Templar Knight

Far Cry 5

Apologies on the length, I tend to get carried away. I'll try and keep things brisk, no promises as I often have a lot to say. And I'm saying there was hardly anything of an investigation at all. They may as well have just investigated her for two days. But whatever, it doesn't matter. I'd personally call that embarrassment more than punishment, because it was a hilariously embarrassing situation for me to watch live as pretty much every single news outlet imploded as their BS narratives and flawed data were revealed for all to see. And I wasn't even rooting for any particular candidate. But yes, agreed, she's done and I don't particularly care what comes of her. I only wish that she would retreat into retirement with some dignity rather than still remain the very publicly visible Democratic figure who's going around blaming literally everyone but herself for her failure, that would probably help the Democrats out a lot. Warren certainly is a fair bit more palatable. Though my wager is on her not running for Presidency, personally. Though honestly guessing that is still a dice toss considering the Dems have not stated what they want besides getting Trump out. IDK about that. I've seen enough different political leaders rise up both in my own country and the US to be able to attest to the fact that the spectrums will generally coalesce around a candidate who leans in their direction even if they have different interests and beliefs, radicals and the odd third-parties notwithstanding. Because politicians rarely win or certainly maintain power solely by catering to a single subset of voters, you have to make yourself appealing to as many as possible regardless of which side of the board you're on if you're playing to win. I've seen all manner of Leftists coalesce around different politicians and rise them up to power if they find a leader they generally like, even if they have different views on subjects. One could argue that Obama was one such candidate, Trudeau up in Canada is another. It all changes with time, usually when the one side is bickering among themselves, the other is far more solidified, but we've seen this happen throughout time. Currently, the paradigm shift is being driven by a more unified Right push, doesn't mean that all of them are the same, but that they're willing to set their differences aside in order to achieve what they wanted. Give enough time, eventually they'll bicker again, the Left will see an opportunity, set aside their differences, and push in their turn. Because that's how these things usually work, from what I have seen. I actually like it since those periods of bickering can also be times of reflection for the side that is on the losing end as to what they can change to come back better. I wonder where you're getting these "massively unpopular" tax bill ideas from when his approval has steadily risen to the 40s now (Even the more Anti-Trump favouring polls have shown increases ever since Charlottesville, ironically enough. Though I credit it mostly to more and more people realizing that he's the madman super-villain the media painted him to be.) and the most I could see people criticizing the tax bill for was that "it gives too many cuts to the rich" ignoring the fact that it cuts a lot for the poor as well, or that it raises the deficit, like people magically care about that now. The health care bill he dropped because not even the Republicans could agree on it, and if he's correct, then all he needs to do is wait and support will come for his changes eventually, if not then we'll know he was wrong. IDK, he seems to be trying to cater a fair bit to the Rustbelt, I'd call them ordinary people. That's more than anything the Democrats said they'd be doing. "Bragged about sexually assaulting women." Dude, I've watched the tape. I saw it played over a dozen times and carefully listened because I was wondering what was so fucking damning, there is a reason no lawsuit ever came of it even with Clinton's initial backing of the "victims". That is not bragging about sexual assault. It is piggishly saying that he can sleep with any woman he wants (something which I would consider to be typical of many rich snobs and womanizers), but its not admittance of sexual assault. The most you can say is that it is a piggish comment. He specifically says: "They let you do it." He's not implying non-consent or that he drugged them, or that he ordered them to do so. He's implying that he's in such a position wherein there are women who will let him do this stuff merely to get stuff off of him, which he gives. Now, you could argue that he's in a position of power or authority and therefore pure consent cannot be given, but if that's the case, where the hell is the Cosby or Weinstein-esque scandal? The whole fucking case may as well have evaporated as soon as the election was finished. Pressure? Bullshit, they had no fear of such things when they initially came forward. Why suddenly stop? You'd think a President-Elect Trump would have kicked the case into overdrive simply to get mass publicity. You'd think there would be no end to the amount of support they could have garnered off of appeals to Democrat voters alone. But yet, nothing came of it, not even a lawsuit for money. Hell, they actually got photos of the one guy on the Democrats that was more damning than anything Trump said in that tape. Plus, to his credit and despite that stuff, no scandal of that variety has yet come out of the White House. That already puts him above many Presidents on that front who actually did have sexual scandals in the White House. Is that so? I would say that Trump has merely shifted things in terms of foreign policy focus with his style. His style seems to be more amicable with Asian leaders than European ones in terms of diplomacy. He's made far more progress in China and North Korea than Obama or Bush or Clinton ever did. So what if he's pissed off Merkel and the EU a couple times? They get pissed at anything that doesn't support their dreams of total European unification. They're not his concern, they're still allies and they're not going to break it over tax laws they have no fucking power over no matter how much they wish they could dictate foreign tax laws. And Canada? Last I checked, we're still friends. And the UN? I don't see much coming out of them besides hot air (which sadly is as per usual most of the time). I'd say it all depends on where you're looking. I've already gone over why Trump is having problems getting stuff done. His gap in the Senate is not wide enough when you factor in that more than a few Republicans do not obey every word he says (which is both good and bad). Some, like Rand Paul, do it on principle for certain issues which I can applaud (If you need any more evidence that the Republicans are not 100% united, look there). Most, like McCain, do it because they just fucking hate him and they would rather use their power to be punitive and stall Congress to show their distaste even if its on stuff they would otherwise support or have claimed to support previously. Its the reality of the situation when you have a President who is not a career politician, who basically undercut A TON of career politicians in the last election by making fools out of all of them (The RNC TRIED to rig their primaries like the Dems, but Trump had too much popular support for it to work), and who doesn't truly align entirely with the party he chose. The fact that that gap narrowed even more slightly doesn't help. I can tell you, if a blue wave does happen, it'll only hurt the Dems come 2020. Because then they'll give him the excuse that Obama had on top of the fact that his own party has petulant children instead of leaders in some of its seats. I also wouldn't congratulate the current Congress too much, its their fucking fault we have basically a new Cold War situation with Russia right now, despite Trump's initial wishes. There actually was a case where a guy claimed Obama paid him to get a blowjob or something, but I have no idea on the details of that and don't care to go into it. Besides he had his own scandals with bombing civilians with his various airstrikes that can be confirmed, but most don't recall. Either, off-topic. I could say the same for Obama. Its funny how the mirror switches yet many things stay the same. People ignored all kinds of things Obama fucked up on (myself included) at the times they happened, but that's the reality of political partisanship. I never claimed he was, I said what he initially tried to claim back when the election happened. Obviously, like many election promises across time, words are wind in the face of actions, but the fact remains he did what no Republicans had even attempted to do before. Even you have to admit that there was no way in hell ANY career Republican candidate would have dared try to make such a claim in an election race for fear of alienating their base, I certainly saw none of them even try to use it as an argument. Yet Trump was able to say it and still win on a Republican ballot. And, he has dropped the Gay Marriage issue from federal Republican political debate. He doesn't care to contest it, because he ultimately doesn't see it as a problem. I regard Pence as Trump's assassination insurance (Seriously, who would want to assassinate Trump just to get HIM in charge?), and a throwaway bone to the Evangelicals when his platform didn't really offer anything to them. That's my opinion. Vice Presidents have even less effective power than Governors, its why Teddy Roosevelt was made one, his opponents just didn't plan on McKinley getting shot. Funny, you seem to forget that for all Right-winger activists by your own admissions when you essentially call them all murderers waiting for the call to start their own Death Squads against all "deviants". Those in glass houses aught to not throw stones. And no, its not biased. If the group that committed mass vandalism were right-wingers, I'd want to see them all arrested too. I never made a distinction based on their political alignment. Also I wouldn't bring up Canadian courts, its actually far more easier to nail someone on a crime (most likely misdemeanour, actually) related to such an incident up here even if it is not directly vandalism. "Causing Mischief" or "Inciting Mischief" I believe would likely be one of several charges many of them would up on here even if they could not be proven to have broken anything personally and were arrested, which can be proven simply by the fact that they were there, in an unauthorized "protest" that led to an entire street of storefronts being smashed. (Which often is very easy to prove since its not often the case that many of these people make any secrets of where they are at the time of the events if they are participating, or due to the prevalence of so many cameras both public and private being available to consult. Not that many of them have any fear of such charges either, but that's another story. Yea, and they really succeeded in that when they looked like complete fucking fools to the public by letting rioters run wild for a whole day, then go whole-hog the next day to such an unreasonable degree that even today they're still in lawsuits over how badly mishandled the situation (I think) . . . yea real success in that goal. No, I'm gonna say that incident was a total fuck-up, their intent may have been that, but they executed it so poorly that it backfired in their faces immediately. People get charged or sued with bullshit all the time, especially in the US but also in Canada and elsewhere. The way we know if things are working as intended or if they require fixing is on the results of said charges, and the context of the case. I've read many accounts of Canadian companies immediately facing frivolous lawsuits the moment they try to re-locate or move into American markets as nothing but a competition tactic, what do you do? You sue back. If the justice system was not working as intended, these frivolous lawsuits would work, yet most cases they don't so long as the company holds their ground, because the rivals cannot prove their cases. I even saw a case up here in Canada where a cement company ACTUALLY tried to argue that burning tires would IMPROVE the air quality of a town because they wanted an excuse to get rid of their tires by burning them. Naturally, they failed to prove their case in court because our court systems operate (hopefully) on a logical basis. But the case was taken to court all the same because they wanted to be ridiculous about it. The existence of ridiculous court cases does not shock me. This has always been the case ever since Courts and Magistrates existed to mitigate laws, what matters is the results and if they're in line with the principles of the Nation's established laws, and are fair and open courts that give the defendants the right to innocence until proven guilty, and the right to a defense. Neither of those principles were violated in the case you brought up from what I can tell. They didn't get dragged into a Kangeroo court where they have no opportunity to fight back. They have their days in court, they have the opportunity to contest the Prosecution's claims, and even if they're dealing with a Judge who is biased (of which I know many in lower courts exist for a variety of issues that have fucked over many of different political alignments), you can appeal the case. And while I will admit I haven't looked into it, I'm going to wager that most haven't actually been charged with any such crimes, have they? My problem is when you have all of those things, but you have a system that is going against its principles and is unjustly charging citizens for crimes they cannot prove were committed or otherwise create situations that are not in line with the statements of their laws or constitution. That's a problem for anyone regardless of who you are. The fact that you cannot convince someone with a reasonable argument in a situation where they appear to have automatically made up their minds before they've even voted or rendered a verdict is a problem IMO. Like in the Senate committee meeting video I linked, Peterson responds to basically every single question regardless of what it is in a manner that goes as far as he can in the situation to reasonably explain his positions, or to tacitly refute whatever accusation or criticism is thrown at him to the point where I don't see how an objective committee could actually not have been swung to his point of view on the subject that the law is a bad idea, but it was obvious that many on the committee were heavily biased towards a particular side from the get-go and nothing he, or any of the other various critics said would change their minds. And they didn't, they still passed the law by a size-able margin if I recall. Didn't matter that he made compelling arguments, they went ahead anyway. I understand that isn't a court scenario, but its a similar type of situation. Or how the fact that Count Dankula's court case was drawn out as long as it was, and STILL, the Judge found him guilty of grossly offensive content I find to be ridiculous. Putting aside the reality that many in the UK in both professional and private capacities have made content in line with what Dankula has done in the past and present, that is still public accessible thereby making one wonder how the hell this law is supposedly enforced. The Prosecution's arguments and performance were moronic, and Dankula was thoroughly under the impression that they had decided the verdict long before they actually gave it, it was entirely a show trial. It is bad that he was even brought up on such a case, but it wouldn't have been as bad had he been found innocent. Because it would mean that the laws would still be being applied consistently and in line with their previous actions or inaction on various incidents related to the subject in the past wherein reasonable arguments could be made to prove one's innocence of the crime involved. No, they had made their decision a while back and were utilizing the situation for their own purposes. Those types of cases are the big signs of problems with a justice system IMO, not merely that ridiculous cases show up within a justice system. Because so long as you trust the justice system to make rational verdicts within its laws, you have no fear of any number of outrageous cases that get brought up. One would hope not too many reach courts to begin with since they just waste time and taxpayer money, but such is reality and people of all types love to be frivolous, and I can say that having worked in Customer Service alone. Like when Jian Ghomeshi was found innocent on the first round of charges, I read through the entire closing statements of the Judge explaining why he gave that verdict. To me, they made perfect sense, the Judge went to great extent to explain why reasonable doubt had not been erased, why the plaintiffs could not be trusted in their interpretations based on what the defense had presented, and ultimately that none of them could prove that Ghomeshi had sexually assaulted them in any consistent testimony. Now, he ultimately signed an agreed statement of facts for the second round, but he was still not found guilty on the first. I didn't see any reasonable argument to be made that the Judge had made an unfair verdict based on what had been presented to him, especially since he went to such great extent to outline his reasoning he knew people would be outraged. In short, unjust verdicts are my issue, not unfair charges. Not that I don't think that unfair charges are wrong, but that they're almost a necessary part of our justice system to simply prove that it is working as intended. You're never going to stop them from happening, but what matters is how they play out. And if the laws are inherently wrong, then we vote to change the laws and therefore how the courts respond to such issues. Nobody commented on the situation until it played out which was not unusual. I didn't see many talk about the Berkeley situation months prior, aside from lambasting Milo and how he's apparently a provocateur who shouldn't be listened to. Trump did get up and disavowed the Right wing extremists. He disavowed both sides because based on the video footage that we have, one can fairly safely make the argument that both fucking had a hand in making the situation get out of hand. Because that is the reality of protest situations. They're mobs, they're usually not under total control, some people WILL get out of hand on both sides if they're two sides that hate each other and you put them right up against each other. Counter-Protestors or Protestors of any variety, don't NEED to get in the fucking faces of people who they claim have no qualms about hurting or injuring them to show their distaste, and then crying foul if something happens. You don't fucking beat on the car of an opponent, and then get shocked when he fucking punches the gas and runs a dozen people over. Where is the sudden fascination that you NEED to be literally a foot away from the side you so vehemently hate, just to make a point? You're afraid the public won't fucking see you? IN THIS FUCKING PRESIDENCY!? Just like they don't need to trash a fucking campus or cause pandemonium when a "Right-wing" speaker shows up. Let me use an example here, okay. Purely hypothetical, but I'm gonna illustrate my problem here and why I think the whole situation like it is dumb. Let's say, you have a Klan or some kind of White Supremacist rally where they literally are chanting to lynch all Blacks. Let's say they do this right in front of an All-Black residence or some such place, or predominantly so. Lets also say for the sake of argument that they didn't bring any weapons besides makeshift ones like signs or rope etc. They don't just go to city hall for such a protest or even stand across the street and do their protest, they literally go right up against the building and right in the faces of all the people there coming and going. What reaction do you expect would come from at least SOME of the people within the building? They're going to see the situation as a threat, they're going to have physical altercations with the protestors because they hate each other and want the one out of their space. Fighting breaks out, both eventually disperse, but both get their stories. The one will claim that this proves how inherently violent the one side is, while the other will claim they were acting in self defense because they were afraid of these people coming up into their space. Does that sound unreasonable of a hypothetical scenario? Because that's a situation wherein the Protestors were deliberating intending to cause a violent scenario for their own purposes or simply because they wanted to pick a fight under the guise of freedom speech and the right to protest. That's just in a case of a protest group and non-protest group involved. What about in a situation of two protesting groups? Wherein one is already there, the other comes up right to them? Obviously they'd be looking for about as much trouble as the protest group in the other example. Otherwise, why come up right to them? They want the conflict, they want to throw punches and antagonize and show their disdain up close and personal to those they hate. The right to protest doesn't protect your right to injure an opponent or to lead yourself into a situation where the odds of that happening to you or them increases. One would hope that the police are smart enough to keep at least some separation between the two, but as we've seen, they have not. In short, you put two mobs right up against each other, its only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or killed on either side. Why? Because they will antagonize each other. One side can come armed for bear and one can criticize them as looking for a fight. But if the opponents literally come to their faces and try and antagonize them into a fight, are they not also to blame? Oh yeah you look really self-righteous by proving the violence inherent in your opponent! Both sides have done this, but from what I've seen, its usually the Left that gets into the Right's faces lately and create the situation for their to occur, with people on both of their sides losing their cool. Hence, both can bear the blame for a situation that gets out of hand. Don't try and claim that Leftists have never antagonized anyone to violence in a protest-situation like that, I already know that the reverse is false, I have seen countless videos of the incidents, it is reality. Your "Counter-Protestors" are not babes in the woods. Many of them go looking for or anticipate a fight just as much as their opponents, and they certainly don't help the situations by creating the most ideal scenario for which both sides can antagonize each other's members into bringing out the violence. Just as I'm sure they asked for a lot of the people who were run over to identify the murderer of Heyer? Give me a fucking break, you're picking and choosing what are standard police procedures at this point. You got a problem with police asking people of each side to identify others in that fucking situation? Or are you just pissed that they didn't charge every single last one of them with murder? Tell me what you really think. Fanatics having no sympathy over a dead opponent is nothing surprising. I've seen countless Leftists do the same for their own or other people on other issues involving other groups do the same shit. Maybe because in our minds its not inherently a bad thing to simply let a person talk and listen to whatever case they pose before responding in a measured response, which many of the groups you support seem to have a problem with since they put so much power in words and the fact that some shouldn't ever be spoken out of fear that the masses are too ignorant to make a decent decision (which is still what you guys admit by the desire to silence people you hate, you're assuming that people are too stupid to make a decision in such an open scenario, or that your own speakers cannot present a compelling argument). If you hate Peterson so much, explain how his arguments or statement are somehow wrong even in just the video I linked. Many have tried, pretty much all have failed without resorting to ad hominem attacks. But its funny, considering how many Communists of different varities are lionized by modern Leftist activist groups, and some Communist ideas are within modern Leftist causes, yet you strangely don't consider Cultural Marxism to be an actual thing or the accusations that you're all simply communists under a new name has no merit. But no, talking with Right-wingers of different varieties suddenly make them all Fascist sympathizers while the latter somehow doesn't make you all Communist sympathizers. See the problem here? But here we go again, you misconstrue the tolerance to have a free and open discussion with people you disagree with for sympathizing and agreeing with their views, and resorting to ad hominems because you cannot address his arguments. You attack his character by the people he has engaged with, yet you're shocked when others do it to you guys (And not every "bad" publicity figure Leftist figures have associated with is a Tankie. Did you see the Bully Hunters fiasco recently?)? I actually didn't bring up search algorithms, at least not that I can specifically recall. But if you would believe it, I actually have to dig for a fair number of these when it comes to google searches since I don't trust the traditional Leftist sources to give any kind of legitimate criticism on some of these things that first get linked to me, or they link me without much desire for them in my Youtube searches. Its funny because I only really actively watch Styx, Razor and Dankula atm, none of whom are strictly "Far-Right" but then I guess Youtube has already automatically classified them all as "Far-Right" and that I must have "Far-Right" tastes, fuck em. Algorithms are corporate tools, so sue me if they think they somehow have me down. But I've mentioned it before off-handedly, I get tons of Left-leaning information thrown at me daily from other sources, I don't need to hear it retold again at me through Youtube by a similar voice, I prefer a bit of variety.

