Naked fat black crippled dykes are hard to find...

[Brive1987]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

I am a patient man. But I think it’s time for you to show exactly where I endorsed right wing violence - either actual or potential. I am curious whether you are stupid, mendacious or a bit of both.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

I am a patient man. But I think it’s time for you to show exactly where I endorsed right wing violence - either actual or potential. I am curious whether you are stupid, mendacious or a bit of both.

You said, my mendacious fellow, that violence was a left-wing problem. You excused right-wing violence with no-true-Scotsman while describing right-wing violence as a problem generated by the left. You are wrong. Be a man and admit it.

http://www.asanet.org/ideology-and-thre ... -extremism

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

sextremis

Anyone watched 22 July on Netflix yet?

It's on my playlist, but we haven't had time to watch it yet. Any good?

It's taken me this long to finish it. I don't recommend watching the whole 2.3 hours in a single sitting, unless you're a glutton for punishment. The first 45 minutes is quite harrowing, recounting the attack, but you've still got over an hour and a half to go, and it's spent on a very grueling focus on one young victim and his family attempting to deal with recovery. You're not going to get from one end of this movie to another without some pain, boredom, terror and shock. At one point or another you're going to want to turn it off or go to sleep, which I recommend you do.

What kept my interest is its relevance. If it happened yesterday it couldn't be more relevant to the political climate of today. I read parts of Brevik's "manifesto" (online), more like compendium of shit he pulled off the internet, bomb making recipes and diary entries. As always, whether manifestos by the Unibomber or Brevik, you run into passages of clear lucidity, which leads to you ask yourself "am I actually agreeing with this nut"? It's more than a clock being right twice a day, but far less than convincing. I will always believe Brevik was a monster for what he did, even if while he did it, he uttered a truth here and there. He really, really REALLY hated political correctness.

Anyway, do what you have to to keep your interest. In the end, the denouement, it's worth it, er, I guess. It really depends on your mood and interests. Not an easy topic or movie.

Basically, Breivik decided to take revenge on the people he held responsible for "destroying" his country, by killing their children.

I have no intention of watching right now. Perhaps in a decade or so, but right now. No.

Breivik is what happens when the liberal hard-centre drifts to the libtard left.

Though I would be cautious categorising any “x of centre” mindset by the actions of an insane individual - rather than group mantras such as “punch a Nazi”. In today’s climate, collective political violence is typical of the hard left and their enablers.

This is what you said, and it is categorically wrong. I have posted a good number of links that state it so, many related to law enforcement. You are either trolling or gone full Steerstard.

[free thoughtpolice]

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

This is what you said, and it is categorically wrong. I have posted a good number of links that state it so, many related to law enforcement. You are either trolling or gone full Steerstard.

When you are a muslim and are confronted with a jihadi you say that what they did had nothing to do with islam, it's the kafir that are the violent ones and these people are just crazy. And jihadis are what happens when low life kaffir take over the world and spread their filthy lifestyles.
Jihad really means inner struggle it has nothing to do with violence, I repeat it is the kafir that are violent.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Brive moves the goalposts to him "endorsing right wing violence" while completely ignoring the actual conversation. Substantiate your argument.

[Brive1987]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

I am a patient man. But I think it’s time for you to show exactly where I endorsed right wing violence - either actual or potential. I am curious whether you are stupid, mendacious or a bit of both.

You said, my mendacious fellow, that violence was a left-wing problem. You excused right-wing violence with no-true-Scotsman while describing right-wing violence as a problem generated by the left. You are wrong. Be a man and admit it.

http://www.asanet.org/ideology-and-thre ... -extremism

So, no actual endorsement. I categorised Brevic as a shitty nut-job rather than part of a pattern of similar terrorism. And I noted the drift to left wing political confrontation as an increasing characteristic of liberal agitation - while acknowledging a similar but far less dramatic trend on the right.

You have far more of an agenda here than I do.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive moves the goalposts to him "endorsing right wing violence" while completely ignoring the actual conversation. Substantiate your argument.

Alt-lite-rite-aussie taqiyya?

[Keating]

Watching this conversation validated Scott Adam’s “Two Movies” theory. I get what both sides are saying. I’m certainly more worried about the Social Justice left. Having control of the academy and cultural institutions like Hollywood is undeniably a bigger problem than a few sad larpers broadcasting from their parent’s basement on YouTube. Several Republican candidates, including bigger names, like Rand Paul have been physically attacked leading to injury in the past year alone.

While “both sides”, whatever that means, have attempted to shut down discussions, the Social Justice left has been able to get away with the heckler’s veto in a way anyone on the right hasn’t.

