls forth. it's similar in principle (though to a far lesser extent) to why you don't declare war on 4chan. it's fighting an opponent who has no obvious opening. Were you to count everything milo does against him, the list of things you could call him would be immeasurable, with half of them actively contradicting each other. As such, I shouldn't need to explain why i'm not even trying to play around with labels on milo.

 

I don't take far left spin videos at face value. there's two sides to the coin, so look at both sides properly. name one story of proud boys walking into a bathroom and smashing a man up with baseball bats, and then getting positive coverage. the opposite cannot be said. this is why political violence as a whole must be condemned. because both sides have spin factories, and while one is sitting to far on either side, those factories will inevitably cater to one side or the other heavily.

 

I clearly messed that one up, but the point stands. Dude's fair to both sides, and is extremely respectful. the fact that people go after him so hard just for hearing folks out is the point i was trying to make.

 

 

I don't see much difference. vice is and was, rather fair overall. it's had it's nutjob stories, and spins, but most of the worst ones came after gavin left, so that doesn't really fall on him.. 

 

 

That's a massive blanket you got there. Be sure not to cover anybody who it doesn't apply to. Even IF duke is hiding under that label, that doesn't make it any less of a true label. that's like saying vegan isn't a real label because a couple people under the label ate cheese and yogurt. gott play it case b case. and for now, even is duke's hiding under the jabel and is absolutely the most racist person alive, that's no reason to consider the next person under the label to be the same.

 

 

It's been stolen by 4chan, among others. What it is now is far more than what it once was, and that's partly in thanks to the media labeling everybody they wish to slander as alt-right. The label of alt-right, along with many others, has lost quite a bit of power, due to many people misusing it.

 

it was labeled alt right, and the term stuck, that's what i'm saying. the label's been dragged beyond the original borders and used against people it doesn't fit, as have many others. and that's why we're having a large portion of this discussion.

 

 

[spoiler=No racist would do this unless they were an absolute idiot:]

 

He's got more faith in black people than black people have in themselves. He actively wants black people to succeed. (Just saying this up front, i disagree with his point that stop and frisk is not detrimental, but the sentiment behind his point is correct)

 

 

I placed a full speech of him saying the same things, and explaining the context. every single point you've used has solidified my own point. I've placed more context below in my comment to roxas as to why most of your beliefs are so far out of context in relation to gavin. You've mislabeled him, as have many others. 

 

 

 
Being offensive does not make it funny, and you can only excuse so much of Spencer's antics with "It's just a joke." It doesn't mean that you somehow understand humor. His participation in Unite the Right was not some elaborate joke. He does enough in the name of sincerity that he has given no reason to believe that he's joking. Your argument is about as weak as someone who purposefully says something offensive just to see how many people he can hurt, only to go "Whoa, hey guys, I was just joking! No need to take it so seriously." When Spencer does it so often that it seems normal for his behavior, what am I left to think that he actually believes? If his Neo-Nazi rhetoric is just a joke, then he has nothing serious.
 
Look, this argument between you and I is getting really repetitive. I say he's a Nazi, give specific examples of how he uses Nazi rhetoric, and you just respond with "No he's not", as if that's all you have to say. He's also been banned from Sweden, so if so many institutions across different continents are banning him, it's probably easier to assume that they're banning him for his past behavior, not because they're caving into threats of riots.
 
The NPC meme was hammered because it's been used exclusively to harass people. When you harass people, and then get punished for it accordingly, you lose all right to cry about censorship. You had the chance to use a platform properly, and if you get banned for it, that's your own fault, not because of some "political agenda." It's no different from the rules here on YCM; if you break the rules and constantly prove to be a toxic presence, you will get banned. The bans are handed out in retaliation for actually offensive behavior that the banned parties have committed, not because of some arbitrary political agenda. Though as I've been talking with Jesse behavior, that is awfully convenient for a victim narrative.
 
Jesse made a much more convincing point that you cannot change people's minds, but you can at least understand them. You said you'd rather "convert" people, and that's where you've made a mistake, because trying to convert them is just as likely to further entrench them in their views. Saying that I can't comprehend what freedom of speech was made for is absolutely no better than the behavior that you're condemning.

 

Unite the right was slandered on multiple fronts, and even the people on the right condemned the racists on the first day. The second day escalated because busloads of protesters came out of the woodworks and started attacking people for their viewpoints. That's why you let him talk, because words don't have power until you give it to them. I'm not standing for richards spencer's views. i'm as opposed to them as you are. What i'm on his side for, is his right to speak without being attacked, and his right to hold whatever views he likes, whether i agree with him or not. I don't much care for his personality, or anything else about him, but i'm not defending his personality, i'm defending false labels, and calls to silence him. 