Hell, even Russia didn't back up their rhetoric. They threatened retaliation if anything happened, most they did was just public condemnation. Granted, the 3 were very smart in that they specifically chose to not hit anything anywhere near Russian assets, but it bears noting that they basically called their bluff and nothing happened. Which makes this whole thing interesting from a Cold War 2.0 perspective in that it basically just proved that neither party has any desire to actually engage WW3 at the present time over Syria, good for all of us.

I figure its best we don't point who's ignoring what, else-wise we'll be here forever. I gave you the courtesy of not pointing out some of the various things you ignored of my past statements. But in response, no, I didn't ignore it, nor did you even truly disprove it was happening (you mostly just said "if it is happening, its not for bad intentions or via authoritarian moves", or "the sources my algorithms find all don't make a comment on it. Well by that reasoning, I suppose GamerGate never happened or was entirely negative because that was pretty much the only two perspectives of the issue shown in that case? Give me a break.), this issue is very charged and can be very differently shown depending on which sources you look at, and you only made one single clear mention of it that I could tell, in Oberlin's case. It was not a center point of your argument. And I still addressed in that it doesn't change my opinion towards making the counters seem like good ideas. There's a difference between Liberal and Progressive. You may think they're synonymous terms, but they aren't. There was a point in time where College Campuses valued Liberal values before Progressive ones, you see that changing with how various free speech issues are handled on campuses alone. Really? Lots of people, not all of whom are Nazis or Fascists, seem to be able to attest to its existence and practice. I wager Dr. Peterson alone can put forward a compelling case and he's not a Nazi or Fascist supporter. More to the point, one could say the exact same thing about numerous other issues the Left claims exists, but I won't get into that, again we'll just be going in circles. How are those two statements different? They are not in my mind, so I don't get why you think they're suddenly two different statements or "backtracking", because if you think that, that wasn't my fucking intention. My statement was that even if that was the case, I still wouldn't support the idea because I think the idea is bad. Whether it is by demand, or people simply acquiescing to that is willful segregation in either scenario. A specific group of people asking for their own spaces on the basis of their skin colour and then everyone who isn't of that skin colour simply "abiding" by it IS a form of willful segregation. The only difference is that they're asking for it and everyone is just going along with it as opposed to being told such is the case by a fucking administration. You don't see anything wrong with that? Good for you. I guarantee you racism will not vanish in our lifetimes by those lines of thought. The new segregation will be one of voluntary action and self-flagellation rather than from the top dictation with that idea. Benevolent Racism or even Sexism will be the norm, and we can already see the roots of that with the culture of victimization. Oh really? Let me quote shall we: ".... Because the biggest criticism I could find of the bill came from the Daily Caller (A very very right-wing news orginization) that basically hammered the free speech aspect." Yes, you didn't say only ONE argument specifically, but you said that that was the singularly biggest criticism you could find, essentially saying that was the only argument you could find. I proved otherwise, and provided a few different sources of arguments and that even refer to other arguments within themselves, of which the only one you deemed to comment on was the Free Press. Both work on empirical data, and no I wasn't conflating the two IDK where the hell you got that idea. And yes, that's why I said they can OFTEN overlap. Of course there's times when laws have no real basis on empiricism or is necessary for such laws. Well then that becomes a question of what is "glorification" specifically, of which I find to be an interesting question for thought among History students. I'd argue that changes with time as the parts of history our societies choose to focus on changes with time, but that it is not merely just who or what is put into memorial but whether or not the nation is being actively encouraged towards remembering them in a positive light in whatever respect it may be (and people can be encouraged to remember various individuals for all kinds of different things). Are the Confederacy statues today for example glorified by any mass amounts of the population for reasons specifically related to slavery in that what they did was a good thing? I'd argue no, I'd say that glory goes to the Union and Abraham Lincoln, and mass respect paid to the Confederacy is merely for military reasons and the general idea that its a terrible thing that so many human beings died in such a war. Or even the Roman Statues of any variety? Is anyone really glorifying them? If glorification is merely allowing a statue of any kind to remain standing, I personally think that that is a little bit too broad. And if its the case where a statue or memorial has fallen out of relevancy to contemporary national, or international in some cases, interest, then I argue that they should simply be removed and put either in archives or a museum of some kind (likely an archive if that were the case). There's just so many facets to how one can be shown history that I'm loathe to destroy much of it, or any of its monuments or memorials, they can also IMO be re-purposed to a nation's interests. I didn't refuse to engage with your question, your question was one which begat a response which IMO assumed that the Right inherently gets more of a benefit of the doubt than the Left, I argued otherwise and that its situational. "Does the Right have more "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to their actions." Don't fucking berate me just because you gave a question, and a very one-sided question when this question can very easily be asked of both sides of the spectrum, and I chose to delve into an area of it which you side-stepped. And even then, am I wrong to say that the Right has basically gotten ZERO benefit of the doubt on Charlottesville alone? Anyone take any of their grievances seriously? Has any news agency taken any Right-wing grievances seriously before then (Besides maybe FOX if that)? No, they became the fucking laughingstock of Comedies both Leftist and Centrist and not really wrongly so in some regards, there has been pretty much zero national discussion of their talking points (AFAIK) that hasn't been one of derision or condemnation by many different political sides, including the President. Meanwhile, look who ARE doing just that: The Parkland Cult-I mean, shooting victims (I don't begrudge them for their losses, or their desire for change, but I will still say that I think their proposals are foolish and will accomplish nothing towards making the lives of their friends mean a fucking thing, and that all kinds of opportunists have jumped on them). But in direct response, no you don't see 60 people get pulled in for murder because, not all 60 of those individuals had a fucking hand in a murder unless its a Julius Caesar-style killing or mass beating to death. And last I checked, the individual responsible IS in custody, and facing the full force of the law for the crime he committed. Nobody else drove that fucking car but him. One could argue they could have been accomplice, but then you have to prove that a) They planned to murder people (Which last I saw was not proven at all), and b) That they helped this guy do it. (Which also, is not evident) Arson and vandalism, are two different type of crimes from murder. Can you assure me that all of those individuals didn't break, burn, or otherwise vandalize something when we have video evidence of tons of people partaking in such activities as a group during these kinds of incidents where this stuff takes place? (I've seen quite a few incidents like that, rarely is it ONLY "a few windows") I had a recent incident near me where a bunch of people organized over night to bust every window down a business street and trashed the owners' stuff as a "protest" against gentrification. You damn well bet I hope all of those people are caught and charged with vandalism and/or arson, they were all out there, they obviously knew what they were intending to do because all did it in the middle of the night. And let's say there is no direct evidence that they can prove that an individual themselves committed said crime, even if they were in the same group, I wager most of such people can get off without charges in those incidents. (Though I'd wager they'd still be up for unlawful assembly). Are such charges in those situations as you describe them ridiculous? Yes, I would say so and are mostly indicative of an over-reactive police force. But its hardly a universal idea that ONLY the Left suffers unfairly from this in regards to their relation to the law or the law working with them. If the cases you gave were equivalent crimes, I'd be inclined towards agreeing, but currently I don't see that. You cannot just arrest and charge 60 people for murder when you cannot prove they all had a hand in it. You can prove various other things, but not specifically the murder charges on all of them, just like I'm sure the vandalism charges will not stick to all of those people despite the prosecution's efforts. As I said before, the police responses to these incidents in the past even before Charlottesville were crap irrespective of which side did what. They refused to engage in Berkeley and other places where they could have averted public injury or damage. Why? Because often they're told to stand down and let the two sides fight it out or deal with it themselves by the administrations. Charlottesville was no exception, the difference was that someone actually died and they were then forced to step in just to save face. You think its fine for say Antifa and various groups to vandalize a portion of Berkeley's campus, mace people who were there, beat the crap out of some of them, because they so dared to have Milo Yiannopolous show up, and for the police to do fuck all until they basically started to disperse? Or for several months later to avoid a conflict as two different protests met and turned into a brawl, but the police didn't get involved because they were told not to and nobody had any guns on them? Or way back in Toronto many years ago during a G20 Summit, for the cops to do literally fuck all again for one day as they let the Black Bloc run all over the place, bust every window down the business drag, toppled and set fire to various cars and did all kinds of arson but arrested NOBODY. And then completely went into riot mode the next day by detaining anyone and everyone who happened to be in the street regardless of what they were doing and regardless of if they were Black Bloc? (Not to mention all kinds of other stories, many are still suing over that, and not all of them were even Leftist activists) Don't give me this crap that the Right somehow have it always or disproportionately better than the Left when it comes to the fucking police. They don't play favours to anyone unless they're told to by their bosses for their individual situations, which can often go either way depending on where one is. Which was my fucking point! Its all contextual, its all very variable based on the situation. You could have a police department that goes and just arrests everyone as a precaution, and another that literally does fuck-all because they're told not to get involved. IMO, the police in general can do a lot better by simply making it so that they at least form a human barrier between the two protesting groups in such situations. Both can protest whatever the fuck they want, but you do not let them get right next to each other when both vehemently hate each other and have no qualms about injuring the other if they're looking for a fight. So no, I don't think the message is that clear. Especially given the wider context. We spoke of glorification earlier, I don't see those fuckers in Charlottesville, on either side being glorified on any establishment scale. So tell me exactly how are "Nazis" being regarded as acceptable in that respect to the public eye, or its merely your interpretation because anything less than complete and total one-sided condemnation by everyone and anyone is "accepting Nazis"? ----- On Uranium One, if there legitimately was NOTHING to look in to, why would this happen after the article you linked? Sessions is hardly Trump's puppet, he doesn't bend over for everything he commands him to, and he's actually supported laws that not even the President has commented on. http://archive.is/buaoZ Plus Styx at the time IMO gave a fairly compelling reason for why the whole situation warranted further investigation regardless of outcome, that and into Fusion GPS on account of the FISA Memo. Or here, just 2 months ago, apparently FBI informants' testimonies mean fuck-all and instead there's efforts to cover up this revelation on the media? Or here, just a month ago the Democrats exonerate Hillary themselves of any wrong-doing, since apparently they have no bias in the matter, and apparently they needed to address the matter in some way rather than leave it as self-evident. As for the email server stuff, come on. The FBI never even saw the servers themselves anyway, if we're even to trust their interpretations that are nothing but second-hand from a private company that looked into them on the DNC's say-so, how the hell could Comey or any other FBI member say anything with absolute confidence? Almost everyone else of any significance who was involved in the business was at least put up on some kind of charges, or otherwise was fired or removed from their position, just as anyone would be in had it been a private situation. In a private situation, anyone who was associated with a scandal like this would be fired, resign, let go, if not charged. The only reason none of this happened to Clinton was because of her status as a politician and the DNC was not going to do anything to compromise their golden goose if they could avoid it. Its the whole reason they pinned the whole hack on Russia to try and deflect from the fact that Wikileaks got it, and that the content itself was damning in terms of proving that the DNC fucked Bernie like many of his fans thought, among many other things that would look terrible if the public saw it (which all of their supportive media outlets did not cover the contents of it, or in at least one case outright tried to claim it was illegal to view anything put on Wikileaks by the public, but that it wasn't illegal for Media outlets to do so). Assange himself and his associates proved that the leaks did not come from any Russian source, which was literally the whole reason the Russian narrative was even pushed at all, they say that it was a close DNC Staffer, someone like Seth Rich, if not Rich himself since he conveniently got murdered after the whole business happened. Who were the ones who said that it was Russia to begin with? Oh yeah, the CIA and the DNC. Because neither group have ever lied before for political purposes or abused their power for their own agenda or the agendas of those they support. But boy, wouldn't it be amazing for them to be so fucking lenient to Trump, eh? Because that's basically the extent of all I've seen on him in terms of what the initial results turned up. Its like okay, they can pin a lot on Manafort that has no relation to Trump and instead points to a different scandal, and Flynn was only charged with a count of lying to the FBI, but yet the investigation went on and has continued to go on despite no major developments that actually point towards any collusion between Trump and the Russians to effect the election in any way that can be shown. People seem willing to speculate to the moon as to how much power Trump has with his money and extended family, how the hell do you know that the Clinton family didn't exert their own pressure to get the deal through? Nope, two flavours for two different situations, I suppose. They just both happen to be extremely severe in what their implications are, but one apparently can be glossed over as nothing, whereas the other gets mass and critical attention. Oh, so we're holding private citizen deals of a decades long businessman as evidence of foreign interaction which should be held against someone as being compromised? My Gods then, the DNC emails aught to have proven that with regards to the Qatari and Saudis for the Democrats, but nope nothing to see there. Trump dealt with ALL KINDS of foreign nationals in his business. He did business in India, and all of his realty business (to my knowledge) was aimed at rich clientele so I assume many rich Indians were catered to as potential buyers, India is a major mass producer of various goods much like China, you don't see us investigating into Indian interference in the election do you? They'd have a lot of incentive to effect economics to boost their own situations to combat China for economic supremacy in the US markets! No, apparently only the rich Russians have substantial motive to meddle in US politics in favour of anyone in particular. Russian Oligarchs would be the ideal people to cater to for money if you want to get money out of the Russian market, they have the most expendable income out of anyone in the country, and Trump dealt in big business for such types of individuals. This is not a crime, nor do I regard it as anything suspicious for his business. You might as well be investigating into literally every single last country whose nationals his business has ever interacted with if this is supposed to be regarded as suspicious, yet we're not. The mandate is specifically in regards to Russian collusion. Hey, its not like Comey hasn't set a previous record of pulling shit out of his ass that ultimately amounts to nothing. Remember a week prior to the election when he mentioned Hillary was being investigated for a day and then back tracked? Boy, wasn't that an endearing move? I wonder how Comey might have been remembered HAD Obama fired him as pretty much all of the Democrats wanted him to at the time since they pretty much for a while blamed the election loss on him. Really? Who? At the time, the two people originally fingered (Manafort and Flynn) were not regarded as having had any major impact on the election (since both were fired before the campaign was even half-way done, I believe). I understand that the persons have expanded since, but we're talking the ones who originally caused suspicion. And again, Uranium One. The Clintons had DIRECT dealings with Russians in regards to a uranium sale that they got a ton of money off of, according to an FBI informant, yet THAT doesn't warrant a special investigation to iron out every single last strand of evidence, just to make sure? Big donations from members of nations that don't support equal rights in their own nations but apparently just want to give their money to the Clinton Foundation? Knowledge that such figures may very well have supported ISIS because they're Sunni Muslims? Nope, no interference at all there, no reason for special investigation, instead lets push the Muh Russia narrative ever since Wikileaks got ahold of their shit. Well, if we're to use Watergate as a comparison, of which this has been VERY heavily compared to by the MSM and various figures, Watergate didn't take this long (though it did take a while), from the time of the official start of the televised Senate Watergate Committee hearings to when Congress actually moved to impeach Nixon, it was a little over a year. And that one seriously ramped up as to not only what Nixon was doing in his paranoia, but in the caliber and status of the individuals coming forward with their testimony, or simply resigning only building by the months in severity as it became increasingly clear what the truth was. Prior to the official start, they had a already a pretty tangible line of evidence linking the "White House Plumbers" to individuals connected to Nixon simply by Nixon's own actions to try and stop that investigation, and even on one of the "Plumbers" giving a private letter to the Judge saying he perjured some of his testimony under pressure from government officials who weren't CIA. The Vice President of the US resigned on corruption, numerous aides or counsels pleaded guilty to crimes that directly relate to Watergate itself or illegal campaign activites or otherwise gave testimony that directly pointed to Watergate being real in its intent, The Watergate Seven are all indicted and brought forward, and the Republican lieutenant Governor of California gets hit with corruption. All before the move to impeachment. I don't see that happening here. You see a lot of people commenting on Trump's personality and his behaviour in the White House, and leaving for various reasons, but nothing much that's juicy for any Russian collusion story. Not even guys like Comey could give anything damning on the subject. If anything, the whole business has been nothing but a lesser attempt at imitating Watergate to the point where its almost laughable. Most people in the political establishment have no love for Trump, not even his own party, plus the atmosphere is and has been PERFECT to get mass media coverage of your story if you actually had anything damning. If they knew anything, why wouldn't they come forward and earn everlasting glory by being the one who toppled Tonald Drumpf, the tyrant who is literally Hitler reincarnated!? Fear of repercussions? That mysteriously hasn't stopped so many already from speaking out on him on numerous other stuff. What do we have here? At least 4 different false alarms I can recall by the MSM on various testimonials that amount to not that much that was damning. Charges on individuals that reek of desperation to find ANYTHING to charge them for in some cases (Flynn being a prime example). Numerous statements from various Intelligence and Law agencies that all say "Oh we 'know' this happened, but we cannot say how that it happened publicly, or that if it even had any effect on the election if it even did happen.". 13 Russian trolls who'll never be extradited even if they were indicted, with a few hundred thousand dollars in social media ads that were not only aimed to support Trump (Not to mention the fact that again, how the hell is anyone supposed to prove these had any effect at all on people's decisions over anything else? Its an impossible task.) Appointed as a placative gesture to the Democrats who were already saying he was acting like a Tyrant and stuffing his cabinet with people they didn't like. He'll likely do something similar when Ghinsberg keels over on the Supreme Court as a politically pragmatic maneuver. You're wrong, by all indications, they did it on a tip from Mueller, whom apparently is looking into this despite it not being strictly related to the mandate of his investigation. How does Stormy Daniels relate to his investigation into Trump on matters relating to the electoral interference by a foreign state to the point where he'd have any significant information regarding the subject? http://archive.is/E2sxO Hope so, but we'll see how that goes. The MSM certainly doesn't seem to be reminding anyone of that. And no, it does relate to Trump. Who the fuck else would be related to Stormy Daniels' shit at this point that anyone cares about that this shit is even making the news? Just like they know they can get away with lying to the FISA courts to get warrants to spy on anyone they want? Oh yes, I'm sure the FBI knows exactly what it can and cannot get away with, just as it has for decades. You should know this, all things considered. Good luck to them proving it was impossible for them obtain this information through any other less intrusive means than what they did. I know damn well that would be the case, my point was how ridiculously favourable the situation is to a political establishment seeking to impeach a President in this manner, because of course, there is apparently absolutely no wrong that said Special Investigator could possibly do, they cannot totally waste taxpayers' time and money on investigating a crime they cannot even prove had any effect on anything, if it even happened? And the hopes for impeachment rest almost entirely on this investigation's results? Boy, what a great situation for a setup of removing anyone a political establishment wants! You can just put a totally biased Investigator in charge, and if anyone tries to remove them, charge them with obstruction of justice! Because of course any attempt to stop the Grand Inquisitor is a sign of guilt. Had this same shit happened to Obama over his birth certificate crap (it wouldn't, but I'm using a ridiculous example), you'd be saying it was the sign of a totally racist state that was doing everything it could to kick him out. Riddle me this: What does the evidence they have shown tell you? This is a public investigation that has basically had unlimited access, they have to at least present SOMETHING to show that they have credible evidence to continue. Mueller himself came out and said just recently that Trump wasn't even being criminally investigated at the time! So what the fuck is the point of any of this?! We have the 13 Russians who have no connection at all to Trump or his campaign (who'll never be charged or extradited, either), a small amount of money in terms of campaign money used on ads we cannot prove had any effect at all, and a bunch of crimes that are almost all completely unrelated to Trump and the election coupled with confessions that aren't that damning. Looks to me like we have what he sought, and its a fucking dud! Small wonder they're dragging it out and have diverted attention onto Daniels. Or Riddle me this: Why was it that Russia even became a suspect at all (Besides the Classic Anti-Russia history of the US for political purposes)? Oh yes, one campaign led by a certain political opponent and party that was deflecting from their own fucking technical incompetence and who wanted to make the stuff Wikileaks obtained on their emails seem lesser than it was because they knew it clearly showed that among other things, they had totally fucked Bernie Sanders and rigged Hillary in. I'm not saying FOX didn't in their own time, I didn't fucking support it then and I have no love for FOX, and it doesn't make this case any better. But you acting as if there was any equivalent there to what has happened to Trump is being VERY disingenuous. I have never seen a media, cultural, and political campaign against a specific individual to the extent that has been conducted against him in modern times. Yes, and the news is painting everything he does bad because guess what? He pissed off most of the news because they were all arrayed against him from the beginning and continuously lied and took out of context and proportion almost everything he said, and he refuses to play ball with them on account of that, most of them. Why should they give him an inch of credit for anything? Even FOX didn't think he would fucking win the PRIMARIES, and only begrudgingly supported the fact that he did and then jumped on the bandwagon to capitalize on the fact that CNN had become what they were. I wager this will be the truth from now until he is out in regards to most of the MSM's coverage since it has basically been reality so far. Anything that goes well in the US under Trump's terms will NEVER be ascribed to him, even if he himself had a hand in it. Whereas everything that can possibly go wrong will ALWAYS be blamed on him even if he's not even totally to blame, or if its even true. Really? You want to talk diplomacy functionality, at least Trump is actually set to talk to North Korea in an actual face-to-face meeting atm (SOMETHING WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE BILL CLINTON BTW), and didn't have a total fucking embarrassment of a Chinese visit like Obama did on his last time there. IDK, to me, that's a bit more important, especially since everyone thought that such a thing was pretty much impossible in the former's case (myself included, honestly). "much worse in every measurable way." FFS. I may be inclined to over-dramatic language myself, but this is ridiculous. No President is an ace, but he's not the worst of all time yet. Yes, because every single last white, straight man has ALWAYS lived in greatness in America? I hope I don't need to explain THAT fallacy to you. Just like no Black has ever risen to any prominence, no woman has ever risen to any prominence, nobody who isn't strictly that description has ever lived what one could call a "great" life in the US at any point in time? I loved studying the American 60s, if there is one time period in modern history I'd have loved to have gone back to, it would be to the 1960s and participate in the works of MLK Jr. and others, and I know full well what people simply in that decade went through among others, but I am not going not entertain the fiction people are somehow exactly in the same position recently as they were then or that all have lived the same experiences. People live better and worse lives often regardless of their circumstances, and while some various issues need to be addressed that can help make more turn out better than worse, they have existed long before Trump arrived, and are not necessarily issues the Feds can solve in all cases. But you're also looking at that statement in a very specific way that is not necessarily reality. How do you know that is what he meant? Is that truly what he meant? Or what you think he meant because that's what your mind (as did many others) immediately jumped to? When Trump contextualizes the slogan himself, its not in regards to race or sexuality at all, he mostly contextualized it around the fact that America's power and standing had been decaying over the decades due to poor decisions by its leaders. Wars that held no benefit to the US and have only resulted in long drawn out wars that result only in tons of soldiers' deaths, deals that were not in America's favour and hurt American businesses, tons of internal problems that had been ineffectively dealt with by numerous administrations etc. Why would he even mention that Blacks were experiencing higher employment at his address if he's apparently running a return to White Supremacy? Why did he even manage to get such a big portion of the immigrant and even minority votes if his messages were so obviously racial supremacist in nature? Why did he not simply heed to White Supremacists' advice and just totally stack his cabinet with racists and try to revoke the amendment on racial discrimination and just completely revert to openly racist language all the time (Of which the two incidents people claim he did, have not been proven beyond conjecture)? Why didn't he run on such a platform if that was his goal? Why did he even say that he would support LGBT communities at all (Obviously to cater to their vote, but why do it and risk alienating his Republican base?)? Why did he gain significant support among women voters? Why didn't he re-ignite Gay marriage as an issue when that had been a Republican selling point for years!? That topic vanished as soon as he came in and said it was a non-issue! Your problem on that front shouldn't be with him! No, I think you, like many others, misinterpreted what he meant, and were reinforced that meaning by the mass media that all pushed that same message because they all opposed him and have literally made him out to be worse than Hitler by not giving him a single inch on anything, and widely publicizing every single last thing they could dredge up on him and his past. You tell someone a lie long enough, eventually they will accept it as truth, and they've been doing it for a few years on this subject and others. Oh, and another reason this line of thinking doesn't work? His opponent WAS the status quo. You know, the Democrats, the party which were actually the party of slavery in the past, the ones who got all the big corporate money you seem to hate so much, the ones privately who don't care about immigrants besides turning them into a voting bloc that will vote for them in perpetuity, the ones who for years have basically been in charge of dealing with numerous social issues across the urban US and yet mysteriously they only seem to be have gotten worse between them and the standard Republicans running shit. (Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and has been a Democratic stronghold for a long time yet they became the murder capital of the US) AND whom many of its candidates, including Hillary and Obama both in their earlier careers supported traditional marriage customs and only switched when they saw an opportunity to capitalize on the Gay vote and look Progressive when they saw the Republicans would not (Not even the first time either party has done this when they saw an opportunity for votes, why do you think the geographic holds of the Democrats and Republicans switched around the 60s?). That is all this whole political game is today though, regardless of where you are. Who can make the other one look worse? The reality is that all choices often suck, and most of them have no fucking clue on what to do in order to solve anything in any meaningful way without risking political suicide. Considering how quick people were to try and not blame Hillary for Bill's sins, I'd say its fair not to judge Donald for his father's. But we've already gone over this subject before. On his money. He obviously needed to display some economic chops to maintain his wealth and business even if it were handed to him. If he was a total fuck-up, you'd think he wouldn't even have reached this point where he was even maintaining his family's status. There are countless stories both historic and modern of people who're incapable of running something being handed something via inheritance and completely pissing it away or ruining it because they have no clue how to run it. Even for matters that aren't even money-related, how many accounts abound of old nobility who get handed stuff just because they were born into it, yet completely fuck up because they have no capabilities towards sustaining it? By that regard, one can say he obviously must have had some measure of success on his own. I would say his appeal is his off-the-cuff speaking coming from the fact that he's not a career politician, not so much anti-PC language as you put it since by my judgement he hasn't actually come out at all that Anti-PC in terms of initiatives so far. And if it hasn't become clear by now, there is obviously a division as to what is regarded as "PC" depending on where you are, and what your experiences are. And before you say: "Yea, its Straight White Men versus everyone else!" No, your groups are not homogeneous anymore than they are, and even many in those groups disagree with the victimhood mentality, only to be called race-traitors and sex-traitors by the fanatics because apparently to be born or put into one of these groups is to be beholden to a specific political spectrum. My experiences as a GG supporter (for better or worse) have tempered a fair bit of my opinions on these subject since I saw it firsthand. I knew from the start it was ironic that he was basically a member of the financier sector running for office, me and a friend of mine got a lot of laughs out of that when we considered the whole thing to be a complete joke, but one cannot deny that he was the anti-establishment candidate in pretty much every respect compared to Clinton. Self and grass-roots funded, completely opposed by almost all of the establishment media apparatus and most establishment cultural icons, opposed by a huge part of the political establishment (Obama was the first sitting President I can recall who weighed in so much on an election at that time, I don't recall Bush shilling so much for McCain), and had basically every single branch of the establishment oppose him or berate him for pretty much anything and everything every single step of the way regardless of validity. Yeah . . . even though he's a member of the Financier class of politics, I am gonna say he was the anti-establishment candidate simply by how he posed himself as the agent of change. He tapped into the exact same desire for change that Obama did in his own time, one that didn't give them much effective change as they had hoped, so they sought more. A symbol which was manufactured for you to believe in before you had any reason to believe it, and to mentally prime you to ascribe every single last thing he does as a part of that. Anyone who says otherwise could be disregarded as nobody and literally a Nazi or Fascist in disguise. I had no love of Trump becoming President and even now I still stick to the fact that had I been able to vote, I would have abstained out of protest for better candidates, but I could not in good conscience get on the bandwagon with much of the hysterics about him when I saw that most of it was bullshit spun to favour of Clinton or otherwise to widen the partisan divide. Funny, I see the Democrat base in conniption fits and delusions, to the point where the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is not an exaggeration of many of their conditions. The Trump fans, by my judgement, are mostly quietly pleased with current events and don't regret their choice, barring several things and various moments (such as his flip-floping on Guns, Syria, etc). And most of the stuff he has delivered or made progress towards on so far, barring stalls from Congress or the Ninth Circuit. I also love how you're already condemning him as a total failure when he's not even done. I'd wait to see if he gets a second term first. I gave Obama that luxury, and generally don't hate him as a President even if I think he made some bad decisions. Believe me, if the US is ruined by the time he's done, I won't sugar-coat it. But I don't see how anything is categorically worse than anything that wasn't already there and being steadily fed the flames of over the past 10 years by forces even simply beyond political office. The culture war has been brewing for a far longer time than Trump, it just reached a boiling point because they turned the election into another facet of it of the greatest severity. Yea? I'm sick of politics' shit in general, I sick of the partianship and the refusal of ANYONE to compromise on ANYTHING, I'm sick of the media lying to our faces every single fucking day and treating the populace like idiots on so many issues for their own agendas, and I'm tired of being told that we're so great here in The West (by all sides, either for our progressive values or our more patriotic ones) we're the greatest places on Earth when nowhere else on Earth gives a flying fuck about the shit we make arguments about and don't care to make the society we have that's apparently so fantastic, and that we're slowly eroding away at the liberal values that made our nations great for the sake of specific peoples' feelings whilest ignoring the feelings of others! But I gotta talk about it because its literally all our fucking news talks about when its not banal. And things were already going to shit under Bush and Obama. I wouldn't call Trump the Anti-Christ, your political establishment has been on the road to ruin in various respects for a long time, just like many of ours.