I’m curious if anyone here considers a large group of people banging on the doors of the US Supreme Court constitutes a mob.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Watching this conversation validated Scott Adam’s “Two Movies” theory. I get what both sides are saying. I’m certainly more worried about the Social Justice left. Having control of the academy and cultural institutions like Hollywood is undeniably a bigger problem than a few sad larpers broadcasting from their parent’s basement on YouTube. Several Republican candidates, including bigger names, like Rand Paul have been physically attacked leading to injury in the past year alone.

While “both sides”, whatever that means, have attempted to shut down discussions, the Social Justice left has been able to get away with the heckler’s veto in a way anyone on the right hasn’t.

I’m curious if anyone here considers a large group of people banging on the doors of the US Supreme Court constitutes a mob.

Sure. I do, I am emphatically against the shitty left. I fight against it IRL, in the schools and now my eldest is resisting the SJW agenda. But Brive stating that violence was a left-wing problem was stupid beyond redemption. The left is playing at violence, the right has experience and weaponry. It's not even close.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

The ideas had oxygen because of the left. Brevik did what he did mostly because he was insane AND that insanity was high on said conspiracy.

You can judge Breviks looney politics if you think that has value. However the mere existence of RW conspiracy isn’t directly causal for him specifically going Thelma on us. And there has been no wider pattern to add relevance.

If the conversation is about the problem of partisan politics and violence then it should shift from Brevik and probably realign to a review of the left.

Simple. I’m sorry this flow has challenged you.

This effort earns me a bar to my star.

And Antifa has oxygen because of the right. You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it." And worse, you're not even wrong. Antifa is a bunch of annoying cunts. Right-wing terrorism is a threat on par with Islamic terrorism.

I am a patient man. But I think it’s time for you to show exactly where I endorsed right wing violence - either actual or potential. I am curious whether you are stupid, mendacious or a bit of both.

You said, my mendacious fellow, that violence was a left-wing problem. You excused right-wing violence with no-true-Scotsman while describing right-wing violence as a problem generated by the left. You are wrong. Be a man and admit it.

http://www.asanet.org/ideology-and-thre ... -extremism

So, no actual endorsement. I categorised Brevic as a shitty nut-job rather than part of a pattern of similar terrorism. And I noted the drift to left wing political confrontation as an increasing characteristic of liberal agitation - while acknowledging a similar but far less dramatic trend on the right.

You have far more of an agenda here than I do.

You're not even acknowledging your earlier statement. The right has a far more serious problem with violence than the left. Admit it, or dispute it with something other than your self-elevated opinion.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I post multiple links, Brive responds with essentially "you're being mean, I never said right-wing violence was good." Which, of course, was never in dispute. You did say that violence was a left-wing problem and that right-wing violence was crazy people responding to it. I posted a good number of links that dispute that. Reliable sites, from law enforcement and serious conservative people.

It's one thing to rely on YouTube or confirmation bias to garner your facts, but when faced with serious statistics you really need to reevaluate your position. In other words, your feels don't matter.

[MarcusAu]

Nothing has been proved with regards to my father's connection to the underworld.

This Peterson character better learn to hold his tongue if he knows what's good for him. Speaking metaphorically, I mean.

Careful. This is how you invoke the dragon of chaos.

And leave my mother out of this.

[Kirbmarc]

Point 3, is a reiteration of the lefts drift to authoritarianism and “smash fascism” group think, with linkage between antifa and Waters rhetoric all the way down to Kirb level cultural capitulation

Right. "Cultural capitulation". Standards to judge integration. Fighting forces which prevent it. Teaching values. But because I'm not obsessed with "muh identity" I'm "capitulating".

In real life I'm part of a project to teach immigrant women useful skills AND give them access to secular legal recourse.

We've already helped several muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse to have access to the justice system instead of being subjected to the separate religious/cultural authority. They have divorced from their husbands according to the protections of Swiss laws, not muslim law. Such "capitulation".

The SocJus will probably call me an imperialist islamophobe and a "Western savior". There's the real tards you were looking for.

(Incidentally, according to sane definitions of "women's rights", I've probably done more for women's rights than all of the SocJus performers on FTB and their clickbait yellow journalism. Outrageous.)

I call your favorite alt-"lite" commentators out for their undue focus on identity rather than principles and laws, for associating with far-right idiots, making clickbait videos about the "fall of France", disrupting the course of justice like Tommy Robinson, or in general being obsessed with harmless or dumb things and stoking racial anxiety with ideas about "population replacement" .

Basically for being massive tards more interested in Youtube views and provocative stunts, along with flirting with far-right ideas, rather than trying to figure out how to deal with ACTUAL problems in PRACTICAL ways.