 

 

I agree, this is going nowhere. I also respond with examples and solid reasoning. Banned from a country is not evidence of somebody being the absolute worst person in existence. Elton jon's banned from egypt, is he a horrible person? mike tyson's banned from australia, lauren southern's banned from, I believe 4 different countries, the list goes on. Tommy Robinson's been jailed for doing honest reporting. I can go on for days. They're likely banning him because he's a sheet person, but i still disagree with them doing so. he's not a threat, he's not gonna blow up a building, he's gonna give a speech or two. debate him, not ban him.

[spoiler='Also, found more context at 9:39 on the earlier monkey comment. The whole video's goodstuffs imo, but that one was a context find that i didn't have time to pick up when i made the point]

 

 

 

 

so having an NPC image is enough to get you banned because people feel uncomfortable? pepe's been used for years, the jew shekel thing's been around as long or longer as that. The russian bot thing has been used since 2016. what difference is there between this and the russian bot? people took the russian bot thing to extremes as well, why and how is this different? you're gonna have to explain, it's nowhere near the level of something like calling somebody a rapist, and leagues below the skills of any proper toll.

 

 

If you're trying to bring them onto your side, You want to have a proper discussion. I've done it repeatedly. I've  I'm not attacking people, and my own method has already changed minds. In addition, i don't mislabel people, nor do i advocate violence. I point out flaws in your own understanding. As for you and (mostly) proto. My main point was me saying that your views on violence are absolutely abhorrent, this was a sidetrack that we somehow went down where you sanctioned violence against people who don't even fit into the scope of your argument and i told you to stop mislabeling them. Even if you didn't mislabel people, i'd still be against you advocating violence. 

[Proto]

I'm going to shorten it down because you keep deflecting to random different points that have nothing to do with the subject of Gavin itself that you clearly have not informed yourself on. 

 

What does the term white nationalism mean to you? They want to preserve a white nation and white identity, but what is "white identity". Being proud of being "white" is such a sheet thing because it was a definition created in order to justify sheet like war and slavery. Polish and Irish cultures for example, are funking nothing alike yet you throw them under the same blanket because their people look similar. Black pride is necessary because at least, american blacks have an issue of not knowing exactly where they were from due to the slave trade. Their culture was inherently stripped of them to the point of being distant memories so they had nothing to really identify themselves besides "black". White pride isn't preserving any culture in particular, it's just excluding other people based off of literally nothing else then the color of their skin. You don't see "asian nationalism" or "asian pride" or whatever.

 

Alright, so you linked a 20 minute video, clearly taking tips from mido regarding how to successfully gishgallop an argument, just link a long ass video and hope nobody actually watches it. I'm gonna do this whole dissecting later because you basically gave me what would be 10 or 15 pages of transcripts and went "yeah debunk this". But yeah I'll funk up my recommended videos and take it on later tonight. Also, you speaking to black people doesn't make you not a nazi. George Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party was famous for speaking at Nation of Islam (a "black supremacist") group because it ultimately lead to his goal of separatism.

 

Uh, he still called a black woman a monkey. You can't play the "pretending" card when you're constantly going about how you're proud to be white and you want to preserve white culture and all those red flags but then claim "oh it's just a joke" when your joke is dehumanizing someone of a different race. Like how stupid do you think I am? 

[Proto]

Alright, so when he starts actually talking about the talk, he's speaking as a white man to a colored person's experience which is like, already wrong. And yeah they're crying dickhead, black teens like Tamir Rice are getting murdered over having toys, this is an important conversation to have.

 

Speaking from personal experience, I've been pulled over on the street because I "look" like someone. It's happened half a dozen times and generally when I have an afro, I've never smoked weed in my life and I've been asked by officers and had my bag searched because I "fit a description". My father taught me well enough how to not escalate these situations. And this is in San Francisco, this is in Oakland, this is in Glendale. This isn't just in the Chicago strawman he's throwing out. Plus assuming it was in a high crime area because he was black and pulled over is well, racist. 

 

He's stating this woman's lying with no proof. Because someone getting racially targeted is a fantasy to him. His answer to racial discrimination is it doesn't exist, and then when evidence comes out proving it does exist, these people are lying. This is "caring about black people" yet he's dismissing them as every encounter they're having with the cops as them misremembering or lying to their children? Sounds pretty racist to me dog.

 

It's odd how this is "Just Seethe" thing is his motto yet the most recent Proud Boy rally, 9 Proud Boy arrests compared to 3 Antifa, and the footage shows them being pretty rowdy around that sheet.