By the sounds of things so far, Option 1 seems to be the victor. Unified military strike by the US, France, and UK to hit 3 sites related to Chemical Weapons Research, Storage, and Manufacture in Syria. All and all, I was the one who voted No, I doubted any major operation would take place, and all things considered I'd say this was the "safe" targets to choose without much risk of a full escalation. But it looks and sounds like it'll be a slap on the wrist. A bigger slap on the wrist than last year, to be sure, but one all the same.

I was referring to the video even simply forgoing Sargon's comments, which I thought I stated clearly, but either way. Obviously it depends on the University, not every Professor is a Demagogue, nor is every University an "Activist" University (I should know, I went to one that wasn't much of one). But perhaps what has contributed to that perception is that increasingly, you're seeing Universities become the foundation of Leftist activism (or rather becoming it again), often supported by the institutions, or the Professors themselves in some cases. Its no surprise that the majority of US University students predominantly vote Democrat, which while not being strictly left, tends to claim to promote Progressive ideas lately which are pretty much seen as Leftist. The question also becomes moreso how the institutions present themselves and how do they handle actual intellectual diversity of thought and debate. Its not merely what the Professors or Students say and advocate for, but also how they treat diversity of opinion on the campuses. There have been multiple cases on many universities of situations where Right-wing or Right-leaning speakers have been brigaded, or otherwise stopped from speaking, whereas a Leftist speaker will not encounter such resistance. That perhaps is the bigger contributor to this perception. The fact that many campuses are openly promoting one side while not even providing any kind of defense for the other, when a University should ideally be a place where people of many different political or intellectual viewpoints can debate, discuss, and research into pretty much any subject. Which also goes into the fact that not every topic is "up for discussion", shall we say? Cultural Marxism is an idea, specifically a perspective through which one can view information. It can be fitted, like many ideas into how you teach or analyze subjects, thereby influencing how people think about the subjects no different than any other. An uncritical mind can become indoctrinated through a perspective, if taught in such a manner. Therefore its perfectly possible that it could happen. Is it happening everywhere? No, but one could argue it is certainly happening in various places. Hell, people have argued it. I never said it had happened, if you recall, I said this stuff was proposed and that I had my reservations about the fact that it was even being proposed. The fact that it hasn't happened in many places merely shows that the administrations haven't completely lost their sanity. I don't support the idea of even willful segregation IMO, because how do you know you're not merely promoting the idea of benevolent segregation? It doesn't change my opinion that it is a regression back either. Benevolent or no, these motions are supporting stuff we claimed was bad less than 100 years ago. The Jim Crow supporters would be cheering at how we're validating their segregation viewpoints through voluntary segregation. ----- You asked for different sources, I presented them. I didn't speak for the quality of the Free Press, merely that they proposed different arguments. You claimed you could only find one line of argumentation. Personally, I found Dr. Peterson's arguments to be the best of the lot if you were wanting my opinion. And laws often are based in some manner of science, or that they can go hand-in-hand at times. The reason we no longer have racist laws anymore that have any kind of legitimacy based on biology is specifically thanks to the efforts of science, as well as social activism. Its extremely hard for someone to make the argument now that someone is an inherently different to the point where they're a separate sub-human species, and that's thanks to genetics. And I'm going off topic, but this was merely an example. Purposefully, perhaps. But how many situations are done on purpose, and does the law treat the situation that way, or does it regard ANY instance as a violation? Regardless of merely Trans, people seem content to purposely and casually be impolite to others all the time for so many situations, yet some get special consideration for being protected from impolite language over others? This is going moreso into my Free Speech ideals and philosophy, but I honestly don't see the major legal issue in someone addressing someone else impolitely, which is essentially what this whole thing is. Yes, there is the idea of mutual respect, but the reality is that most people don't approach each other from a setting of mutual respect until that is earned, most cases people approach others they don't know in reserved neutrality, and respect may foster between the two from there or it may not depending on how things go. How do you know our ancestors were not slaves at one point? My heritage is Irish-Scottish. Half of that ethnicity was effectively used as slave labour by the modern British for a time, and both were effectively subjugated by them for centuries prior. The Celtic Culture has been all but entirely destroyed from what it was between invaders and cultural conversion and arguably Cultural Genocide for centuries, what remains of the language is slowly dying, and many Celts were slaves in the ancient past to various ancient powers (and each other, but then such was reality at the time). My point being that if you want to make this argument, kiss all of history prior to the modern day goodbye, hell even the modern day, arguably. Or are we going to go into cultural relativist arguments and say that the destruction of some cultures is apparently more important to take into account as to who has more of say on these matters than others, or that there is a hierarchy of the oppressed of the past? All of it can be described as "a darker chapter in our history" compared to now, if one were to argue it. Ultimately, people can do whatever the fuck they want, I have no power over them and don't really care, I just have personal reservations on the idea and don't like seeing history get destroyed. ----- I didn't deny that, I merely made a remark on who arguably is driving PC culture at any given time, predominantly, and the fact that it shifts. Criticism is one thing, going so far as to charge people over very particular jokes when tons of comedians have made jokes on the subject before is another. John Cleese himself has said that if Monty Python's skits were filmed today, him and the whole gang would likely be arrested, which is a fucking farce to me. That's a very specific view of comedy, a subject which is often in the eye of the beholder and morphs constantly with time. Comedians, some of the greatest IMO, have no problems in saying jokes that may come across as offensive to various people. Why? Because of various reasons. Mel Brooks made jokes, or was willing to make jokes in his films about everything except pedophilia and the death camps of Nazi Germany (If I recall correctly), but he made tons of jokes on Hitler and his Nazis because he wanted people to think they were foolish and to turn a negative subject into a positive one ultimately. He believed we needed to be able to laugh at pretty much anything, and so he made jokes about everything he personally felt comfortable joking about, and didn't discourage others. This guy joked about his own peoples' suffering under the Spanish Inquisition, among many other culturally offensive jokes in History of the World Part 1 alone. George Carlin was quite Left-leaning, used all kinds of filthy language in his routines and touched on all kinds of otherwise politically incorrect subjects because he a) Wanted to show that the words themselves are nothing but words, b) He wanted to get people out of the mindset of political correctness, and c) He wanted his audience to think as they were laughing.. He also flat-out didn't give a shit, but he'd been doing that since the 60s when he grew up. Russell Peters' entire act is mostly race, cultural, and ethnicity jokes, and he gets sold out crowds everywhere he goes. Probably helps that he's an Indian man born in Canada, but the fact remains he goes through the full monty in his acts, he hardly leaves any part of the world untouched, and one of the major points he emphasizes is that everyone's racist to some extent and white people don't have a monopoly on it at all. Not every comedian needs to do those things at all, but I prefer variety over control when it comes to art, which means that likely some comedians will be offensive. ----- As for your question, here is the short answer I'll give: Very difficult to gauge, very situational, and ultimately very personal. People on the Left and Right or who favour one side or another will obviously not put their side under more scrutiny unless they have a specific reason for doing so. It also depends on where you are, who we're talking about in terms of who is supposed to be scrutinizing who, and what exactly happened. My conclusion? I would say that the Left gets a BIG free pass from a large part of the MSM. Fox and Breitbart are the exceptions, and the former is dying due to internal scandal and dying cable news, and the latter is nowhere near as popular to actually be any kind of replacement. But I can list TONS of Left-favouring outlets both great and small. CNN, CBC, MSNBC, BBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Vice Media, Huffington Post, Wired, Jezebel, Teen Vogue, and I'm probably forgetting a bunch of others but those are the ones that popped into my head. There are no where near enough Conservative alternatives with anywhere near as big of an audience to be actual competitors to many of these outlets, and even then its up in the air to whether or not they are actually "Conservative" in any true sense and not merely Neo-Cons. How many actual Right-Wingers do you see being chatted with on many of these outlets? Not many, and most get belittled or pushed around on them for their opinions, magically get cut off, or otherwise get stacked in panels that mostly have Leftists or Left-leaning individuals on them. Since there are far more of them that are undeniably far popular, I very much put this in the Left's favour. Publicly? Divides on who gives a free pass where and what they know. Law Enforcement? Similarly, it depends on where you are. Politically? Changes like the tides. Long response, where I'll demonstrate this: I'd say that's a very interesting way to analyze the situation when the reality of Charlottesville I saw from the footage was the one arguably intentional death and set of injuries was caused by a mentally instable individual in his car after said opposing protestors surrounded it and started hitting on it. I'm not dismissing his actions, he is AFAIK being charged within the full extent of the law and should pay for his crime. But its all the more interesting when said police in Charlottesville were told to stand down until said person was killed, even though they had to have been aware that in previous situations where incidents like there had occurred, the likely scenario was that there would be people fighting each other in the fucking streets. A lot of things went wrong in Charlottesville, the biggest blame I place is on the law enforcement who according to you, apparently served an order ruling it an unlawful assembly, yet where the fuck were they to enforce it before someone got fucking killed? They had every reason to suspect that the situation would get violent, yet where were they? Nowhere until someone got fucking killed. Same situation happened in Berkeley months prior, the only difference was that nobody got killed, so the police had no impetus to step in and thus simply abide by their orders to stand back. People (Specifically people who don't like the Dems) are making a big deal out of Clinton's email server because there was basically no investigation at all around it that wasn't swiftly dropped, or into Uranium One, or basically any scandal that Hillary may have been involved with at all, no matter how severe it looks. I ask you, WTF is happening to Trump right now? Oh yeah, A FEDERAL LEVEL INVESTIGATION, one which has moved pretty much without any serious opposition ever since it started. I'm sorry, but how the hell has Trump not been under a fucking microscope ever since he even started running for the office? This motherfucker cannot eat two scoops of ice cream without being put under scrutiny by the most popular sources of information in the world. There's evidence to suggest that he had been wiretapped, he'd been spied upon (both of which haven't led to any further investigations that I know of ATM), and his past has been dredged through as thoroughly if not far more publicly than Clinton's ever was. If anyone, blame the fucking MSM! These fucking morons have run the Trump-hate-train 24/7 non stop since the election, small wonder more and more people are tuning out. Its the boy who cried wolf. Meanwhile Mueller is pulling a fucking witch-hunt and violating attorney-client privilege because he has literally fuck-all on Trump after nearly 2 years solid of investigating, and is desperate to find anything for an impeachment. They raid his former attorney's house over a tenuous link that Stormy Daniels may have been paid off and it might be a fraud case (Boy, how the hell does this relate to Russian collusion tampering in the election in Trump's favour? The purpose of the whole investigation at all, might I add?), yet the FBI apparently didn't raid the Clintons' attorneys over any of the far more visible links between them and various other scandals? Guess what I don't see a lot of people being pissed off over? The fact that attorney-client privilege just got violated by a federal investigation that has completely overstepped its bounds and gone beyond its original mandate in the pursuit of anything they can pin to this guy they so desperately want out of office that they hope nobody notices that the investigation has completely forgone its original mandate. If a President cannot do shit about it, what the hell is an average citizen supposed to do if faced with a similar situation? The only reason Mueller likely don't be fired over this is because to do so would result in harpies crying out: "Obstruction of justice!" and handing them the fucking impeachment charges on a platter because apparently this is a sacrosanct investigation mandated by God that can go on for eternity until something is found. Over-dramatic language, yes, but frankly that's how ridiculous this whole business looks to me. Point here? I think besides what I posted, the evidence can be seen in the chat here. We all have our own opinions on what matters more and what deserves more scrutiny. From my perspective, the Media heavily favours the Left and its interpretations, while not sparing much for the Right, or the perceived opponents of the Left. Everyone else? Depends on where you are, and who you ask. The stats seem to suggest the same as well, from my understanding.