And yes, also for scaremongering and exaggerating, which MIGHT INDIRECTLY lead less stable people to take matters in their own hands.

But you're too butthurt over ads in Chinese to realize this.

[Kirbmarc]

I post multiple links, Brive responds with essentially "you're being mean, I never said right-wing violence was good." Which, of course, was never in dispute. You did say that violence was a left-wing problem and that right-wing violence was crazy people responding to it. I posted a good number of links that dispute that. Reliable sites, from law enforcement and serious conservative people.

It's one thing to rely on YouTube or confirmation bias to garner your facts, but when faced with serious statistics you really need to reevaluate your position. In other words, your feels don't matter.

Eh, all those law enforcement websites are probably cuck-servatives who are not awaken to cultural replacement.

[Brive1987]

My

I’m saying that the loss of centre is increasing low level tensions - but discernible more on the Antica (sic) ‘punch a Nazi’ side

<>

Your rewrite:

The left has a problem with violence and the right does not

A reasonable reading of my statement is that there is overall polarisation leading to a general increase of tensions (on both sides) but this tension is expressed as direct-action more commonly on the antifa side.

This is a classic example of why (and how) our discussions almost immediately derail.

The statistics are not on your side.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2 ... -soil/amp/

https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-sur ... mists/amp/

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2018 ... sm/146319/

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

My point was that neither left nor right engage in "terrorism" as a tool for enacting policy. Certainly not the terrorism that a public fed on Islamism would understand. A small number of unique exceptions prove this rule. Hence the original comments around Brevik.

What is happening as an observable pattern, is an increase in organised mob violence and intimidation used as a quasi-legitimate tool for political ends.

We saw this with the Trump rallies. We saw dog whistling with 'deplorables'. We saw it forecast by the Democrats with the prospect of a Trump defeat. And we saw it with the unbelievably ironic reversal of the Anti Trump riots. And now the Democrats are hitching their wagon to so called public "incivility".

Re your links. There are two issues here. Firstly the articles (they are not actual reports) show clear signs of pushing a liberal agenda. Sometimes this agenda is explicit

"Keeping these numbers in perspective should help cut through the partisan spin after the Charlottesville terrorist attack."

Secondly the methodologies have innate problems as well as issues that encourage bias..

Re possible bias

First I'm sure Alex Nowrasteh who is an "immigration policy analyst" is just the man for the job here. But that's low hanging fruit.

When I see stuff like this:

At an August 12th ”Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Nazi-sympathizer James Alex Fields Jr. allegedly drove his car into a group of counter-protesters and murdered Heather D. Heyer. In the aftermath, virtually all commentators condemned the attack and the ideology that inspired it. But then some partisan commentators began to argue that Antifa, a self-styled group of anti-fascist protesters who want to beat up Nazis, were also inciting violence at Charlottesville.

or

Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time

or

The country is seeing a surge in terrorism. There were only six attacks in the US a decade ago, but 65 in 2017

Or headlines like this:

Terrorism is surging in the US, fueled by right-wing ideologies

... my red flags start flying.

I also notice that none of the articles could be bothered with James Hodgkinson's "terror attack" - but Chancellorsville figured heavily in text as well as pictures.

Re methodology

In general there is confusion over categorizations, recognition there aren't proper reporting mechanisms, a tiny number of incidents being overwhelmed methodologically by a couple of outliers (Oklahoma and 911) and a failure of definition where incidents of bigotry are conflated with terrorism.

The sample itself is 'problematic'

Terrorists have murdered 3,342 people on U.S. soil from 1992 through August 12, 2017 (Figure 1). Islamists committed 92 percent of all those murders and are, far and away, the deadliest group of terrorists by ideology. The 9/11 attacks accounted for 2,983 of the 3,085 Islamist-inspired terrorist deaths—an overwhelming 97 percent. The chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist during this period was about 1 in 2.5 million per year (Table 1).

The right wing stats are majorly informed by Oklahoma City (77% of all right-wing deaths) - which I'd put into the same bucket as Waco rather than identitarian. In fact the "right-wing" bucket is pretty much a cover all: "racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government, or xenophobic motivations". Left-wing is far more politically focused.

Definitions are loose. Apparently "and a vehicle decorated with Jewish iconography in New York." is a terror attack whereas slapping Richard Spencer isn't. Although injuries count if they range "from a few scratches to amputations or brain damage."

This leads to inevitable skepticism. I don't for instance see a methodology for dealing with each and every Antifa / Kek "scratch". I don't see an appendix listing each attack in a transparent fashion. For some reasons late term abortions have been omitted.

All in all these links are an embarrassment. If I was still a moderator I would provide you an introduction to someone who'd memory hole them for you.