 

He's calling these black people all shitty parents to troll them, this is all shitting on black experiences, yet this is proof that he's not racist and wants blacks to succeed? The funk? Like this assumption that they're calling them pigs, they're wriggling around, they're not complying with NO EVIDENCE is heavily, heavily biased. 

Virtue signalling is an insult that implies mind reading, Gavin's reading minds during this entire analysis of this video. He assumes he knows what these people are all thinking with his assertions. He cares about black people succeeding so much that he doesn't want their children to get educated on cases that not only have happened but potentially could happen to them with the cops not being charged?

"Hey I'm still around I'm still being awesome" implying that they aren't around/deadbeats. Racist.

 

He goes on about another video for a while but this one's long enough for me so I'm not going to cover it.

Making fun of black names, again another easy race joke. Clearly this man cares about uplifting black people, that's why he's jabbing at them 24/7 in this video. Because he really cares about them.

 

Cop sheet, irrelevant to his stance on black people.

 

Threw in a black muslim jab there and saying that a black woman's rage-filled interview after seeing someone get funking murdered perhaps isn't the most realistic thing. What a shocker. The fact that he cherrypicked this Fox News bit instead of continuing the conversation with the reasonable, mellow-voiced black people in the other video really shows the narrative he's trying to run. He doesn't actually want to show people having legitimate concerns (which he dismissed altogether as lies and exaggerations with new proof, said this the billionth time to get it through your head), he wants the picture of his audience to be of this shrieking black woman. And he's not considering the practices that made her get this way but he's taking everything personally for comedic effect, not benefiting black people in the slightest but perpetuating the white victim mentality.

Cops don't indiscriminately target black people, sure, that's not a science fiction movie, however the fact that when they do happen to do it, they get very little punishment for it, it becomes a giant media scandal and such...  There weren't very many lynchings, comparatively, all around the US. Yet they served a purpose, the white men even when caught were let go. It proved that you could kill an innocent black man for little to no reason and served as intimidation more then anything else. There's a reason why they left the body to hang in public, and it's to show a message. The black idea of cop-killings isn't this terminator thing, it's the idea that people like George Zimmerman and Timothy Loehmann could still go to their job the next day, even get rehired after shooting someone without a weapon. NOBODY is saying that cops are like machine gun, spray and pray firing at black people, this is a strawman perpetuated by Gavin to make his viewerbase believe that everyone else is brainwashed.
 

Uh, this connection is feeble, there are a lot of Black radical muslim groups that aren't related to ISIS in the slightest, they've been here forever, Malcolm X got assassinated by them. Breitbart AND Gavin are trying to drive more black hate here by mixing the ISIS hate with the black hate here for no reason other then that. This is just such a bad fearmongering funking point and the fact that you linked this video with any idea that this is "helping" black people is absolutely ludicrous.

 

The spiderbite claim is hilariously wrong on so many levels and if you can't determine that for yourself I'm not conversing with you.

Wow, I wonder if the fact that Mao and Stalin don't get brought up it's because those people are under totalitarian governments that actively censor those atrocities and more importantly, not American. I WONDER why you don't hear about that sheet all the time on your news. These arguments are SO funking BAD.

 

For someone who has such a problem with blacks saying about slavery and just GET OVER IT he sure has a problem with people "guilting him for being white", what so the mass disenfranchisement of my people who people up to my mother had to live with is just like a slap on the wrist but some media outlets making some white jokes is something to get angered and triggered over? Get some funking perspective Gavin.

Affirmative action is the first well, actual point here I guess, but it's surrounded by so much garbage that I can't bother arguing about it with this man. Saying "just show up" to people with a far higher likelihood of having a funked home life is kinda eh though. 

 

The ID sheet, well you said that everyone should have their ID on at all time and it shouldn't be that big of a deal so I guess you disagree with him on that one. 

 

Warning a child about something that's happened in the past is putting them in danger. Wasn't this guy just talking about the importance of "compliance" and sheet? What's wrong with a black mother teaching compliance in this way if it's so important for you? Like this is demeaning as hell. This is classic white man's burden sheet here.

 

Of course the hate crime is a rape of a white woman, gotta further that narrative that got Emmett Till killed baby. Keep pandering to this racist rhetoric.

This whole video is based off of his totally unbased assumption that these black people were lying about their experiences. I'm a broken record because he is.

Okay, so he shows a video of a black criminal shooting at the cops. Was there ONE funking positive display of a black person in this entire video? This was a rant to nonblacks about how all blacks are lying when they say they're discriminated against, conditioning people to not believe when they TELL THEM racism is happening against them mixed with videos of blacks being hysterical, black ISIS criminals, a rape and a black man shooting at the cops.