The Scottish Court ruling regarding Count Dankula was completely ridiculous. For multiple reasons. First off, I don't understand why the hell it took them so damn long just to reach a verdict. Its a fairly cut and dry situation legally. The situation did not involve any potential type of offensive abuse against any specific individual besides Markus' girlfriend and she wasn't the subject of the Prosecution so it wasn't like some mass sexual assault case where they had 300 witnesses to go through, and the content in question was a singular video that isn't even that long. What the hell was there to drag this out for pretty much as long as he'd serve a sentence for if convicted? Regardless, it made me basically realize that Scotland or the UK must not have any laws regarding Court lengths, over here in Canada, you actually cannot drag a case on forever because the laws grant the accused double the amount of time spent in court deliberations taken off of their sentences specifically to avoid these kinds of situations where an accused can spend years in court proceedings for no good reason. I thought it was a complete joke that the Crown Prosecutor was essentially allowed to turn the whole thing into a stage performance that ran way longer than it had any reason to do so, just because they wanted a fucking show trial. Second was the idea that "context does not matter" or that "context is decided upon by the court", while not necessarily untrue in principle in that courts ultimately decide what the truth of the situation is, I find it an extremely odd situation wherein a Court can literally just choose to ignore a person's profession or life if they so choose merely to say "No, this is obviously a crime, irrespective of circumstance" when the reality is that this is not the case. Comedians, many of them British or are available to be viewed in Britain, have been making Nazi-related jokes, spoofs, satires, imitations for mockery, or otherwise some variety of comedic routine for decades. Arguably ever since the Second World War, I'd wager, if one were to go back that far. Like in America, the fact that the Three Stooges during wartime had Moe dress up as Hitler and Larry and Curly dress up as other Nazi figures or even more offensive Japanese portrayals as part of their routines was a common thing then for war time positive propaganda purposes, they were not idolizing these figures, they were mocking them. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that Britain had equivalents of their own. No, context does matter when it comes to comedy. A fair number of comedians have actually spoken in favour of Dankula during the proceedings, saying how its a bad precedent to punish him over what was joke. Its all the more odd when Dankula has no prior history of any kind of incident where he was inciting hatred for any particular group, nor do his former political leanings or current ones lend themselves towards the narrative the prosecution was spinning as to WHO they claimed he was acting on behalf of, or trying to stir up. But nope, context doesn't matter, apparently, and now you cannot make jokes in the UK because the Government and its courts might arbitrarily decide that context does not matter in any situation it so chooses, and that you're breaking the law because they simply decide to ignore the fact that you said something as a joke, or for whatever reason you may have had. Doesn't matter the intent, apparently, they decide it all for you. Not only that, but you might also serve jail time for it! Totally ludicrous precedent in regards to speech laws. They've basically given carte blanche for the courts to ignore context on any matter it so deems to be considered offensive at any point in time.

I'm gonna forgo actually quoting you just to save space, dash. Well for the first few, I believe Sargon ran a video on it specifically, linking a CNN interview segment and various other sources feel free to look them up, with a couple of Professors who had been caught in such incidents. Their response was pathetic, IMO. Forgoing even Sargon's comments on the matter, I cannot understand what the hell these Profs are thinking in their reasons why they said what they said. The first claims it was satire. Oh yea, that's totally satire when they provide no frame of reference for what they're satirizing at all and give no hint that you're writing is satire either. Its already difficult enough on internet chat forums to discern trolling at times, one often has to be literal if they want their intent to come across clearly. Or "start a conversation" on this topic? FFS YOU DID THIS ON TWITTER! The one public forum where above all others, its perhaps the most difficult to have any kind of intelligent conversation because you're limited to how much you can write. How much of an intelligent conversation are you supposed to have when each post you write is limited to a small number of characters? Blitz intelligentsia conversations maybe, but nothing the general public can thoroughly engage in. No, he did this to be provocative, and is playing dumb, I wager. More to the point, what "intelligent conversation" would you even have on this topic? Supposedly all forms of Genocide provocation are bad, if not outright crimes in various countries, so what's the conversation to be had here if its not about the subject matter? "Oh, let's have a conversation about these edgy people who post this crap to get a rise out of people online?" Discussing why people might be prone towards posting edgy or provocative stuff might be an interesting psycho-analysis depending on how it was done, but that's not this Prof's area of expertise, so I doubt that's the conversation he'd be having. Second guy, very tasteless. Even if we go out on a limb and say he wasn't actively supporting the fact that some people got shot for their political party affiliation, this is ridiculously bad behaviour for a Professor to do in the wake of a shooting. You don't do crap like that unless you're either trying to be provocative and don't give a fuck about backlash, Plus his reasoning could literally be applied to any Racist who desires racial genocide on Earth, or heck, even just any kind of homicidal individual who thinks a certain group of people aught to be killed, and it would work with them. I have seen BLM chapters caught on film chanting for dead cops (I linked a couple from Sargon among others previously, regardless of his comments, I have little reason to doubt the footage clips), the POC-only spaces have mostly been argued by various campus groups on different Unis. And while I cannot find the links easily, I do have various instances I can list. -Oberlin University, where its student radicals issued a list of demands which included removing tenure from some Profs and giving it to others merely on the basis of being black, and creating POC-only spaces among other things. -Cal State University in LA offering segregated student Housing as a progressive initiative. -NYC, a University there had people demanding POC-only spaces just recently. -American University (Washington, I believe), protested for not only a POC only space, not only did they get their own time in the cafeteria separate from White students, they also protested for free extensions on all of their exam times and no risk of penalization for missing ANY of their exams among other things. ----- Lots of different groups pushed. Here is Dr. Peterson's copy of a section of the Senate Hearing on the issue with both he and the lawyer Jared Brown witnessing, its a full hour, so be warned, but I find it to be quite illuminating: Here's an article detailing about four or five other criticisms of its content in different respects: https://canadafreepress.com/article/canadas-bill-c-16-transgenderism-and-the-loss-of-common-sense Different section of the Senate Hearings, this is a Megan Murphy giving a Feminist critique of C 16, mostly on grounds that oppose the idea of Transgenderism: (I don't necessarily agree with her views, but I can appreciate her consistency within the speech) But as you said, we have no real stats on the situation. And even if that is the case, genocide would still be an exaggeration. Yes, but I'd say there is a difference between misgendering someone, and using a racial slur. A racial slur is an obvious insult. Not calling someone by their chosen pronoun is different, IMO. Yes, it indicates a lack of respect towards an individual, and potentially harassment if one goes out of their way to constantly do it, but its a different situation if say a person has no way of knowing what a specific person's pronouns are and misuse (apparently) causes some individuals mental trauma, and that even a single instance of misgendering can be treated as a crime. Dr. Peterson also discusses the idea of compelled language and how it doesn't necessarily resolve this issue of harassment in this kind of situation anyway, in fact it could just promote more harassment out of defiance. But that's what he views. ----- Possibly, though personally I'd make the argument that such a manner of thinking is an illusion, in many cases, or is merely utilized for political advantage. I'd look for non-party candidates for any genuine desire for that, IMO by and large. My province has been run by a Lesbian Premier for years, if there's one thing I've learned its that such a person can totally fuck up running a province as any other joker in politics. Funnily its been the recent years where a lot of problems have been coming forward in some of those communities. Then again, such could be the case merely by having someone of such an identity in power. Well, if everyone voted practically, lots of things in politics would be different, it would also change how the parties try to cater to voters. ----- Maybe so, and I don't disdain your preference. I just know to many others, even within your own wider community, it doesn't matter to them as much. I know quite a few who'd rather not get the attention, and merely have people not take it as a big deal so that they can just live normal lives. IMO, it'd be a healthier outlook for everyone in general, not even just of any particular group but everyone, to not be as fixated on such arbitrary concepts of identity. Its IMO the exact way of thinking which lead to the creation of ideas like racial hierarchies, or even just divisions of identity to begin with. Its a pipe-dream of course, but I'd think it'd actually go towards solving a lot of these problems faster than many other approaches. Holding one identity up on a pedestal accomplishes little except to shift the problem (hence why I don't call Black Panther a "diverse" film, for example). I reached the conclusion after finding group identity to be unfulfilling in that they have little nuance to be practical when put into policy, and individual identity to be an illusion. We aren't individuals in any respect. From our names, to our clothes, to our hairstyles, to who we chose to fuck, to what we like to eat, to what we enjoy watching/reading/playing, and often not even in our viewpoints (What is a truly unique viewpoint anymore, eh? Arguably, this one isn't either.). Very nihilistic perhaps, but to me it rings quite true of reality. I'd argue the average person in general has no real responsibility for the lingering effects of any government (on any level) or business policies. Why? Because the vast majority of people have 0 power over the situation by virtue of not being in government or control of a business. Most people are not policy makers, hell, most people don't even have any power to vote on them. And even fewer people have any power over companies. If anyone is to blame, its them, since they're the ones who ultimately make the choices and the arguments and present them to the public. The only power the general public have in that scenario is the threat of public opinion and protest, but in my viewing, most protests fail (especially up here in Canada). I loved studying the American 1960s and I won't deny that some protests are far more effective than others, but ultimately you're not talking about any great deal of power compared to lobbyists or even the effects of counter-protests depending on the issue. That public power only exists by making people care, as well. Which unless its a really serious matter that they can relate to, most people honestly won't care. Everyone has their own problems, and don't necessarily want to take up the burdens of others. Just look at the recent March For Our Lives protests. Yes, the media is making a big deal out of them being some of the biggest protests since the 60s, but there's also the factors they're not telling everyone. NRA membership and funds I believe tripled following the events, and an enormous number of people across the US DIDN'T join them. For one reason or another. Now, that general apathy may very well be not what our predecessors envisioned for democratic government, but its the reality we live in. You have a hard enough time getting anyone interested in voting for what they can vote for, let alone protest genuinely and effectively. ----- Just as a minor caveat to the Class identity I have, while we agree on it. I have become a bit more skeptic of class talking points like the often toted out "1%ers" even though in reality that's a colloquialism and the actual number of people is much higher and often a bit more varied than people think and therefore I see it as potentially proven to overzealousness as any other. Otherwise, again, I don't have much issue on it. ----- IDK though, because think about the 90s. I'm not gonna paint them as some great time where no discrimination happened at all, you can see that it happened a lot, especially in urban centers where you had big divides, but how often did it come up as a talking point compared to now? I honestly couldn't tell you, but a lot of people I know who lived and were aware during that time didn't notice it as much, you never really saw it as a major social issue even if it wasn't eradicated. You saw in the decades preceding them, a lot of talk about the issues, but then they kinda fade a bit from popular discussion, until they get revived later here in the 2000s to the present. There's a difference between the issues disappearing and whether or not they flare up again as issues. Think of it like diseases. You don't see much talk about them until a major incident happens or otherwise some major development that draws people's attention. The lack of conversation doesn't mean that its gone, but that its vanished from public sight as a major or prevalent issue. Various issues in society can basically vanish from public eyes for a long time before resurfacing based on various circumstances. Police brutality, especially racially motivated incidents of such, have existed for a long time as well, but they only flare up at various instances, such as with Rodney King. So when I say the Left "revived" race issues, that's partially what I mean. But I mean generally that the Left revived identity politics, and in so doing, race issues as well. Because identity politics is a double-edged sword, you cannot promote one singular identity without having others question why theirs are not also being represented or upheld. This is IMO why we see rise in White Nationalism among many other groups over the past few years, its gotten to the point where they're being encouraged to think in racist mindsets because all people are seeing is tons of activists thinking in what they regard to be as racist mindsets. The division of the Humanist Movement along identitarian lines IMO is the biggest sign of this. The fact that they no longer saw it as prudent to simply have a humanist movement, they had to emphasize half a dozen other areas of identity as splinter movements, because apparently its discriminatory or ignores people by simply asking that all people regard themselves as simply human, and not focus on the other aspects of identity. The talks of "privilege" and "intersectionality" are both very recent developments as well in terms of talking points, even if they may be evolutions off of earlier ideas. And in some cases they've gone way too far with them to the point where they flare up tensions themselves, and hence create issues. I just saw yesterday that apparently there's a new push among some groups about the idea of "Christian Privilege" as an idea, which not only kinda goes against the idea of privilege as I thought had been established where it mostly involved factors that one had no control over (since religious affiliation is ultimately a personal choice), but also comes across as very "First World Problems" kind of material. To complain about Christian Privilege in a society that while being Christian in origin, is mostly secularized, IMO makes no sense. Especially when there exist all over the world instances where being a Christian is not a privileged position at all, yet you don't see this discussion going on anywhere else for other groups. Which is IMO what is a cause of these problems. People see through the fact that many on the Left have no principles (granted they also see the same on the Right in their own times), but rather only care about "their own habitat" so to speak, and they get pissed off when these groups act self-righteous about their causes and incite protest over these very particular issues while appearing not to care about others that are arguably far more pressing in other places. It creates an appearance of a very self-centered Left. The traditional Right largely makes no illusion about being self-centered in terms of it usually being more local or national in its aims, but because the Left tend to argue for more issues of far more expansive natures that go beyond the mere locality or nation in terms of actually truly solving them, it can create a weird disconnect wherein they pick and choose which issues they care about, in which instances. Criticism of Christianity versus Criticism of Islam is arguably a topic where this has occurred. The reality should be that the Left criticizes all Religions equally and promotes secularization (since that's basically the whole reason why the modern Left's principles exist at all), yet you see Leftist politicians who refuse to criticize Saudi Arabia, who refuse admit that perhaps at least some aspects of the culture contribute toward various specific issues, etc. Yet there's no such hesitancy for criticizing Christians of any variety. People can criticize the Pope all they want, he's even apparently taken to promoting many Left-leaning ideas irrespective of doctrine (not that that is a bad thing, but its very noticeable, even to myself not being a Catholic or Christian). Another topic this has occurred with is Imperialism. China has, for all intents and purposes, become a new economic imperialist in terms of what it is doing in various African nations alone, yet you don't really see much criticism of them by Leftists, whenever you see Imperialism talked about, most cases they're referring to past European Imperialism, or slightly more modern American and maybe Soviet varieties. Even though the most pressing issues of the matter right now are arguably being done by China under everyone's noses. Or Conservationism, now admittedly this is often very issue-specific when it comes to activists, so I'll limit myself to merely the politicians. Even Environmentalist-favouring politicians pick and choose what issues to tackle rather than try and resolve as many as they can. Sometimes ignoring even ones you'd think would be very simple. Like the pacific garbage patch. How the hell has that thing NOT been resolved by even just the UN at this point? They've known about it for a long time, they constantly harangue over environmental issues and its obviously a very visibly bad thing, yet where's the action been on it? Basically nothing. They cannot even blame the US on that one, apparently most of the junk comes from East Asia. Its another consequence of living in a world that is far more globally connected than ever before. People cannot really get away from the fact that there are arguably far more pressing issues to attend to elsewhere in terms of needing urgent action. Basically, it creates a situation where people come to resent the modern Left because they look like hypocrites even if they may be opposing hypocrites, and people think they're no better, and at times fan the flames of issues that ultimately look petty, look differently when analyzed, or don't matter. Conservatives do this as well, the last UK election is evidence of that where Theresa or her party obviously thought it was a bright idea to alienate big parts of the population for no reason by trying to cram every Conservative agenda they could think of in their manifesto, regardless of relevance or political motive, small wonder they didn't gain a fucking thing. Styx has pointed it out as well. He noticed how back during the Bush era, when he still called himself a Leftist, you had all kinds of people being anti-war when Bush went into Iraq, yet immediately seemed to forget their own viewpoints when Obama became president and started authorizing drone strikes that caused many civilian deaths in places like Yemen or other nations, plus starting a few of proxy wars. He also noticed the same among Neo-Cons in reverse, its why he didn't flip right either. In this way, they arguably create their own opposition, as people who otherwise would not be opposed or even have any stake in the game, get drawn in. Which IMO is what the Left has been doing on many issues recently, followed behind by the Right. ----- Even if that was the intent, how the hell was that message supposed to stick in the 60s? The Confederacy lost quite handily a long time ago, the Union won. The only reason it would have been the case would be due to lack of Federal enforcement of its own laws (which was the case at the time of the 1960s). In which case that's a fault of the government, not necessarily the monuments. More to the point why tear them down now? Seems 40-50 years too late IMO and just a feel-good exercise that doesn't really do much for anyone in reality. "Oh yea, you tore down a statue of a centuries dead guy whose beliefs they may or may not have held have almost no resemblance to what our modern society holds. Good job." Tearing them down while there was still major opposition to blacks having the vote? I can see that. Now? What's the point? Regardless, I always cringe when I see stuff like that. ----- Ah, but that depends on the Feminist you ask. Many older Feminists disagree with their younger counterparts. Still, could it not be argued that the one is, in some regards, undoing the work the other did? I'd say it could. I'll also refer again to the Meghan Murphy link. ----- Still doesn't make sense why it would basically vanish from cable, it would explain a drop, but not complete vanishing. You can find all kinds of entertainment on the internet, yet you haven't seen all of those vanish from cable yet have you? You would think that at least some of them would persist, yet they don't. But that's only one example. Yeah, and now you see different things being regarded as politically incorrect compared to the 50s and 60s. There are a bunch of cartoons from the 90s alone I wager you'd never be able to show today without getting a flood of complaints, stuff that kids would watch barely 15-20 years ago. It changes because of who is charge of political correctness. Nobody denies that. I don't like the Right doing it anymore than the Left, yet ironically, you often see overlap between the two in their views on the subject. Both don't like over-sexualization of women albeit for different reasons, both don't like the use of filthy language (be it swearing or slurs for any reason), both don't approve of various drug usage (though that varies as to which they disapprove of and often changes with time), both have problems with various violent content, and both have their own sacred cows in terms of stuff they won't show or won't approve of being shown. They also both care about Halloween costumes, going to outrageous lengths for the sake of their political correctness. I'm talking about PC Culture in general, and the fact that primarily now the Left is currently in charge of it, at least in NA. That will obviously change in time as it always has, but right now, here, I'd very much say the ball is in the court of the Left. The fact that many different comedians have commented on the fact in the last few years that they simply refuse to go to many college or University campuses anymore because the student bodies cannot take jokes of different kinds they use is another hint towards this. I haven't played Far Cry 5 yet, so I cannot comment on specifics. I just know that in general, the Far Cry games have mostly been out to entertain and in some cases make over the top characters and stories more so than make any grand political statements, so I'm not surprised. I also wouldn't even say that that instance is necessarily political correctness, because is it right now politically correct to do such a thing? Last I checked, the supposed fear of offending Far-Right groups hasn't stopped most MSM outlets from repeatedly lambasting them for the past few years, it hasn't stopped all kinds of comedians and comedic routines from blowing all kinds of their issues or groups way out proportion, or it hasn't made Hollywood suddenly become worried about offending such people (Hell, they often openly provoke such people). The only way that works is if Ubisoft assumes that most of their audience is right-wing, and far-right at that. I don't think so. I think most people were apolitical, and didn't want to be beat over the end with a modern political narrative in their Far Cry game. They already got a lot of backlash early on because people thought they were capitalizing on Trump being president (The number of hack articles speculating about the game's content in the time prior to release and how its a "Glimpse into Trump's America" were outrageous), and they were fed up with hearing about modern politics 24/7 by what was literally almost everyone. Which that's a question, is catering towards a mostly apolitical audience, or at least an audience that desires some form of escapism from modern politics, necessarily a form of political correctness? IDK, I'll just leave it at that.