[Brive1987]

That was two of the 4 links.

The third was a database. Another time.

The fourth looked serious until I read:

Over the last decade, individuals and groups fueled by [right-wing extremism] this virulent [nice word there] ideology have committed 71 percent of the known politically or religiously inspired killings in our country — that is, 274 of the 387 Americans murdered by extremists. Reports now indicate it was part of the recent murder of 17 school children and teachers in Florida, just as it was part of mass shootings that have happened everywhere from California to Charleston.

And then saw the SPLC being used authoritatively. Further checks revealed the author to be a Democrat operative "Singer served as coordinator of the Defense Policy Task Force for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign."

Maybe I should quote Fox News back at you?

[Brive1987]

Brive moves the goalposts to him "endorsing right wing violence" while completely ignoring the actual conversation. Substantiate your argument.

Those goal posts have your finger prints all over them.

"You're still just saying "it's okay when we do it."

Where did I say its "okay", where is the endorsement? You are fake news.

[Brive1987]

Hmm "Chancellorsville " <> "Charlottesville"

Nice typo though.

[Brive1987]

We've already helped several muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse to have access to the justice system instead of being subjected to the separate religious/cultural authority. They have divorced from their husbands according to the protections of Swiss laws, not muslim law. Such "capitulation".

Un-ironic congrats on manning the pumps. That's cool. But not germane to the Elephant crapping in the corner.

We've already helped several muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse to have access to the justice system instead of being subjected to the separate religious/cultural authority. They have divorced from their husbands according to the protections of Swiss laws, not muslim law. Such "capitulation".

Does it not strike you as concerning (and worthy of action) that this scenario has been imported into Switzerland on the basis of .... ummm .... errrr .... cheap labour or increasing social cohesion or something. Given the Swiss ethno-state thingie I guess it's the former. Are these issues likely to come up during their husband's citizenship star-chambers?

[Kirbmarc]

We've already helped several muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse to have access to the justice system instead of being subjected to the separate religious/cultural authority. They have divorced from their husbands according to the protections of Swiss laws, not muslim law. Such "capitulation".

Un-ironic congrats on manning the pumps. That's cool. But not germane to the Elephant crapping in the corner.

We've already helped several muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse to have access to the justice system instead of being subjected to the separate religious/cultural authority. They have divorced from their husbands according to the protections of Swiss laws, not muslim law. Such "capitulation".

Does it not strike you as concerning (and worthy of action) that this scenario has been imported into Switzerland on the basis of .... ummm .... errrr .... cheap labour or increasing social cohesion or something. Given the Swiss ethno-state thingie I guess it's the former. Are these issues likely to come up during their husband's citizenship star-chambers?

Immigration happens. People from poor countries want to move to rich ones. It's always happened. It will always happen.

So you either manage things humanely and practically, trying to sort issues out, or you go full Steerzo.

I'm not a fan of COMPLETELY open borders. Even less of a fan of cultural relativism. Liberal democracy and modernity are MUCH better than theocracy. Islam NEEDS Enlightenment and secularism, and practically speaking you can't let in EVERYONE.

Anyone with half a brain can see this, regardless of their political affiliation. Bernie Sanders, the socialist boogeyman, rightly pointed out the problems with COMPLETELY open borders.

You need complex socio-economic plans to deal with immigration, balancing things out, investing money, trying to understand what's going on and to do something about it. The woke dream of a Super Duper Fun and Fancy Free world if only the Evil White Racists stopped existing is a stupid fantasy.

But the alt-whatever trad-what Youtubers/street fighters/shitlords aren't interested in dealing with reality anymore than the Wokes.

They make click-bait videos, exaggerate things, scaremonger, do outrageous stunts for fame and money. And in many, many ways they make things worse, especially by focusing on ethnicity or proxies for ethnicity instead of upholding principles and ideals.

Back when Sargon claimed to be working at building a more realistic approach to problems beyond the SocJus, even partnering up with Kyle Kulinski and the Justice Democrats, I was very willing to work with him. I even sent him some material to use for his videos.

But then he engaged in publicity stunts, coddling to the alt-right, making click-bait videos for right-wing identity politics, and siding with the likes of LePen or Orban or Trump, who offer NO solution except the Steersmann method, and even that only as a wedge issue for further reactionary ideas.

So I'm not swallowing the fasci-identitarian kool-aid just because the SocJus exists.

We need a model to integrate people, to fight reactionary and dangerous ideas wherever they come from, without the idiotic SocJus concepts that only Whitey is Evil or only Western Culture is flawed.

We need modern and secular values, principles, concepts, and ways to implement them and protect them, not Lauren Southern and Faith Goldy freaking out at how many non-white people are there in Paris or Toronto.