 

Imagine a white racist viewing this and think of the problems he might have? I see none. This is funking propaganda for white victimhood and a further negative portrayal of black people and it's absolutely despicable that you'd link something like this as "proof" that this guy's not a racist. This is the KKK's dream recruitment. "All blacks are liars, all celebrities are liars, look at these black criminals and gangsters and rapists of white women. There isn't any actual racism towards blacks they're just making it up."

@@vla1ne the sheer fact that you didn't notice this for what it was absolutely destroys my ideas that I can debate with you tbh. How did you think this was uplifting or wanting to see black people succeed? The ONE SENTENCE of advice in a 20 minute video of him calling them victim complex insane liars? The fact that he only spent about a quarter of the video showing reasonable, relatable blacks and the rest of it just depicting killers, rapists and hysterical folks? funk off.

 

And in case you don't believe this is white nationalist propaganda. Imagine some nonpolitical white kid watching this video. Then think of what he's going to think of black people at the end. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Unite the right was slandered on multiple fronts, and even the people on the right condemned the racists on the first day. The second day escalated because busloads of protesters came out of the woodworks and started attacking people for their viewpoints. That's why you let him talk, because words don't have power until you give it to them. I'm not standing for richards spencer's views. i'm as opposed to them as you are. What i'm on his side for, is his right to speak without being attacked, and his right to hold whatever views he likes, whether i agree with him or not. I don't much care for his personality, or anything else about him, but i'm not defending his personality, i'm defending false labels, and calls to silence him. 

 

 

I agree, this is going nowhere. I also respond with examples and solid reasoning. Banned from a country is not evidence of somebody being the absolute worst person in existence. Elton jon's banned from egypt, is he a horrible person? mike tyson's banned from australia, lauren southern's banned from, I believe 4 different countries, the list goes on. Tommy Robinson's been jailed for doing honest reporting. I can go on for days. They're likely banning him because he's a sheet person, but i still disagree with them doing so. he's not a threat, he's not gonna blow up a building, he's gonna give a speech or two. debate him, not ban him.

[spoiler='Also, found more context at 9:39 on the earlier monkey comment. The whole video's goodstuffs imo, but that one was a context find that i didn't have time to pick up when i made the point]

 

 

 

 

so having an NPC image is enough to get you banned because people feel uncomfortable? pepe's been used for years, the jew shekel thing's been around as long or longer as that. The russian bot thing has been used since 2016. what difference is there between this and the russian bot? people took the russian bot thing to extremes as well, why and how is this different? you're gonna have to explain, it's nowhere near the level of something like calling somebody a rapist, and leagues below the skills of any proper toll.

 

 

If you're trying to bring them onto your side, You want to have a proper discussion. I've done it repeatedly. I've  I'm not attacking people, and my own method has already changed minds. In addition, i don't mislabel people, nor do i advocate violence. I point out flaws in your own understanding. As for you and (mostly) proto. My main point was me saying that your views on violence are absolutely abhorrent, this was a sidetrack that we somehow went down where you sanctioned violence against people who don't even fit into the scope of your argument and i told you to stop mislabeling them. Even if you didn't mislabel people, i'd still be against you advocating violence. 

 

I'm going to trim down my responses, because this is getting exhausting.

 

Trump got a lot of blowback specifically because he didn't condemn the racists.

 

Deflecting back onto other people getting banned is worthless.

 

That is not what I was saying about the NPC meme, and once again, you're deflecting. The thing about Russian bots is that it's being used to report a legitimate problem, and reporting false accounts appropriately. It is a critique that confronts an actual problem, and it's been used since 2016 because it's been proven that fake accounts were used to spread false propaganda. Calling out those fake accounts fixes problems, while the "NPC" meme doesn't help anyone, nor does it address any legitimate issues. It comes entirely from a place of pure malice, and carries the same weight as using "drinking the Kool-Aid" as an insult.

 

Quote where I sanctioned violence. Just telling me to "stop mislabeling" people means nothing. The burden is on you to prove that the labels I assign to Spencer or Milo are inappropriate, just as much as it is on me to show that they are appropriate. You claim to not mislabel people, except you called Gary Younge a black supremacist in response to me calling Richard Spencer a white supremacist. While you disagree with whether he's a Nazi, you agreed that he is a white supremacist, but you backpedaled on your label of Gary Younge as a black supremacist because you lost the sole piece of evidence you had for that point. You are guilty of mislabeling, whereas what I'm advocating for isn't violence, but for taking platforms away from people who have already shown that they will abuse any privileges they have.