@kraken Don't give me this crap when you're saying I'm apparently forgetting what you said previously. If I recall, I left a whole damn page of sources of my opinions on various subjects after I got fed up with being told I have no fucking sources, and I had listed some of my various sources on subjects before as general statements. You're also still not getting my point. My point was on the hyperbole you spouted about black versus white crime and how apparently "everyone" views it, THAT is hyperbole and a colloquialism you provided, it was not your views on gun control specifically I was questioning. ----- Doesn't change the fact that the numbers are all down, and since its the DoJ and FBI's stats, I'm going to go out on a limb and say most of it is crime stats. US population is also much different in size compared to many other countries. Not everyone of them is necessarily a good comparison. Plus, different cultures, different punishments, etc. IMO the major factor in the prison population and justice system would be the likelihood of a criminal committing the same offenses again because the justice system is failing in its job. And if people are in jail for crimes that shouldn't necessitate jail time. Who knows? You're asking rhetorical questions that you yourself don't have the answers to. How the fuck do you know if that's the case? Your question is almost impossible to get any kind of accurate statistics for. Do you disagree that violent felons shouldn't be locked up? Maybe the spike went up because more people started reporting more crimes? Maybe certain states lowered the bars for incarceration for various crimes? (I know that happened under certain Presidencies and State Administrations) There's a lot of maybes and what ifs, I'm concerned with the data and what it shows, in relation to these arguments for gun control, not necessarily on other matters. ----- Eh . . . I'm on the fence on Universal Basic Income. Even though in my own country I'd love to have it since I make basically poverty-level income even with a full-time hour job. On the one hand, I approve of the idea of a country giving you a wage simply for being a citizen, if we're to believe that government is as Rousseau argued it should be, they aught to do this if they're not going to give totally free social services in exchange for our taxes. And I don't have any problem with welfare as an idea (though I will admit, I'd prefer less people be on it as possible). The classic fear has always been that if you just hand people money, they'll not do much good with it in order to build their status. Despite the video, I already have a lot of first-hand knowledge of this being true for at least a fair number of individuals I personally know. Doesn't matter how much money you give someone, if they don't know HOW to spend it in order to better their position to actually make more, they're never going to get out of their situation, it'll just be a question of how quickly they hit bottom. That's not to say I think that all who are poor don't inherently know how to handle money, I know plenty who do and just make some bad decisions or have a run of bad luck, but that the idea that some people cannot just be trusted with a lump sum at any rate isn't entirely unfounded. Hell, its the reason the idea of loans was invented, arguably, you give someone money, but you give it to them under the assumption that they'll make more in a set amount of time that you both agree upon, you don't just hand it out to them. But the real reason I don't like the idea of the government paying for you to live (which is essentially what this is), because that basically means you're guaranteed to reach a point where if the government's finances collapse for any reason, you're screwed. Because the whole idea of the basic income is to supplement an existing income, but if you could exist on the existing income, the basic one wouldn't be necessary, hence why you'd be screwed if the basic income collapses (at least in regards to all of the people this would benefit most to get above the poverty line, of course). If there is one thing I have learned about governments, its that I don't necessarily trust them to be good with money. In fact in most cases that don't involve a Financial Conservative (who's likely to cut social programs anyway) or a Business-oriented person governing the financial situation, I can fairly safely wager that money will be wasted and the government will be driven into debt, and since we're talking governments, they have the capacity to waste money in exorbitant amounts on stuff that will not make them much in return, doesn't matter who is in charge, necessarily. Its also an enormous expenditure when you factor in that many western countries have enormous government debt already. Most cannot afford to give you free social services of all kinds to begin with, why would they be able to give everyone a Universal Basic Income? You'd need such radical economic reform to even make all of this viable that I'm unsure as to whether or not it could be done in a decent manner, especially in a time of economic instability. I'm doubtful that in many countries you'd even get the unanimous support to do a total overhaul of the economic system and welfare systems in this manner, simply out of fear that it totally flops. Taxing the rich isn't really a solution to this either, because raising their taxes to extremely high amounts only gives them incentive for one thing: Move (themselves, or just their money). Because what incentive do they have to stick around? Pay enormous taxes to have the privilege of living in a particular country? We're talking about people who could theoretically buy anything they want. You could very easily end up in a situation where some nations trying to out-compete economically could just undercut everyone by simply offering to be a tax haven for the rich at a more decent rate than the taxes they'd have to pay anyway. The Rich move themselves or their money to these places, those places all get a cut, and the original nation is left with less major sources of tax revenue. Its why so many corporations have their HQs in places like China, for instance. And the Rich have the most mobility to move and take all of their assets with them out of all of the social classes. Its why I don't necessarily agree with just vastly increasing taxes on the upper echelons of society as a cure-all, if they know they can get a better deal elsewhere and they have the power to do so, you bet your ass they're going to move. Its not even always malevolent in their intent, why should someone who worked to earn their fortune be picking up the bill of the government because of poor economic decisions that cause inflation and unemployment to run out of control? Human decency? Its the governments' job (arguably) to look after the well-being of its citizens in all respects, not every citizen to every other citizen necessarily. But ultimately, that is the real issue here as to why its being discussed, besides jobs. Its inflation. Everything is steadily becoming more expensive, and less people can afford to pay for stuff even with jobs that would otherwise be half-decent. A UBI is essentially just a band-aid solution to this problem. Because unless it addresses inflation, its only a matter of time before you'd need to raise the UBI more to compensate. On the jobs end, I'm more worried about increasing automation and the fact that its going to drive prices insane over time while simultaneously un-employing A LOT of people, and make us all question the value of human labour. It'll be the new Industrial Revolution of our era, and it'll be curious to figure out how it will go. I'd also argue the real solution for capitalism would be massive expansion into space via colonization and big industry out there, but that's just me. Make the ceiling to expand virtually infinite so that we cannot feasibly hit it. But that's still a long ways off.

The Red Strings Club Pretty good, but ending was kinda lackluster. I didn't appreciate the contemporary political condescension of one specific bit, but I enjoyed the game nonetheless for the 4 hours you're likely to get on a first play though. Would recommend on sale.

Well I'm obviously behind, time to try and catch up. Again, dash first, then I'll get to kraken. Admittedly, "everything" may be a fair bit of an over-exaggeration, but I've certainly seen enough hacks and activists or speakers of various descriptions to say it is a prevalent thing that isn't really being challenged by anyone but people on the right, or centrists. I see some that, I've heard that argument made a lot up here in Canada for why various laws are changing, personally. And while I don't begrudge that idea if it is the case, it doesn't change the fact that quite a few people are going way too damn far with it. When I see University Profs of various places, not to many, but some, actually openly calling for White Genocide, or basically applauding the shooting of Republican Senators, I question if mere equalization is truly their goal. When I see BLM or many other groups arguing FOR racial segregation of laws and spaces, I wonder where the hell did Civil Rights go? It was 60 years ago they were arguing for no racially segregated spaces at all, now modern activists in many places are demanding POC-only spaces, social clubs, events, or what have you. Its a regression back, and its being argued on the basis of social justice. I also don't like BLM because they sparked the trend of dividing up basically every single movement along identity lines. I understood why they did it, but it doesn't mean I agree with their strategy. IMO nothing would come of it except perpetuating identity divides. But that's just stuff I've seen that makes me question the situations. On the more argumentative basis as to changing laws for such reasons, I can understand that and don't disagree, but my counter would be that in many cases it is not a discussion that is taking place (At least up here in Canada), it is a bowing to anything that makes the government look good and progressive without much care for analysis of the situations. Dr. Jordan Peterson's experiences up here in regards to Transgenderism, terms around them, language and pronouns is a prime example of this. If I recall correctly, one of the arguments used to push the provincial law making it illegal to say improper pronouns to a Trans individual was basically that: "Trans individuals are undergoing a Genocide here in Canada." To which I scratched my head and wondered what reality they were living in? Because while laws and the situation may not be entirely supportive of Trans lifestyles, I would very deeply struggle to call the situation a "Genocide". But no, they wanted to use dramatic language and emotional appeals to get the laws changed, and it worked. There's also the utilitarian argument, and how much a government should cater towards a minority bloc within its country, but I'm not going too far into that since it very situational. I believe that all should have the same rights regardless. I'm also not a fan of quotas or exact numbers to match overriding statistics, if a person is best suited for a position, they should have it. I don't care about a 50/50 sex ratio of cabinet ministers, I care more about who is most capable for the positions. It could be 90/10, 60/40, 35/65, whatever they want so long as things run as well as they can. See, IDK about that. Narratives are a fickle thing, and are very personal, even if some can be taken up by wider groups. Which is basically what I would call it, personal philosophy or motivation. Ideally, I would hope that all could find things they could understand in other human beings, and stories around them regardless of WHO they are. IMO that's the major sign when we'll genuinely have a society that not only values individual cultural or national pride of all kinds, but also a general humanist sense of tolerance to the point where nobody cares (I go for the literal the definition of tolerance, wherein you don't have to like or love everything you see, but you can at least "suffer the existence of it", as should others towards you). Its why I personally don't care for stories or pieces of art that make a big deal about identity politics, that stuff shouldn't matter, and one of the first ways Art IMO can help is by making it come across as natural without being preachy. The stuff is just there because its naturally there, not because the artist wants to draw your attention to it. (Though admittedly hack journos don't help this). I'll come back to this later. Me, personally, my philosophy around the whole thing is this (coloured by my Anthropology and History education): "So our ancestors sinned, so what if they were assholes? I guarantee you I can find ancestors in everyone's pasts who were assholes in some regard to someone else, or were assholes by our modern sensibilities. The difference is that I'm not them. I'm not responsible for their crimes, just as nobody else is responsible for those their parents committed. And while I will strive to not make the same mistakes, I don't owe anyone anything that I worked for just as I'm not owed anything of theirs." So, IMO its easy for one to find their own narrative if they think on it hard enough, that's not necessarily the most pressing issue. The issue is that the focus has been to press the negative narrative around our identity onto others to take it up as their narrative, to the point where some of those who do twist reality. Many of all stripes do this and have done this in the past across many cultures, its not unique to this instance. One can find that potential narrative. Another they can find is mine, which is one that basically encourages IMO more individual focus of self-actualization without much focus on the shackles of the dead and the past that are not yourself while still trying your best to live a life you're morally and mentally satisfied with. And most likely others have their own. Oh yes, I heard about redneck revolt. Call me a skeptic (or perhaps just an devout listener of Foxworthy), but I honestly wonder how many rednecks would be caught looking so sophisticated. Class can be a good source of unification, I won't deny, its certainly better than most IMO. IDK, I just never considered myself privileged in my ability to relate to characters who were not exactly myself. Nor do I necessarily see it as a bad thing that a majority of a culture's art should be reflective of the majority demographic. Like for example, do I go to Uganda and expect a lot of whites in their advertising? No. Do I go to Japan and expect a lot of artistic content that isn't centered around the Japanese? No. That's not to say I think there should be zero stories or pieces of art showing off different cultures or identities at all, but that I'm not shocked to see a disparity in the amount of content created catering to one group or another based on the place. But I could find commonality in stories made by people or featuring characters or individuals half a world away in myths, films, stories, etc. and didn't necessarily feel odd that I wasn't represented, because I knew it was another human being or otherwise being I could get some understanding of. I don't think of myself generally in identity terms in relation to viewing art. I'm a believer in the idea that actually removing the focus upon many aspects of our identities (race and sexuality, particularly) would actually help alleviate many of these problems. Because all it is, is language and culture (both made by us and only matter to us as of right now), and the less you use or put power to various terms, the more they'll fall out of usage and meaning to the present context. But this is a very idealistic idea, and certainly not the most popular one on either political side. We were on the path to it though IMO over the past few decades, until the Left revived identity politics as a source of issues, for better or worse. I'm also a believer in the idea of the past still holding merits, despite its many faults (Kinda have to, I'm an Archaeologist). And while yes, some things of the past deserve to be cast aside, I wouldn't say they aught to be forgotten, nor would I say everything of it should be cast away. Its a tight line to walk, and most times I've seen people go overboard on it. For example, tearing down Confederacy Monuments on the basis that they essentially idolize the values of the Confederacy including but not limited to slavery. I strongly disagreed with that. Not every individual who served an "evil" power in the past necessarily embodies all of that, nor does it mean that they didn't do something worthy of a measure of respect or remembrance. Back in WWI, for example, when the Germans took the city of Belgrade, the Serbian Army fought to the last man, and in the end, while they were enemies, the German Field Marshall erected a monument in the city to those Serbian soldiers, because even though they were enemies, he thought they were worthy to be remembered for their bravery in the face of death. The Serbians after taking the city back with allied help later, erected a similar monument for their German counterparts. To re-contextualize it back to the Confederacy monuments, since a fair number of them were built in Union territory, I cannot help but think that the reason for why they were erected had to be something other than "Oh yeah we totally agreed with these guys we killed hundreds of thousands of!", and personally I'd rather people be able to see it as a piece of history than to destroy it. If people don't want to have them in public areas and they put it to a general local vote, fine, but at least put them in a museum or something. I've also seen and utilized similar arguments for why writers like H.P. Lovecraft can still be praised for their works and shouldn't be censored even though some of their opinions are seen as bad by our modern sensibilities. Everything changes in time, especially culture, and what we accept today will not be what our descendants 100 years from now accept, necessarily. I don't begrudge people born in different social and cultures settings in time than ours for having different opinions on subjects we have, it simply means that they're products of their time. It also means that they can still be appreciated for the things they did create, even if it is tempered by the setting of its creation. All of it to me, and what I know is that legacy is a very difficult thing, and a very personal thing. For some to act in unilateral manners on subjects of legacy, to me, can be a risky business because we cannot foresee what will come as a result of what we're told about our past legacies. I prefer everything to be out for people to see in some form, in as unvarnished as way as possible so as to get a clearer understanding of the humanity of people, but to leave it for people to decide for themselves. Both the Left and Right have a tendency to dehumanize segments of the population or groups for various reasons (heck, many others do besides mere political affiliation). That's actually an interesting thing you bring up about Feminism. It is actually eroding in some fashions, depending on who you're listening to, for various reasons. I mentioned Dr. Peterson and his arguments against certain Trans-centric laws earlier, but there were also Radical Feminists who were on his side as well albeit using their own arguments. There actually is an argument being made that Trans-rights actually undermines Feminist works. Why? Because Feminism at its core still argues of the existence of a sexual and gender binary, and for specific rights to women because of their particular issues that are unique to women. They fought very hard in the past for women's only spaces because women needed to discuss their own issues among people who shared their experiences (2nd Wave Feminism, basically). But if a man can become a woman, or vice versa, how is that supposed to be rectified within those ideas? Many would argue that they can't, that the two cannot exist in tandem, but that since Trans-activism is the rising activist field, its obviously undermining some of the works of Feminism by promoting this idea that runs counter to what Feminism has been arguing for in the past. Take that as you will, its merely what I've heard. As for Free Speech, I don't know what to tell you, it most certainly is becoming eroded with time. There are basically blasphemy laws in the UK not to mention a war on humour, Hate Speech legislature has grown substantially over the years in many different "western" countries (Canada alone I can attest to), tons of past books are being censored in various fashions because of the language within them on local levels (To Kill a Mockingbird being a popular choice I have noticed, among others), you cannot discuss various topics on some University campuses without inciting groups coming to brigade your talk, more and more private companies are trying to police speech on what should basically be public forums (though that one's tricky), and it has basically almost reached a point where in many countries you may as well include "The Right for people to not be offended at anything anyone says" be included in their legislatures with potentially specific interests in who is offended. And its filtering into media as well and has been for a long time on PC culture. I saw it myself simply in the fact that the porno programs vanished over the years from cable channels. The one thing you would think would be the constant in cable as it is on the internet, they cut gradually over time. Tons of more mature movies are censored to shit depending on the channel (IDK why the fuck you'd bother watching a censored version of The Green Mile, for example, but that's apparently a thing). And even in films that try to utilize anti-PC elements in them for the purpose of the film, like Quentin Tarantino did for Django Unchained, or Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, they get lambasted for featuring racist content even though they're doing it for the purposes of authenticity of setting. Hell, Tarantino has been lambasted merely for how violent his films have been, or horror flicks like Saw for being "Torture porn". IDK what to tell you, to me, that's PC Culture eroding away at artistic liberty. Well yes, inherently race is not necessarily tied to culture. Just so happens that many on many sides like to tie them together. Whether its Whites with European culture, or Blacks with African culture, etc. Just my thoughts. I'll get to kraken shortly.