[Kirbmarc]

Hell, if Trump was serious about fighting islamic extremism instead of his moronic blanket bans that apply to ALL people from some countries he'd be holding the Saudis accountable.

"Curiously" enough this doesn't happen. And his fans, including Ezra Levant, act like faithful lap dogs to his Saudi coddling. They're only against muslim children and workers getting in, not really against the sources of reactionary Islam. What a bunch of losers.

Face it alt-rghters, your "God Emperor" doesn't give a shit about dealing with real issues that affect you, he only panders to simple narratives of easy outrage and fear to get your vote and then betray you at the first sign of an economic opportunity for himself and his cronies.

You've been and still are being conned, just like the SocJus fans are conned by Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or the SocJus media.

"Make America Great Again" is the right wing equivalent of "End the Patriarchy".

[Kirbmarc]

Make America Lick the Anus of Saudi Arabia Again. :lol:

[Keating]

And leave my mother out of this.

I'm starting to worry you might be ideologically possessed.

[InfraRedBucket]

Apparently the standout with the orange hat and one of the ringleaders of the recently convicted gang converted from islam to Sikhism after the investigation started - is this the equivalent of a male sex offender transitioning to female in order to blur and obscure remnants of a past life of crime?

3500.jpg

(67.99 KiB) Downloaded 173 times

Sikhs are strictly prohibited from eating meat from animals slaughtered by halal method, so how did they they manage mealtimes
when meeting up?

[Brive1987]

Immigration happens. People from poor countries want to move to rich ones. It's always happened. It will always happen.

A wise man once said: “we will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they arrive.”

Makes sense.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Immigration happens. People from poor countries want to move to rich ones. It's always happened. It will always happen.

A wise man once said: “we will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they arrive.”

Makes sense.

There are way too many people coming into western countries with no intention of assimilation or even cooperation. Then there are a lot of people coming in because it is exactly what you and your family would do if you were in their situation.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Quote Bork.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://theweek.com/speedreads/803006/t ... ggis-death

Riyadh provided no evidence to support this account. Nevertheless, President Trump told reporters Friday night he found the explanation credible, calling it "a good first step" and "a big step." "Saudi Arabia has been a great ally," he said.

Trump sucking Saudi cock.

[Ape+lust]

Lindsay Shepherd has had enough of the woke grandstanding they call "Indigenous Land Acknowledgments."

[Ape+lust]

This Tuesday, the US MegaMillions lottery is going to make some lucky fool an instant billionaire :shock:

[Brive1987]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

I don’t think you can even remember now what the dispute was actually over.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

I don’t think you can even remember now what the dispute was actually over.

You pretty much dismissed "National Security Today" and "Homeland Security" as a libtard plot. You are simply trying to find any fault, and failing. The dispute was over left-wing vs right-wing violence. And you lost, badly.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kinsm ... rey-young/

https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/nancy-pel ... n-florida/

I forget, are the Proud Boys libtards? :whistle:

[TheMudbrooker]

Make America Lick the Anus of Saudi Arabia Again. :lol:

That'll never catch on, it doesn't fit on a hat.

[Ape+lust]

[MarcusAu]

There's all sorts of things on Youtube, just waiting to be examined like pebbles on a beach....

I watched 'Sleuth' the other day, and 'Theatre of Blood' just now.

BBC radio has several comedies and dramas there too - which can be converted to MP3s - for example:



(from 1981, with Timothy West as Dr Watson - possibly the only Watson I ever want to hear of ever again).

There, that might just wrench every one's YouTube recommendations off course...and send them careening down the mountainside with no brakes to end in a fiery explosion. Then again it might not...

[CommanderTuvok]

A spat between two of the most smug and awful twats form the British Isles....Owen Jones and Graham Linehan.

:lol:

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

The source where the 92% of terrorist attacks were right wing came from The Daily Caller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

The Daily Caller is a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010.

These guys are almost as liberal as the Homeland Security bunch that CFB was quoting!
You're right Brive. We should've gone to youtube and got the truth from the shirtless satanist or one of your bubbling braided bimbos! :P

[shoutinghorse]

10 10 10 10 10 :clap:

[Steersman]

Hell, if Trump was serious about fighting islamic extremism instead of his moronic blanket bans that apply to ALL people from some countries he'd be holding the Saudis accountable.

"Curiously" enough this doesn't happen. And his fans, including Ezra Levant, act like faithful lap dogs to his Saudi coddling. They're only against muslim children and workers getting in, not really against the sources of reactionary Islam. What a bunch of losers.

Face it alt-rghters, your "God Emperor" doesn't give a shit about dealing with real issues that affect you, he only panders to simple narratives of easy outrage and fear to get your vote and then betray you at the first sign of an economic opportunity for himself and his cronies.

You've been and still are being conned, just like the SocJus fans are conned by Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or the SocJus media.

"Make America Great Again" is the right wing equivalent of "End the Patriarchy".

Indeed. But #NotAllHisFans - so to speak:



As for "Make America Lick the Anus of Saudi Arabia Again. :lol:" - LoL, indeed. Though our illustrious Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - AKA #JihadiJustin - has been front & center on that "front" - so to speak - even if he seems to have more a taste for Iranian & Pakistani assholes:

Memes_Trudeau_AssKisser_Islam.jpg

(36.4 KiB) Downloaded 109 times

Trudeau_JihadiJustin.jpg

(71.57 KiB) Downloaded 109 times

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Brianna is a guy that won't just go away.

[Kirbmarc]

Brive wrote:

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

The source where the 92% of terrorist attacks were right wing came from The Daily Caller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

The Daily Caller is a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010.

These guys are almost as liberal as the Homeland Security bunch that CFB was quoting!
You're right Brive. We should've gone to youtube and got the truth from the shirtless satanist or one of your bubbling braided bimbos! :P

It doesn't matter. Brievik, the Proud Boys, the Charlottesville car murderer, the preponderance of violence in the '90s, '00s and '10s among the American and European far-right (McVeigh, Roof, etc.), Trump himself cheering on political violence against journalists from Gianforte and instigating his fans to act violently by saying he would pay for legal expenses, all of this is void, because an idiot punched Richard Spencer, other idiots got into street fights, and more others cheered on them.

Violence on the left in the '90s, '00s and most of the '10s was idiots throwing rocks at cops, protesting people they didn't like with publicity stunts and trashing parks during the G8, and today it's not much different. LARPER morons who think that they're revolutionaries. There haven't been any people KILLED by leftist violence since the 80s, at least in the "west".

And yet people here have still STRONGLY rejected leftist violence, and rightly so. We've all pointed out how immoral and dumb was the call to "punch a Nazi". We've all made fun of Dan Arel, Pee Zee and other losers for being Internet Tough Guys.

But if the far-right has violent messages, or apocalyptic messages that violent people turn into violent actions, it's all the fault of the libtards, obviously. The poor right-wingers are Oppressed and Just Lashing Out. Brive is the Moderate Alt-Right Imam telling you that the alt-right is Politics of Peace, and if there's violence in the alt-right, it's Not Really the Alt-Right's fault. People who wear T-shirts with the words "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required" are Just Concerned Citizens. Calls for throwing people from helicopters are Totally Different from "punch a Nazi", even though a far-right regime actually threw dissidents from helicopters.

[free thoughtpolice]

[Steersman]

So if men get castrated and Steersman is right about them no longer being men ...

Not really a question of me being right but of what are the definitions on the books for the term, and whether they have any value or utility. Words aren't things in themselves, but only labels for other things, even if some are more abstract than others.

But consider the definition for the "right" side of the road to drive on - somewhat arbitrary, but still some necessity in stipulating what we mean by the words we use. Changing them on the fly, without rhyme or reason, is simply a recipe for disaster.

Too bad we didn't have a linguistic or etymologist on the forum - at least one worth their salt ... ;-) - who could elaborate on that theme ...

And likewise with the definition for "man" - if it means anything and everything then it becomes largely useless. You might consider:



All of those things that Conroy has put in the "man box" aren't actually part of the definition for "man" - i.e., "adult human male (produces sperm)" - and conflating those just causes no end of grief - whole issue of transgenderism & "gender dysphoria" in a nutshell (heavy emphasis on "nut").

And all of those things in that "man box" - and many others besides - might reasonably be put in the category of "gender", of which there are literally billions if not zillions. And see my own: The Imperative of Categories for elaborations on that theme.

[free thoughtpolice]

[free thoughtpolice]

Steersman wrote:

But consider the definition for the "right" side of the road to drive on - somewhat arbitrary, but still some necessity in stipulating what we mean by the words we use. Changing them on the fly, without rhyme or reason, is simply a recipe for disaster.

You are of course right. It would be dangerous to call an infertile man a man. That is why on my last post I recommended we take a page out of our gender woke SJW friends and modify words to reflect "reality". Much safer to call a eunuch an xman and a menopausal woman an xwoman.
In regard to the nigger-cunt hypothesis, if you happen to be strolling around say Compton and you want to say safe you need to be concise in your language and use the word nigger when talking with the residents while explaining to them that it is not an offensive word.

[MarcusAu]

Steers is rather obsessive on this topic, and I think he enjoys it. He's a one track lover...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-ZGP68-3w

And I think most would agree that's a pretty bad rap.