Takes two to tango pal. At least when pressed on it, I reveal most of my sources. You, mysteriously for this subject, have not by and large, which you admit yourself. I brought it up when you decided to go into hyperbole, which was the specific statement I was calling you out on. I demanded evidence to back your hyperbolic statement. My info is backed by the FBI's crime stats, and the Department of Justice. Gun related crime have dropped like a stone since the 90s in basically every respect. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf IDK about you, but a 39% drop in fire-arm related deaths, and a 69% drop in firearm related incidents entirely from '93-2011 alone is quite significant. And Pew Research has a very good article on the subject and crime stats in general, violent crime in general has also dropped like a stone since the 90s: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ You're also misunderstanding my philosophical dissection for implications. I never implied that people shouldn't be able to own materials that could be turned into weapons or argued for that to be the situation. My point was specifically that if we were to actually take the logic behind some of these arguments seriously, that would be the logical conclusion. There's also a big difference between Meth which is already highly illegal, and say a knife, any kind of tool that could be used as a weapon, various fertilizers, basic chemicals to make various mixtures that can be lethal (Hell, one can even make Thermite by trial and error) pressure cookers, a vehicle, or even paintball guns. You can obtain all of those without any real suspicion. You're going to argue with me that someone cannot buy over a dozen different kinds of innocuous weapons today without much hassle? Weapons that in the right hands can be even more deadly than the average gunman? Yet we don't see that as an issue? I was discussing the matter philosophically, not as an actual advocation on my part, but peeling apart the logic behind the taking away guns for peoples' safety argument.

@kraken You seem to misunderstand me and my intent. I don't merely criticize the Left for being Left, nor do I necessarily have anything against Anarchists (I merely don't believe that many of their ideas will work in any stable fashion. I'd support Libertarian ideas before an Anarchist, personally.). I criticize them because I want them to be better than the moral grand-standers who seem to be the forefronts of the modern Left who make lame arguments that appeal to emotion rather than make sense or actually work to solve a problem. I criticize them, because I want them to be better. Well that's a generalization if I've ever heard one, and a stereotype reaction. Yet you were just lambasting another for such arguments? (I wouldn't even argue the validity of it, because I know it has been the case before, I just find the situation ironic) I would argue for police reform before chanting for dead cops though. Which was my problem with BLM, among other things. Really? Show me the stats on that. Because the stats I found show that from 1993 to 2011 alone, over 1 million less gun incidents (note, incidents) overall have occurred, and 1997 saw the end of the Assault weapon ban, if I recall. Last I checked, the number of guns in the US did not drastically decrease in that time. There have also been times in the past where the populace was more armed than today, yet the peak for violence of that type of crime was in the 1990s. Also, I wouldn't necessarily bring up Christianity unless you're going to specifically outline a quote or explain the message you're referring to (I'm assuming you mean anti-violence?). I won't deny that there are hypocrites of all religions, but IDK if you've noticed, but Christianity in general seems to have degenerated into mostly a Civic Religion at this point, moreso than actual serious religion. After all, the US only incorporates religion in part in its social or civic rituals, like most secular western societies. One can also hold a different opinion on guns that doesn't necessarily conflict with their religious views. Now, allow me to sojourn formally into my thoughts on the recent Gun debates. I'll be honest, I think the March for Our Lives crowd is stupid, I think their proposals will do nothing to prevent any kind of gun violence, let alone another school shooting, and that most of the laws that have been passed as emotional reactions will be found unconstitutional within a short while. And that the entire argument has literally become a huge "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" shout. The 21 age limit IMO is the first one that has no chance in hell of sticking around. The Second Amendment is clear on this, once a person reaches the age of majority (18), they can own one legally. Unless they feel like amending the constitution to make the voting age 21 (good fucking luck), you're never going to see an age 21 gun restriction stick. If it ever gets put to the Supreme Court, they will shoot it down. The Bump stock ban? Had nothing to do with the Parkland Shooting, that was Las Vegas. And so what? You're banning an accessory item to a weapon that is not too hard for someone to make themselves with the right tools, or to simulate the effects of with the right setup. Also not going to do anything to prevent future shootings. Waste of time. Assault Weapon ban. Considering that many for some reason think that the AR-15 is an "assault weapon" rather than a sporting rifle, I don't think most people are qualified to actually quantify WHAT an assault weapon is, or even understand the current laws around owning automatic weapons which are already fairly extensive, from my understanding. More to the point, any kind of ban isn't going to stop criminals from getting a hold of them, you've just made it impossible for a citizen to legally own one. Clip sizes. Much like the Bump Stock ban, I don't see this preventing further mass shootings. People can make their own clip sizes and magazines with enough know-how, or get them from other states. Moreover, how the hell is this supposed to be enforced state-to-state outside of businesses? Like is Vermont going to setup a huge checkpoint along New Hampshire checking every person's stuff for their clip sizes? And in a situation like a shooting. Okay, so the guy just needs to carry more clips, or he'll buy bigger clips from elsewhere and sneak them in, you're not preventing any tragedy here. Background checks? You'll cause the criminals to go underground, or they won't go to a Shrink for their mental problems because they'll prefer the ability to own a gun than to not to. The ability to enforce this everywhere outside of official businesses is also almost impossible. Again, not gonna prevent any other shooting. None of these proposals will stop another Parkland from occurring, all you're doing is making it harder for citizens to own guns and gun-related accessories. Which unless you're assuming that the average American gun-owner is a loose cannon ready to fucking massacre a school at a drop of a hat, I don't see the logic in limiting citizens' gun rights. Especially since the number of incidents involving firearms, and the number of deaths have fallen over the decades across the entire US. The number of school related incidents has also been decreasing. The country currently has the lowest amount of gun crime occurring in modern history, yet they want to act like its some huge epidemic of violence and bloodshed that requires control. But on to the more philosophical arguments. I've seen the idea basically tossed around: "Well why does a citizen NEED to own this type of weapon or accessory for their safety?" Does a person NEED a car that can accelerate extremely fast? Go over 150 mph? Why don't we just put in automated speed caps into cars, make it impossible to go faster than the legal limit? Does a person NEED the best kind of food if they can live off of KD? Does a person NEED a huge TV? Do they NEED to own chemicals and substances that in the right mixtures could be used to make explosives or napalm or other stuff? No. But who are you to say what a person should and shouldn't be allowed to have? What is the problem in a person owning an automatic weapon or a big clip size? Unless you're assuming that the average person is a psychopath, you have no reason to fear, nor to punish all citizens for the actions of a few psychos. And safety? Sure, such a gun may be excessive for such a purpose (though not necessarily always, I would admit that most average cases I could think of it would be considered excessive). But people regularly go to excess all the time in all different aspects of life anyway. We see no issue there, we only intervene on it as a public safety concern when it comes to mental intoxication by excessive drug partaking, and only then with the performance of certain tasks. Guns are also a hobby to many, from collectors to people who just like shooting various guns at the range. "Oh but its because these have no other purpose beyond killing people." That's a fallacy, because again, its assuming that every gun owner is a murderer and is apparently incapable of handling any kind of weapon properly. "You couldn't match the military anyway if the purpose was to protect against a tyrannical government." Well, certainly not when you refuse to allow the average citizen access to military-grade gear to begin with. I'd argue we should if that is the goal. Historically speaking, the Second Amendment was made in part so that there would be no need for a standing army, every citizen would simply be armed as well as any standing army and would be able to resist the more formal military of the British, or anyone else of the time. Its also why in WWII, the Japanese tossed the idea of a mainland invasion of the US out the window fairly quickly even after their attack on Pearl Harbour, even if they landed, they'd be facing enormous local resistance in California alone. But yea, even though I come from a country with a fair amount of Gun control (Canada), I don't see these proposals doing anything, nor do I see the reason in the line of thinking of limiting gun rights, IMO it might even be better for the US to be more liberal on gun ownership and education.

Or maybe that not even Centrists seem to be aware of the term, or deem it relevant to make it a necessary mention when they talk about various Leftists (likely I'm guessing because it is a term that Leftists use to differentiate themselves from Radicals, which is the term I use) makes it kinda moot for my purposes? Plus, I could just as easily say that many here that claim to be more Leftist don't seem to have much insight into the divisions of Right-wing discourse or ideology. But I digress. I took a hiatus for a bit, time to dive back into it. First, dash. Bits of Kraken in here on guns, but this is basically a response to dash. Of course there were Fascist sympathizers in the US in the years immediately prior to WWII, there were in many different nations. Just as there were Communist and Anarchist Sympathizers in many nations long prior to WWI, but many more after the rise of the USSR and Trotsky's more global revolutionary ideas being circulated (though he didn't gain ultimate power in the USSR, his rival Stalin himself dabbled briefly in the idea with his token support of various communist uprisings or parties, most of which failed due to his lack of serious interest.) While I can understand your analysis of Far-Right thought, and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, I'd argue that I have seen the reverse among Leftists, no less toxic IMO, only under a veneer of PC culture and moral self-righteousness of their own brand. I'll try and explain. For many recent years prior, there has been very much an erosion of "normative" culture in "The West" (I hate using the term, but its adequate to explain the general countries I refer to. Now, this inherently isn't a bad thing, culture naturally changes over time, and what is normal changes in time. But I'm talking about an actual active push to try and actively destroy many senses of identity and culture, while simultaneously and unashamedly promoting others like they're the greatest of all time. The Right are not wrong in that they've seen many different institutions, groups, and individuals seeking to undermine what they see as White-Eurocentric culture of many different varieties in different ways. I cannot even begin to count how many articles, speeches, manifestos, talks, campaigns, or initiatives have been put forward in recent memory that work towards the degradation of many of these cultural identities, and actively see the destruction of many of these cultures as a good thing. For various reasons, of course. "They're Imperialist in heritage and deserve to be thrown away, they've caused endless troubles to the world and should make way for others, its an inherently bigoted culture, they deserve to feel what its like to be under the thumb of other cultures, its in the name of equality/diversity, its paying reparations etc". I saw it pushed all the time during my GG days, all the time it was "angry white man-children" whose culture needed to become "more mature" or to "die" (as a culture. The infamous "Gamers are Dead" articles was the biggest push of this, and one of the actual sparks that ignited GG). A CIS White Man may as well be the equivalent of a deviant to the Left. Many look upon them as a group with about as much disdain and as a cause for society's ills, they encourage such people not to take pride in their backgrounds, more than a few have openly said that it doesn't matter how much such a person does to help others in their life they'll always be at fault because they were born as white men, they're always assumed to be "privileged" even if they're poor white men, and whenever "diversity" is brought up as a subject its funnily almost always in reference to not something that is actually genuinely diverse but simply is a code-word for "Anti-White Male" because they're always the group that is specifically outlined as getting the short end in such a situation almost without fail. The argument being that bringing down this group or taking it down several pegs will bring about more social equality and social justice, and they propose many different ways to do this. Some, very gradual, others far more radical. I've also seen BLM lambaste Blacks, especially celebrities, who refuse to bend the knee to their ideology, kinda defeating the purpose of their own movement at times, your point? I'd also say that disagreement on the idea of Gun Control doesn't inherently mean that their viewpoints on the other subject has changed. BLM specifically wants a removal of more overarching police forces in its own manifesto and has chanted for dead cops in multiple cases. Criticizing a police chief on gun control opinions doesn't necessarily change an opposition that the former stance. You're also getting into a lot of presumptive thinking on why people want guns. I would argue that it is not to "protect them from deviants", its to protect themselves and their property and so that people mind their own business, period. It inherently promotes the idea of individual privacy. You don't need to be a necessarily bigoted person to want to own a gun for such reasons. How many people of any background in the Ghettos or other rough urban neighbourhoods would you say own guns, legal or no? I would wager a fairly high number, for no other reason than they know that where they're living is not safe, and they want something that'll stop a potential rapist, mugger, thief, or killer dead. Regardless of whoever they might be. They're also arguably a deterrent for crime. Most criminals are not bold enough to actually go into a house, or rob a person who they think may be armed. Why? Because they also like their own lives, and don't care to risk losing them facing someone with a weapon if they can avoid it. How many farmers own guns? They not only have practical reasons for owning guns due to rural work reasons, but they also desire a measure of safety. They see strangers on their property, they don't know what they want, could also be thieves. Better to be safe and approach with a loaded gun just in case. I would not call it fear of the deviant, I would call it a primal desire for safety in a world you KNOW is not safe. Thomas Hobbes I find to be quite enlightening on this subject, among others. Our world is and has never been a 100% safe one, in fact its only been a recent modern phenomenon where people can generally live their lives without a measure of fear or anxiety constantly as to whether or not they'll survive next year. There will always be someone who wants to get one up on someone else, through force or through surreptitiousness. Or, if you weren't facing others, you were facing nature. Hence why every Frontiersman in early America owned at least one firearm, if not multiple ones. In the middle ages, long before firearms, people placed their servitude to Lords and Knights who promised them safety in exchange for their services. It was the destruction of the medieval social contract, when it became evident that the Nobility were not necessary nor would they always strive to keep Peasants safe, or for said Peasants to serve them in exchange, that brought on the Renaissance, in part. Our world has become much more "civilized" since those early days, but the need for safety isn't necessarily gone nor will it ever go away. You have no idea what could happen tomorrow. You HOPE that nothing happens, but if you're smart, you prepare for the eventuality of something happening. For no other reason than you care about your own personal safety, or the safety of your stuff and loved ones. Some hunters or hikers can walk through woods for 20 years, never encounter a bear and never fear them as a result. Others step outside of their trucks and get mauled. Similarly does one ever expect a crime to happen to them? No. But that doesn't mean you don't take precautions. You'd be stupid or naive to do otherwise. But that's my rant on safety. If the ultimate goal of the Far-Right is to "suppress the deviant", then I'd say the Far-Left's ultimate goal is to "overthrow the rulers (maybe not the best equivalent term, but I hope you get what I mean)" which IMO is just as charged an often inaccurately utilized or politically charged a term as "deviant". The Far-Left also desire strong-men, of their kind, so to speak, but they want them for the purposes of social reform in accordance with their senses of righteousness. No, you see a unifying hatred of Christian White people, or more specifically, White Men among more than a few of those on the Left. I certainly have. I've seen stuff where if ANY other racial or cultural group were being referred to, we'd have regarded the statement as bigoted or racist, but because its being said about Whites, nobody says fuck-all, or it may even be applauded. I would also argue that neither trust the common person to do the right thing. Both want to tell them how to live their lives in various respects. Its called virtue-signalling when the Left has done it, and has been seen as preachy when the Right has done it, both are basically the same thing, and I've seen it happening for years. The Far-Right wants to tell you who to fuck, who to marry, and who to associate with, because they don't trust you to think in your own best interests. Why else do you think they were so authoritarian? It would be unnecessary in a system that actively sustained itself without oversight. But the Far-Left can be just as tenacious in the other direction by lecturing us constantly via virtue-signalling all kinds of shit (I've seen it in game press content alone ALL THE TIME.), and just look at how the general Left has treated the idea of Guns, and you have my argument as to how the Left doesn't trust the common person to do the right thing at all. The Left honestly trusts the Government to enforce stricter Gun Laws? A Government which currently is supposedly headed by "Literally Hitler", and is controlled by the one slightly more Pro-Gun party? If they have so much faith in people, why aren't they instead out championing for LESS gun control? Let people own automatics and heavy guns of various types. Let them be outfitted to take out a tank, if need be. Surely if people can be trusted to make the right decisions, there would be no issue here, correct? No, the Left instead seems to want to entrust a small number of people at the top, to keep everyone else safe because they don't trust the average citizen to think sensibly . . . I'll leave that there. Of course the Right may stereo-typically tends to do well in times of chaos and disorder, they represent Conservatism, they naturally promote a more "safe" message in what is "familiar", but that's not always the case that they gain power in such situations all the time. A Leftist regime can promote order through a change in the system or a "decadent" class that has caused the chaos or disorder through their own misdeeds as much as a Right regime can promote order through a "return to normalcy" after a change caused pandemonium in a society. How many Leftists have arisen in times of chaos and disorder into power? Almost every single communist regime did this. The Jacobins did in Revolutionary France (the Right would later regain control under Napoleon after people got fed up of the Jacobins, but still), many regimes of different kinds have taken advantage of situations of chaos or disorder to rise to power. It merely depends on WHO was in power before. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying necessarily, such tactics have been done, but I'm saying you're only seeing one dimension of a much larger picture. Eh, I'd say it depends on the situation as to who is wary of those in power. That may be, but in the pursuit of dismantling power, they inherently SEEK power, do they not? One without power cannot hope to break the power of others, they seek absolute power in order to do so, if they can. And we both know the old saying about power and how it corrupts people. Its like the Roman Dictators. The system worked while people gave up their power after the crisis situation of their own volition, until Julius Caesar came along and refused to give up his power because he assumed he knew how to run the Republic best. All Leftists have sought some measure of power to make their societal dreams a reality, no different from those on the Right, and it has resulted in an endless tug of war over the public's sympathies. So Stalin rose to power and became the monster his claimed was everywhere. The other more rank and file Communists in the USSR were little better. Satirical writers of the time like Mikhail Bulgakov would agree with me. Yes, Stalin was a particularly bad case, but the ideology itself had many problems even though it strove for that most central of Leftist ideals, the equalization of social standings and power. If you get the chance, read "Heart of a Dog" sometime, its quite short and a fairly good political satire of early communist Russia, it was also blacklisted from there for decades. And I'd say that sentiment is a decent goal. The question is being sure in either case that we don't trend on peoples' liberties, and deal with genuine threats as they reveal themselves, IMO. IDK about that. The stats don't suggest that in regards to gun violence. If anything, the incidents across the country, even on merely non-lethal crimes involving guns have fallen quite substantially since the 90s. Nor do I believe the drive to own them is out of fear of "deviants", as I said earlier. That's an interesting question, especially because I would argue many Leftists do not trust people, or at least no moreso than those on the Right. They feel that they know what is best for others just as much as those on the Right, simply from a different direction. They need to tell people what is right, they need to guide others, they need to put things in place that ensures that the right thing is always done because they do not trust people to do the right thing. They trust SOME people do the right thing, but they have no faith that others will do so unless forced to do so. Why else do they seek to change laws and obtain power via candidates that at least appear to support their initiatives? Granted, neither side starts out forceful. They become so, usually, over time, and as they see that nothing is being given to even try and appease their worries, or concerns, or interests. Notice the change merely from the 1960-70s as the Civil Rights movement, became the Black Power movement and the shifts that very visibly took place in their ideologies and tactics, as they realized that the more peaceful methods were no longer working as effectively as they had been. I would also say that where you say the Right-winger is irrationally fearful (not necessarily disagreeing) to the point where they might deny reality, the Leftist IMO is noxiously optimistic to the point where they will deny reality themselves, or even they themselves can also be irrationally fearful about certain subjects (though I usually find them to be noxiously optimistic). I feel bad for the average CNN viewer, or MSM viewer of any channel in generally, personally. Is it impossible for a Centrist or Moderate to agree with certain arguments or viewpoints which others might consider to be singularly extreme by either side of the aisle? I, for instance, have no problem with how people choose to live their lives or what they call themselves, or who they fuck, so long as they or the government don't shove it in my face and don't harm others. BUT, I can also believe that the White Eurocentric identity IS under erosive attack (whereas you'd think all Cultures would be seeing a melting of their cultures into a more global culture, strangely you don't see many of these phenomena occurring in many other non-Western nations that are instead promoting and cultivating national and ethnic pride, one which is carried into these nations), and is being actively suppressed for no other reason than a perceived social righteousness in doing so, often in irrational ways too. I would put forward the hypothesis that you will gain nothing socially by trying to break such rich magnates when they refuse to give to a society or system they feel no compulsion to give more than they need to, for whatever reason. The Romans tried in their time, along with many others besides in their own times, all failed or brought strife and suffering. Despicable as many of them may be, speaking as someone who is not making much money at all, you will find no lasting satisfaction in their destruction. I do believe that corruption needs to be reigned in, and people should be encouraged not to take advantage of others. But that is vast, and multitudinous, and knows no political alignment, and across many areas that you yourself might not be comfortable in acknowledging. But that's just my opinion.

Persona 5

I've actually never heard anyone describe such a term as "Tankies", but I can see how it would easily exist. I have no issue with your definition, by and large, so I won't dispute it. But as for the Fascist or Nazi comparison. Again, I think the difference in how they present themselves is a product of history. Had we actually seen Nazi or Fascist states last beyond WWII to any grand degree, they probably would be far more open about what they'd be about. Communists certainly became that way because you had so many Communist nations come up, and last for a long time. Yes, there was tons of opposition against them in various places, but they also technically ran half the world at one point. You could not simply ignore them, you had to deal with them. Whereas Fascist and Nazi regimes? Very short shelf-life in history. Enormous pressure to eradicate them once WWII got going and ever since by practically all other ideologies, and basically a popularized disdain throughout the world over decades for anything that even resembled it, doesn't matter if you were part of the Capitalist or Communist bloc, both hated them, and they united to crush them. In that context, it makes perfect sense why they evolved differently as a socio-political movement, so to speak. If you're part of any movement that is universally shunned by practically the entire world, and shunned in such a manner in that you invite very real threats to your safety if you're even SUSPECTED of being a member, you're obviously not going to go around broadcasting to the world that you are part of such a group or movement unless you literally don't give a fuck. For instance, to just use a non-political example. Say you had a society of cannibals. Cannibalism in western society, and many others, is very much a taboo, and one which will see you universally disdained as disgusting if you ever openly advocate for it, AFAIK. Of course said cannibalistic society is gonna go underground, it only makes sense. But extremists of all kinds today, if they know what they're doing, will ALWAYS try to sell their messages in ways that are palatable to various people. Doesn't matter who it is. I've seen people make arguments for White Genocide, I've seen tons of people converted to ISIS because their recruits know exactly who to target and what to say to them, I know how Klansmen argued their positions to people in their hey-days, and I'm aware of how ethno-nationalists like Spencer peddle their bullshit. The trick? Most of this stuff only works in echo-chamber type locations, places or settings where a person is not exposed to opposition to these ideas which they're being told. Put Spencer against someone who can show how his plan would lead to nothing but a race war at best, and he looks like a war-mongering fool who cannot really respond to such an accusation without owning up to it. The problem? The current state of affairs over the last (arguably, could be longer) decade has been to promote more and more people becoming secluded into echo chambers of various types. Because the current state of affairs does not promote a setting in which these dramatic views can be fleshed out and ironed out and debated without it looking like condescension. And its gotten worse because it has spread to numerous topics which the unspoken consensus is that there is to be absolutely no debate on a subject because someone else said that its immoral to even discuss the ideas. The result? You inevitably get more radicals of all varieties, its happened many times when debate has been suppressed. It then just comes down to which ones are bigger, and which ones have more favour in general society's eyes. That's the situation I think we're in. And I put the blame for this situation almost entirely on the general Left, because they're the political ideology which has held the favour of the establishment for recent years, and whose policies have generally been the ones gradually been favoured over the recent decades. Doesn't mean I'm saying they intended for this to happen, but that in their best intentions to create the more ideal society, they created the very situation they sought to avoid. The Right did the exact same thing during the 1950s when they held establishment power, they fought against change so hard that change came in the 1960s. I know I sound like a broken record saying the comparison over and over again, but I find the similarities uncanny. Far-Leftists are not scared to admit who they are because they feel they have the self-righteous backing of society or moral righteousness, especially in their causes. And history doesn't necessarily lend them towards feeling otherwise ashamed of who they claim to be. I would argue we're seeing sparks of political violence of both sides in general, and extreme ideas being thrown around by radicals of both ends. I can claim to have seen similar things from the Far-Left, the Right-wing incidents are just getting more attention because they're the unfavoured right now. I also wouldn't be too quick to label the Austin Bomber (Who I assume you are alluding to) right-wing, I haven't even heard any agencies claim that, though I honestly haven't kept track the past two days. All I know is that he was a college drop out who was unemployed, didn't openly leave anything saying that attacks were race motivated beyond the fact that the victims were black, and didn't publicly state any ties to any organization AFAIK. If anything, he's just exactly the kind of extremist I illustrated earlier that this situation is leading towards creating, from what I can tell. Also, so what if White Supremacists supported Trump? I can tell you Anti-White radicals supported Hillary, does that mean the party advocates for White Genocide? No candidate has any say in who they're supported by. Its not like he personally invited the Grand Dragon or whatever the hell the title is of the Klan over to speak at his rallies. He didn't even get a guy like Spencer to do it. These same Supremacists were pissed that Trump WASN'T being a racist in the bills he was passing. The violence spike? I'd argue its been building since Obama's administration, which didn't help because of how the last election was framed (Van Jones claiming that Trump's election was a "Whitelash" and how widely that got circulated doesn't fucking help matters) in that the media outlets harped over and over and blew things out of proportion to the point where it was literally the most polarizing election in living memory. Under whose administration did BLM form? How many riots and mass protests over racial killings (mostly involving police, guilty or no, but still) occurred under his administration? My point being that its been building for a while over many different things, and its not necessarily tied to Trump himself. I don't blame him for extremist morons thinking now is their opportunity because he happens to be the most openly nationalistic president we've seen in a while. Especially when he hasn't condoned such actions in office (I know how the MSM tried to say: "Oh he's not ONLY blaming the Right for what happened in Charlottesville! He's a White Supremacist for thinking both are bad!" No, you can think he's naive if you wish, but he's not one for merely saying he sees violent people on both sides.) ----- 1: As I've said before I'd say that depends on your college, and your courses, and especially your Professors. I will be the first to admit that not all of them are the same, as I said before, I got lucky and did not experience much of this in my University, and actually had a good time, but I certainly saw it when I revisited it barely a year later among Profs of different courses, and students of different courses. And I know through personal friends who attend other universities who can corroborate exactly what I'm talking about. My point on Pepe is that it doesn't matter who he is co-opted by, man. There's no reason for you to feel bad. Pepe is so versatile he can literally be co-opted by anyone of any movement for any reason at any time. I suppose you can feel disgusted that a White Nationalist is using the same thing you use, but IMO if you're gonna think that way, then good luck finding anything that they don't use that tons of average people use every single day. There's no point in such thinking, IMO. I'll leave it at that. 2: I would say such a thing is necessary in order to show your audience that these ideas are bullshit or are nonsense, because many ideas are debatable, and arguably to help maintain your own centrism, if you claim to be more towards the center of things. The whole idea about information dissemination is to hopefully, educate or inform the audience or general public on a topic, right? A debate is an extension of this, wherein you hope to educate the public on both sides of a contentious issue, and use arguments to show why one side of the argument is stronger than the other. You cannot do that, unless you actually entertain the argument or talking points of the other side. You merely create an echo chamber or become a preacher otherwise, IMO anyway. Put it this way. You cannot feasibly pull a Steve Shives or MovieBob and just refuse to engage with anyone you dislike merely because you hate their views. Because then like Steve Shives, you end up looking like a lunatic to everyone outside of the established audience because you refuse to engage with the people you critique, and you eventually stop listening to what they're saying, and you then spout off shit about individuals that is completely false. (Shives did this recently after MythCon months and months ago when Sargon, Armoured Skeptic, and Shoeonhead all attended various events there, motherfucker didn't even attend the event, and Armoured Skeptic made his response video look completely moronic by showing how out-of-touch it was with reality). The other reason why they talk to Alt-Right members, its actually been stated by many of the people I watch, (Sargon, Dankula, Styx, and to lesser extents Skeptic and Shoe as well) have all said that the reason they talk to many openly Alt-Right members, is because they are at least willing to talk to them and debate them. They can totally disagree on various subjects, but they can at least debate them. Whereas, for some mysterious reason, when approached for debate, many Leftist groups, publications, or individuals refuse to even try and discuss a subject with them. They're not even averse towards talking to Leftist speakers, they've just found that so many of them refuse to even engage with them for one reason or another. 3: Is it necessarily? Or is it just something else that has been co-opted? Or an association made by its supporters to defame valid critics? That's also happened before with various things. But I won't disagree that I have seen it used in such manners. 4: If we're talking official political platforms in the US? You're correct. But that doesn't mean that Leftist politics haven't permeated elsewhere overall. The mass media, across not only the US, but most of the "west", I would argue is Leftist, almost totally if not merely in favour of. And the media has an immense amount of power over a society, as they control what people see and how they see it. They can twist people's minds on various issues specifically by NOT showing certain statistics, or certain events that don't fit what they want people to see. Which has been going on for a long time, and in favour of Leftist narratives, by and large in my experience in recent memory. There are also wider cultural factors to consider. When was the last time you saw a famous Pop Star or Hollywood Actor who WASN'T a Leftist? Or had a big film that didn't at least try to slightly push Leftist ideas? Fuck, I could hardly recall an instance in an electoral situation where so many of the Cultural elite, all of them various flavours of Leftists, came out in favour of one candidate over another, than the last one. Or The Pope? We currently have the most Left-leaning Pope in existence (not necessarily a bad thing, but even I can notice the difference) on the throne of St. Peter. That lends towards religious influence, and therefore more social influence, people draw inspiration from his example, and modern religion in and of itself, in terms of secularized respects, is very left-leaning as well. (Completely different story in many places, obviously. But in many secularized nations, most major religious bodies have to at least pay their respects to the socio-political leanings of the area even if they view the subjects as blasphemous in their religious contexts) That, and OUTSIDE of the US, much of the "West" has been run for a long time by Leftist or Liberal governments of various descriptions, or lite-Conservatives often with Minority governments. It all adds up to a tremendous amount of establishment power, is what I'm saying. Also, the Democrats DID try to score with the Progressive Left very heavily last election by how many wedge issues they pushed, and have traditionally been the ones in modern memory to do so (Just as the Republicans have in modern memory traditionally catered to the Evangelicals), to the point where its actually threatening to cause a schism within the Democratic party. Whether or not the Business Dems and Neo-Libs were genuine doesn't matter, they catered to them all the same. But now they have no fucking clue what their platform is beyond "We want Trump out!", a basically bankrupt party, and no real leader yet. That alone should show you how confused the Dems are right now. Whether or not they are officially, they certainly have become the unspoken leaders of the Left in US politics right now. I don't know the situation of Fairooz, but if that is the situation, then it is ridiculous. I do know that in court situations you're expected to not look like you're in contempt of court, but that doesn't sound like the case here. I do also have to wonder why the hell anyone thought such a case was worth their time (like Dankula), or if the whole thing wasn't just thrown out anyway. Because here's a question I will ask in response: Was Fairooz convicted of anything, or were the cases thrown out? If its the latter, then I'd say the US Justice system is working as intended and is defending the right to freedom of speech, if not then its completely ridiculous. I'm not surprised to see people brought up to court for various behaviours of speech in the current climate of Hate Speech laws and for uttering threats and other such things, but I do disagree with convictions on such subjects of speech. I think they're ridiculous, actions are what matter over words or thoughts. If she wasn't convicted, then I wouldn't say that its the same case as Dankula, but if she was, then I'd say yea its about as ridiculous. They have been working towards both, yes, but some moreso than others, and in terms of optics, it looks really bad when say, Razorfist gets banned from Twitter for referring to a Heavy Metal Guitarist whose last name is Lynch, and meanwhile you have people posting racism against Whites constantly on pages (maybe not anymore, I haven't checked since I don't use Twitter) because they have a selective view of racist content and not an objective standard. Or when Youtube makes a deal with The Young Turks, CNN, or other media outlets that are mostly Leftist in order so that they have a monopoly on who can monetize content, yet go after all kinds of Independent and Conservative content makers to the point where they had to openly come out and apologize. IMO, its mostly they're paying lip-service to objectivity in many cases, and they don't want to go through the effort to actually be objective because they prefer algorithms over people for this shit. And that's surprising, because from my experience the BBC has been almost totally known for it being very Left-leaning both in its content and hiring policies. But if so, just another reason why I think they shouldn't be publicly funded, and why I don't go to them for information. 5: Good for you then, I think we can leave it there. 6: So you admit that they are separate playing fields. I will say that in general, it is EXTREMELY HARD to start out on Youtube now for anything. Good luck finding many brand new content makers that aren't propped up by Youtube themselves that actually last, period. Ross himself has talked on this I think quite succiently. Its also a crap-shoot as to understanding how the hell Algorithms work on Youtube right now. I don't think they even fully know what they're doing. I know who Orwell was, but again, what type of government do you think he made as a critique in 1984? They aren't Christian Conservatives, I can tell you that much. 1984 was a warning for Leftists as much as it was a general warning about totalitarianism. His quote doesn't deny that he wrote it as a critique of a Far-Leftist Totalitarian regime obsessed with though-policing as much as the Far-Right. Also Democratic Socialists have traditionally been kicked around by both sides of the political spectrum. It wouldn't surprise me that he had no love of Communists any more than Fascists. I never said it wasn't, I said it has lost its effectiveness in terms of popular usage. They try to, but come on. You cannot tell me that it actually has the power it did in the 50s and 60s, man. Did anyone actually care that the ACA called Obama out as a Communist? Did it ever come out as a major point of contention throughout his career? No. You're not gonna be beaten out of University because someone called you a Communist. Conversely, you would be if you came out as a Nazi, more likely than not in today's climate. The fact that political leaders can actually come out as Communists or sympathetic towards their views in different countries (a la Corbyn and members of his shadow cabinet to various degrees) and not be thrown out of office or let go is evidence of this. I never said I equated your beliefs to theirs, I said you were ignoring genocidal maniacs on your side since you seemed to be calling out all the extremists on the one side, whilst ignoring the others on yours. Pretending that the Left doesn't have its own share of maniacs, is what it looked like. You were acting as if the Left has NEVER abused power over others and caused suffering, that was point I was trying to make. Its no a stigma against Communism. I've read the manifesto, I can debate with Communists, I just don't trust them being in charge or power because their revolution never plays out the way they expect it will, because its not designed for political power, hence why the adjust it. That's disregarding the context that Italy itself (like many others right next to these various hot-spots) has for years tried to stop Refugees from entering their country in endless droves because they cannot even deal with them and are not being adequately supported by the wider EU? Is Italy full of White Supremacists now? Or the various Eastern European countries that have all tried to stand against the various wider EU policies to various effects for different reasons? I actually watched a full documentary on Lampedusa, a tiny Italian island between Libya and Sicily, which saw 400x its population land on it in the form of refugee boats for months and months during the peak of the war in Libya alone. The locals? Hated the whole situation for various reasons, they wanted the government to step in and stop them from constantly landing on their island and overwhelming them with people who were not of their culture, were not there to settle down, and were causing problems in some cases. I actually watched Southern's video you're referring to, "The Great Replacement". Are you saying that her views on the subject are wrong? If so, then please explain. As for the rest of what she does? If anything I view it to be no different than Japan seeking to maintain and preserve their own culture and heritage in the face of a crisis within their own society. Southern is correct in that "white" or "European" society in many places is not being protected, but even further is being given over to being completely disassembled by a variety of other different cultures, while the rest of the world does not follow suit. Let's even just look at the pretentiousness of Hollywood as an example. In no other major film industry on Earth, to my knowledge, do you see such a continued push for "diversity" that has actually gained such ground. Do you see the Japanese Anime industry taking "diversity" concerns seriously or are they just doing what they want and leaving that business for their NA offices? India's Bollywood? Korean soap opreas? Chinese television? Russian television or films? I certainly don't know of any. Why is that? Surely if "diversity" is so universally better for a culture, and we're living in a more globalized world, why suspiciously does it seem to be that we're the only ones who give a flying fuck about it? Many would say its because we have no cultural pride anymore. Or what pride we do derive is from helping others find their cultural pride out of penitence for what our ancestors did. And that many pushes towards even feeling happy in your culture is you cultivating hateful ideas. Don't believe me? Explain the reactions to the "Its okay to be White" posters? Granted, that instance was specifically concocted by 4Chan explicitly for the purpose of showing off this hypocrisy, but it is an excellent example because it got such a reaction. There was no calls to support Nazism or White Supremacy, there was no symbols of any groups affiliated with such goals, the text itself wasn't even saying that Whites were in any way superior to anyone else. It simply said: "Its Okay to be White." Yet if you were to believe the reactions around these posters, you'd think that Nazi Death Squads were to come storming through tomorrow. You'd have thought that it proclaimed "Death to all Black people.", or that "White is right.". Or that "Only Nazis could think its "Okay to be white"." That tiny little statement of saying that its okay to be someone in particular, and not even someone that anyone actively chooses to be, (especially when had this poster been made in reference to any other racial group, there would be incident) but is merely born as, and the reaction it managed to evoke, to me, shows exactly that Lauren's beliefs on the subject are justified. There are tons of people out there that hate whites and European culture, don't think that we have any reason to be happy in who we are born as or what our heritage is, and will automatically consider any positive statement made about us racially as a Nazi call or racist cry. (Again, even if a situation regarding any other racial group would be considered as such by these same people). We don't consider the Japanese to be bad in that they seek to protect their culture, even though as a First-World nation they could very easily take in way more Refugees than they do. Are they enabling racists as well? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently doing it to be racist. Also when Germany just arbitrarily decides to take in millions of refugees and then just lose track of 250K of them, that's totally not irresponsible either, right? Especially not when crime stats of all kinds of different types shoot up as a result? (If you can even find the honest stats, apparently its become racist to even considering tracking crimes committed by people of different backgrounds now, so good luck ever trying to debunk this idea outside of UK and Dutch data) On the subject of refugees, I would rather help fix their situation in their own homes, than bring them over to another which often costs even more and create a situation that is even better for them than in their own countries to where they don't even want to leave. Because then their own country's recovery will stall, and it defeats the whole purpose of the term "Refugee" over "Immigrant". I personally hate the fact that a Refugee who lands in my country can apparently get everything me and my parents had to work for, for free, and plans are made for integration rather than temporary stability for them to go back home after whatever crisis passes. Not that I blame the Refugees themselves for wanting to take advantage of a good thing, its irresponsible of the government first and foremost. As a government, don't give away what you cannot afford to give away to your own people. But I strayed WAY off topic and got into way more than I intended to. Back on track. Well, if you wished me to explain why Alt-Right ideas are bad, its because I inherently don't believe in the idea of race, because it is entirely a subjective term that varies from culture to culture, and was made up in an actual codified sense by early Anthropologists a little over two centuries ago for no purpose beyond justifying why certain people can be discriminated against by creating an artificial category they attempted to bolster with science. We now know that for the most part, there is no significant difference to actually mark out specific races among humanity, and that it is entirely just a subjective process. Therefore basing policies off of race, to me, is a bad idea because there is no basis for objectivity there. How exactly do you make just laws off of an artificial scale with which you measure people by? You cannot without an entire culture of zealots. I also don't believe that being born of a particular background makes you inherently anything, a person can just as easily become a Genghis Khan or a Mother Theresa based on their upbringings and circumstances. I don't believe that an ethnostate would work in any voluntary sense, nor would it necessarily run any more efficiently other than to generate more useless paperwork, and therefore would require a dictatorship if not a totalitarian state to even be possible, and I oppose such authoritarian ideas. On the subject of Antifa being Fascists, I would point out that I have made arguments as to why they are essentially Fascists, or pointed to sources that make the uncanny comparison that could actually stand up as showing how twisted some of them have become. Since you seem to be fine with Razorfist, I recommend you watch the video he made on the subject (which I linked earlier), and kindly explain to me how his comparison is wrong? They also have a tendency yo go overboard, regardless, out of fear for Nazis and Fascists. ------ That entirely depends on the circumstances, and whether or not the Mega-Rich saw an opportunity for profit in some fashion. I'm sure George Soros would love to see his idea of a Utopia come to fruition, and he's mega-rich in that he can apparently back Gods know how many protest movements, political movements, and parties with his own cash, all them very Leftist in ideals. Or hell, even prior to modern situations. How many Neo-Liberals are just corporate jag-offs playing at being Leftists or Neo-Cons from a different direction? And they've been around for decades. The Mega-rich are no more a bloc than any other group in society. Many of them may have shared class interests, but I don't see them conspiring actively on any grand scale either, and there will always be some who support one side or another. Helps that even the make-up for the Mega-rich has become larger over time. Which candidate exactly got all the corporate and banker cash in the recent US election, and out-funded her opponent by a factor of over 5 times (ten times at its peak), and explicitly catered to Leftist Progressives? Makes one think. To be fair, yes, I do believe that the Mega-rich, by and large, wish to stay rich, for various reasons. Not all are inherently malicious, but some are. Which to me makes it interesting if the theory is that they're behind all of this business in the mass media. Because it would mean that most of them openly oppose Trump, or at least want people to oppose him if for no other reason than to keep their minds of other things while they rake in the stacks off of tabolid-esque stories. They want conflict among the lower classes and competitors, they desire a dumb and mindless populace that will fight amongst themselves rather than point out how they're bullshit. (Hell, if you believe Project Veritas, it quite literally is all about the ratings and therefore the money to these people. Which IMO is certainly not a ridiculous idea to suggest.) But yea, rich corporations or individuals are entirely behind the censorship craze in that they control the advertising fiascos that have been going on and thus the drive for censorship, they are making killings trying to cater their various outlets towards looking like they care about all kinds of issues when in reality they don't to any significant degree, and they will use popular opinion control as a means to back stab each other if they see the opportunity to do so. Again, I don't see it as any grand Bilderberg or Illuminati world plan conspiracy bullshit where they all sit down and decide exactly how things will go each year, I think they just use their tremendous power to try to effect situations to their own ends, and occasionally their interests align into something that could look like a conspiracy. But they're as competitive and cut throat as anyone else, they just have the power to make such things far bigger.