[shoutinghorse]

Katie Hopkins goes Amjem chasing with special guest Sid Snot. :D

[Keating]

Lindsay Shepherd has had enough of the woke grandstanding they call "Indigenous Land Acknowledgments."

I hate this in Australia too. It's exactly what she says.

[Keating]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kinsm ... rey-young/

https://nypost.com/2018/10/20/nancy-pel ... n-florida/

I forget, are the Proud Boys libtards? :whistle:

Eh, what's are you trying to prove with the first story? Anitfa started a fight, the Proud Boys finished it, and more Proud Boys got arrested than Antifa. This story seems to work exactly against the point you've been trying to make. This is left wing violence being initiated, and right wing violence answering it. But, there wouldn't have been any violence at all if the left hadn't started it. It also demonstrates the problem of left wing control of the media.

[free thoughtpolice]

Keating wrote:

It also demonstrates the problem of left wing control of the media.

I looked up the story on the leftwing NYT and CBS news and they both mentioned that antifa instigated the fight as well as committed vandalism. It also said the police are looking to find and arrest some antifa participants. I don't see how this demonstrates the left wing control of the media.

[Brive1987]

Brive wrote:

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

The source where the 92% of terrorist attacks were right wing came from The Daily Caller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

The Daily Caller is a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010.

These guys are almost as liberal as the Homeland Security bunch that CFB was quoting!
You're right Brive. We should've gone to youtube and got the truth from the shirtless satanist or one of your bubbling braided bimbos! :P

Before the goal posts move entirely, these were the sources I was asked to look at.

http://i.imgur.com/1LFwa8T.jpg

I note none of my concerns were addressed.

[Brive1987]

Brive wrote:

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

The source where the 92% of terrorist attacks were right wing came from The Daily Caller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

The Daily Caller is a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010.

These guys are almost as liberal as the Homeland Security bunch that CFB was quoting!
You're right Brive. We should've gone to youtube and got the truth from the shirtless satanist or one of your bubbling braided bimbos! :P

It doesn't matter. Brievik, the Proud Boys, the Charlottesville car murderer, the preponderance of violence in the '90s, '00s and '10s among the American and European far-right (McVeigh, Roof, etc.), Trump himself cheering on political violence against journalists from Gianforte and instigating his fans to act violently by saying he would pay for legal expenses, all of this is void, because an idiot punched Richard Spencer, other idiots got into street fights, and more others cheered on them.

Violence on the left in the '90s, '00s and most of the '10s was idiots throwing rocks at cops, protesting people they didn't like with publicity stunts and trashing parks during the G8, and today it's not much different. LARPER morons who think that they're revolutionaries. There haven't been any people KILLED by leftist violence since the 80s, at least in the "west".

And yet people here have still STRONGLY rejected leftist violence, and rightly so. We've all pointed out how immoral and dumb was the call to "punch a Nazi". We've all made fun of Dan Arel, Pee Zee and other losers for being Internet Tough Guys.

But if the far-right has violent messages, or apocalyptic messages that violent people turn into violent actions, it's all the fault of the libtards, obviously. The poor right-wingers are Oppressed and Just Lashing Out. Brive is the Moderate Alt-Right Imam telling you that the alt-right is Politics of Peace, and if there's violence in the alt-right, it's Not Really the Alt-Right's fault. People who wear T-shirts with the words "Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required" are Just Concerned Citizens. Calls for throwing people from helicopters are Totally Different from "punch a Nazi", even though a far-right regime actually threw dissidents from helicopters.

Their aim will improve.

[Brive1987]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

I don’t think you can even remember now what the dispute was actually over.

You pretty much dismissed "National Security Today" and "Homeland Security" as a libtard plot. You are simply trying to find any fault, and failing. The dispute was over left-wing vs right-wing violence. And you lost, badly.

“Pretty much”. An odd way to phrase a point.

The dispute started over whether Brevik was a typical output of identitatrian ideology, the implications of the vanishing centre and liberal reactions to European popularism and MAGA success.

Not so much weirdo American anti fed suvivalists.

Looking at your late starter Homeland Security today article. The 5th of your sources I’ve engaged with.

I see it features a KKK pic from 1927, is written by another Obama official and sees meaning in Storm Fronts 486 web server crashing on Obama’s elelection night. I’m guessing it improves.

The assessment determined that right-wing extremists were leveraging what I refer to as “the Obama effect.” The election of the first African-American president with a Muslim father fueled right-wing recruiting and mobilizing efforts. The white supremacist website Stormfront, for example, received such an onslaught of Internet traffic on the night of Barack Obama’s election that the website crashed. Further proof of what was to come: on that same historic night, one in every 100 Google searches that including the word “Obama” also included search terms for “KKK” or the N-word.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

The CFB and FTP tag-team tone trolling now? :lol: :lol: And I can’t help it if your sources were crap.

The source where the 92% of terrorist attacks were right wing came from The Daily Caller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

The Daily Caller is a conservative American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by political pundit Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel in 2010.

These guys are almost as liberal as the Homeland Security bunch that CFB was quoting!
You're right Brive. We should've gone to youtube and got the truth from the shirtless satanist or one of your bubbling braided bimbos! :P

Before the goal posts move entirely, these were the sources I was asked to look at.

http://i.imgur.com/1LFwa8T.jpg

I note none of my concerns were addressed.

I'm not sure what concerns you were talking about. And by the way, the right wing source I gave is what I was addressing. The Forbes.com link that CFB gave you is a rightwing publication and the other 3 links he gave you aren't left wing sources like Salon or Huffpost and as far as I know.
You still haven't owned up to saying that the libtards caused Brivek to murder those people. Sounds like victim blaming to me. Why don't you just admit that it was a stupid thing to write and stop trying to weasel out of it by bullshitting that I took it out of context or this whataboutism about violent lefties.
I thought you were a better man than that. (Or xman, I don't want to jump to conclusions about your spooge production status, for all I know you may have been snipped.)

[AndrewV69]

Apparently the standout with the orange hat and one of the ringleaders of the recently convicted gang converted from islam to Sikhism after the investigation started - is this the equivalent of a male sex offender transitioning to female in order to blur and obscure remnants of a past life of crime?


3500.jpg

Sikhs are strictly prohibited from eating meat from animals slaughtered by halal method, so how did they they manage mealtimes
when meeting up?

One implication is that the Muslims in that area are kind of vague about their religion, and the convert is doubly so.

[Brive1987]

I'm not sure what concerns you were talking about. And by the way, the right wing source I gave is what I was addressing. The Forbes.com link that CFB gave you is a rightwing publication and the other 3 links he gave you aren't left wing sources like Salon or Huffpost and as far as I know.
You still haven't owned up to saying that the libtards caused Brivek to murder those people. Sounds like victim blaming to me. Why don't you just admit that it was a stupid thing to write and stop trying to weasel out of it by bullshitting that I took it out of context or this whataboutism about violent lefties.
I thought you were a better man than that. (Or xman, I don't want to jump to conclusions about your spooge production status, for all I know you may have been snipped.)
[/quote]

Oh. There is a sixth reference to examine?

I spent more time reviewing and discussing CFB sources than I received in return. Waste of time it appears.
His articles had clear agenda and bias in what they were setting out to address. Obvious in language, structure and content. Mostly trying to create a mini moral panic off Charlottesville.

Re: “You still haven't owned up to saying that the libtards caused Brivek to murder those people“

You have got to be kidding. So. Nice troll.

[AndrewV69]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.

Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .

I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).

Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029

So far so good?

[Brive1987]

In other words, Brive handwaves away any dispute, decides what sources are acceptable, and provides no sources at all of his own. All while being insulting, petty, and a general asshole. Seriously, go to whatever you bogans call law enforcement, and ask "which is the greater danger, left or right-wing violence?" Unless your cops are in on it too...

No offence but when I checked the links there were issues.

Forbes - Opinion piece. No links to source(s).
Quartz - Better than Forbes. But links to summary reports from GTD.
Defense One - Suggests that the SPLC is an alternative credible source so their credibility is zero.
GTD - which Quartz linked to. .

I would really like to see a report from an organisation like Pew Research (one I already "trust") than have to do the research about the GTD to determine how credible they are. I will reserve judgement about them for now (although I am leaning towards credible).

Here is their entry about the attack by James Hodgkinson which they characterise as "Assassination".
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/In ... 1706140029

So far so good?

There is a definitional issue here identified in the HST piece.

The dude is saddened by the use of “hate crime” as a label because then they don’t get to string incidents together into a grand RW terrorist conspiracy.

But “terrorism” has its problems too.

For decades, the security community has wrestled over how to define terrorism. There is still no agreement. The government agencies responsible for counterterrorism or terrorism investigations all use slightly different definitions of the acts they seek to prevent. There are, however, three elements to terrorism on which American agencies agree: the essence of the activity is violence; the targets are civilians (which in the U.S. context arguably includes law enforcement officers); and the objective is political (broadly) or ideological in nature.

So a violent act, not aimed at soldiers which is (broadly) ideological.

It appears slapping Spencer is indeed “terrorism”. Meh.

The whole terrorism debate has its foundations anchored in jelly, which means it is largely a partisan tool.