Seeing as I have recently had some make assumptions about my political viewpoints, here are my results. I must say, they're basically where I expected they'd be, if not basically near the center of the board, as I did consider myself to be a type of Leftist. I will say, I do disdain how there isn't really a "Don't really care either way, option", but that's just me.

Funny, I could say the same about much the content of several of the channels you linked to me, or of the Far-Left and how their extremes have brought about more death, suffering, and destruction upon this Earth than the modern Right, arguably. Especially in modern history. Just change out the Death Camp for a Gulag or a Killing Field, and we have the same result. Need I name names? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? The Jacobins of the French Revolution? (AKA the original "Left" since they are the progenitors of the term) Many of their disciples and similar kinds of followers or adherents around the world? The list I'd say of terrifying examples is as long as yours. Funny how those "Facts" seem to mysteriously absent from your list. Yet you hoist the specter of fear on the other end, and watch people who entertain naive and ludicrous ideas, whilst accusing me of the same? How ironically poetic. 1: Like many different Leftist groups also haven't done this? Why exactly are many Campuses apparently the wellsprings of Leftist radicals and Professors who have no qualms about preaching radical ideas either if this were not the case? All political opportunists wish to appeal to the young irrespective of alignment, the ones who've yet to find their place in the world, form their own views, and develop their own minds. Pepe is not inherently a White Supremacist symbol, he is an extremely malleable symbol for anything that has BEEN utilized by people who may be. But that doesn't make him inherently anything because he can literally be utilized by ANYONE for ANY PURPOSE. To say otherwise is to show your complete misunderstanding of memes in a heavy-handed measure, or that you're willfully lying about what Pepe is as a meme because you hate that someone you don't like just so happened to use him for their own purpose. I don't see you calling Wal-Mart a bunch of Nazi-sympathizers because they indiscriminately serve all customers and don't require a political alignment ID card to peruse their wares, of which I guarantee at least a few probably are Nazis. That's how ridiculous the premise we're arguing over is. 2: I've seen the same for Communist apologists, or Anarchist apologists. They always think that THEIR revolution will work better than the last, and ignore the human costs of all the past attempts and how none of their states have succeeded, save China (whose economic outlook is hardly communist any longer). 3: Oh, anti-semetic now? I see you jumped on the bandwagon of "all globalism opponents = anti-semites", which is hilarious because in order to push that idea, logically you're admitting that it is primarily jewish-driven and thereby giving said conspiracy theorists all the more credit. I myself don't even believe in any Jewish conspiracy, nor do I hold any particular hatred or support towards anyone based on their religious affiliations. I'm an Unconventional Polytheist myself, one who isn't fond of any organized religion. But again, I've seen this same shit pushed by the Left, just under different terms which they're more familiar with. The specter of Nazism and Fascism, and all kinds of other "isms" being the key drivers on your side to push for ever greater and greater controls over society just as much as the right. Yet they're so different? 4: I only criticize the Left more heavily because as a former "member", I wish for them to be better than those they claim to oppose. I have no love for the Right, nor any desire for their extreme's goals of ethnostates or genocide, nor more than those similar ideas on the extremties of the Far Left. I would love nothing more than to unashamedly call myself a "Liberal", but I cannot in good conscience when I know how good modern "Liberals" are about maintaining the principles they supposedly stand for. And no. Because the Left had those years ago and re-affirm their inter-sectional pacts constantly. They stand in solidarity constantly at numerous events or settings, even if their own group has no real specific focus on the subject in question. And their supporters or ideologically disposed individuals control basically every country in "the west" and their media apparatuses, save for a handful. The Left became the establishment, whereas the Right have since become the new rebels of society. The 1960s have flipped, IMO. No, instead I see weekly constantly Leftist agendas being further pushed by higher powers than mere activist groups, powers that actually do have the power to affect millions, if not hundreds of millions. Youtube banning all gun related content for no reasons beyond political, US politics on a global platform at that? The UK government keeping journalists out for their views? The Scottish Courts convicting Count Dankula over a joke?! Twitter and Facebook rolling out more and more content controls that explicitly seem to go after predominately right-wing individuals or even just centrist individuals in the process? Those are all cases I've heard in this week alone so far, and the media hasn't reported on a damn one of them in terms of MSM media, or if they have, its in a positive light. We're seeing slowly the destruction of the very values which made our societies LIBERAL in the name of protecting that liberty! I've also seen numerous threats against many figures on the Right, or even just Centrists that mean no harm at all, but you claim are all Nazi Gatekeepers. Don't try and claim your side is full of saints who're above this. Its BS, and you're either lying, or you're naive. 5: Like you don't? Buy yourself a mirror, bud. Look at the extreme groups of your side, and tell me that they don't desire the same things, you just have no problem with them holding such power, I can only suppose because you think that they're morally righteous or trust them not abuse it? As for myself, I've actually compromised on a fair number of things over these lengthy posts. You guys conversely haven't even given me an inch, hardly (actually that's a bit unfair, Kraken has given on a few subjects just I have for him). The most you gave me was to say that a handful of my sources were "fine" begrudgingly, only to proceed to bash Sargon, the one who admittedly is the punching bag of Leftist commentators. And my oh my, "genocide-apologists", I'd be careful how you throw that around mate. Those in glass houses best not throw stones, and by my reckoning, the tally of genocides committed by both ends stand fairly even, perhaps dare I say, even leaning slightly more towards your end of the scale than mine if we were to actually make a tally. 6: Really? Again, how strange I constantly see Right-wingers constantly getting suppressed across numerous different public platforms for bullshit reasons? I would argue instead that the playing fields are separate and that Youtube is a home to the Alt-Media which is mostly Right-leaning, because the MSM is predominantly Leftist, often allowing even Far-Leftists the chance to speak whereas those on the Far-Right never have, and therefore the Alt is naturally going to be everything they are not, predominantly. They are the reaction to the wider situation. Its is the reactionary against the establishment, again, no different from the 1960s, merely reversed in political alignments. I have seen no end of Left-leaning media coming out of the MSM for years on practically every subject you can imagine, if they do show opposition they only pay token service to it because otherwise it would be too obvious that they're biased. FOX may be the butt of all jokes for how bad it is (which it is), only recently surpassed by CNN, but at least they TRIED to cater to Right-leaning viewpoints as an objective. How many others can say as much that have any similar kind of recognition? I know of none. Brietbart is the only one I can think of, and they don't even compare to how well-known FOX is, I wager hardly anyone knew about them until Bannon got into politics for his brief stint. Let's see, how many of said Youtube personalities have ever made it onto MSM in anything other than a derogatory mention, if at all? How many Leftist speakers have been driven off of University campuses or brigaded during their speeches compared to Right-wing ones in recent years (I can recall a couple, but again, most cases have been on the right)? How many Right-Wing activists have had the luxury of speaking before the United Nations to at least some small measure of international recognition, a la Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn? Again, I know of hardly any. The MSM only talks about Youtube if Pewdiepie does something provocative, most of the time, if that at all. And oh how naive you are if you think the Far Left would never abuse its power, or that the administrations that current favour the Left are not already doing so in so many different situations all over the world. You're willfully ignoring history at this point, and the reality of what is going on right now, even in just the UK alone. Do you even know who Orwell was writing of in 1984 as his warning about who to fear as the next totalitarians? Here's a hint, it wasn't people like Donald Trump. I'd also say your example is hyperbolic and at best is merely reflective of the Left-leaning bias of our current society that both terms do not promote the same reaction equally. Communist, at least in the "West" has not really lasted as a buzzword into the modern era after it burned out in effectiveness decades ago, whereas Nazi and Fascist has not (though they're also being incredibly diluted now as well). It takes a LOT of social deprogramming and "not-give-a-fuck" attitude to actually shamelessly proclaim yourself to be a Nazi in today's society, whereas Communist? Its far more palatable today due to the dilution, hence why you see more. Maybe because they aren't (With the exception of The Golden One, obviously)? They see themselves as something that is not a Nazi or a Fascist, and are pissed off that people like you think they are as a means disregarding anything they have to say on any subject where they don't align with the mainstream Left? Or that your side has literally diluted the term to encapsulate "everyone who doesn't agree with me or even mildly criticizes issue x in a manner that isn't seen as acceptable"? Because that is certainly what it looks like. More to the point, I could ask the same question about how Antifa refuses to call themselves Fascists, because that's what they are, by all appearances and comparisons. But yet nope, apparently they're the ANTI-FASCISTS who just so happen to dress and act like the same original Fascists. In fact, in conclusion I think that kinda sums up this whole thing, doesn't it? "I could say the same thing about your side and yourself." Funny ol' world isn't it, that two different people can come to completely opposite conclusions based on what they see, is obvious that one merely reflects the other, and both can be quite adamant in their positions? Such is the nature of politics, I suppose. Horseshoe theory, man, the extremes of both ideologies have far more in common than the moderates of either side do with each other. I don't care, I prefer it this way over not being able to say anything at all. But if this is your conclusion, then I'll say that I'm done trading insults at each others' character if you are. This is evidently getting us nowhere, and I think people are tried of this, I certainly am. Its exhausting, honestly. But then, such is the case for many Centrists like myself, I think.

I'll be honest, I could care less what you think about Sargon, so much as the arguments or how the evidence is presented. I honestly have problems with some of your linked sources as well, so I'll say that makes us even. Though I will admit, I myself have mostly left him in terms of actively watching his more recent content anyway, his analysis of Michael Wolff's book to me seemed a bit off the mark, especially for someone who used to be a Pro-GG debater. Styx is my most active source ATM for socio-politics given that I find him to be currently on point for a lot of things and makes sense. I mostly credit him (Sargon) with being one of the first content makers to introduce me into the wider community. That was back in GG days. I will also say I appreciate the fact that you're taking the time to go through at least some of them, and am curious as to what your responses will be. As for kraken, again I'll abscond reply blocks just to save us space: Well let's see, you yourself described Antifa as standing up for who they view as oppressed minorities, that they don't support freedom of speech for everyone, that they believe hate speech is a thing, and in all of their actions that I have seen, they very much treat people in collectivist terms. Under what logic could they possibly see that destroying a random person's private property would be anyway beneficial to their cause beyond striking a blow to their wider and more abstract enemies, even if said individual doesn't have any stake in the conflict at all? Thus, they obviously see the world in collectivist terms, they don't value individual rights, and that they see no distinction between people once they've branded them into one camp or another. Its not even that collectivism is inherently bad, there are such things as both Individual and Collective Human Rights as defined under the UDHR. I mostly stand by Individual Human rights, because I believe most of them are far cheaper to enforce, require less oversight (by and large, if applied properly), and do not discriminate between groups of people, but even I will admit that some collective rights should exist if the country can afford to enable them with an equal standard. But are you kidding me on the second bit? You yourself described Antifa as being all about shutting down talks where "Nazis" speak at! That was Antifa at King's College! They shut down the talk between Sargon and Yaron. Yaron describes himself as a Jewish Objectivist, therefore, the logical conclusion is that they view him as some kind of Nazi sympathizer. Or are you saying they were just there to kick Sargon out as a "Nazi Gatekeeper" even though he's not a Nazi either? What evidence need I cite beyond your own self-described previous words on what you claim Antifa to be? Ah, but there is the distinction. The entire Alt-Right are not White Supremacists, if they were one in the same term, why was the term Alt-Right created at all? Which again goes back to how we've been confusing our terms. Some groups within it are, but others are not. Its just like every Far-Left member is not inherently an Anarchist or a Communist, some brands of Libertarians could arguably be defined as Far-Leftists and their ideas are completely different. If I were to post up how many different Far-Left groups outright draw upon Marx as an ideological influence, would it be right for me to just call them all Communists, even if they don't describe themselves in those terms? ----- 1: I proved that they were fallible, that (The SPLC at least) inflated their numbers using an example that wasn't in the US (Bissonette) to demonstrate an increasing number of deaths when in reality it would have been less year after year, and that they are susceptible to political leanings and are biased on various subjects as a result (in the case of Pepe). Do you even know what the context of the adoption of Pepe as a White Nationalist symbol or racist meme was? The fact that Trump posted up or retweeted, I cannot even recall which one it was atm, some Pepe meme, and then Clinton's campaign called it out, and then groups like SPLC and ADL marked it as a Hate Symbol. They literally did it after a political opponent's campaign called it racist, and it wasn't even the KKK Pepe Meme CNN would later show as an example. (If you want to see the Pepe Meme Trump retweeted at the time, and which started all of this shit, you can see it in the video I linked earlier under Sargon which I marked out specifically on the subject, funnily enough, it matches none of the Memes ADL uses as examples on their page) It was hands down the single most ridiculous thing I saw the entire election, because it showed me just how out-of-touch with the modern internet generation these people are, and how incapable of research they must be (unless they knowingly did so, in which case they think we're all fucking morons who'll just blindly obey them). Even then, the statement that Pepe the Frog is inherently a White Nationalist symbol or racist meme is the most ridiculous fucking thing an organization can post up, even if he was used in such a context (which lets be honest, the odds are he has been used in at least one instance as such, likely others). Pepe is one of the most widely used memes across the world, to the point where he's basically become a everlasting meme due to his versatility, and is used for dozens of different situations and analogies and parodies of countless things by countless different people for endless reasons. To claim that he is inherently a singular symbol of anything beyond that he's a silly frog, and the emotions he represents at a given time, is to completely misunderstand what the hell he is as a meme, which was a status he's basically held for a long time in regards to his meme status. So he's used by the odd White Nationalists? Big fucking whoop, I guarantee you, he is just as easily co-opted into White Genocide memes! That's how fucking versatile he is! He's co-optible into anything! Doesn't make it news it anyone who knows these things, but I don't see anyone pointing out that obvious logic. I'd argue it also means they don't understand Memes either, because if you cannot understand Pepe, I doubt such a person can understand other Memes. I'm a watcher of a Streamer with thousands of viewers whose chat uses hundreds of Pepe memes every single day in chat, I post Pepe memes in chat. Are we all White Supremacists? Fuck no. The creator of Pepe is also a moron who thought he could copyright Pepe again and seize it from the internet's hands even though copyright laws completely disagree on the basis. Pretty sure he fucking lost on that one. To claim that he had any say or control over how Pepe has been used ever since he became a meme is to completely misunderstand how memes work as well, because he effectively has no control. As for ADL, the fact that they take 4Chan and 8Chan seriously is a warning bell almost as bad as the "infamous hacker known as 4Chan" moment of the MSM. Reddit, I hope requires no explanation as not being filled with Racists, so I'll defend the others. These forums EXIST to piss off politically-correct moral busybodies on ANY subject you can think of. Its shit-posting, its professional trolling, its baiting people who they know will flip out so that the Channers can all laugh at how seriously outsiders take their antics. Which is exactly what many of those memes they show are designed to do. They're designed to evoke that reaction so that people flip out, and the creators laugh at how everyone thinks its being serious in any way. I did cite evidence, you just don't believe it because I didn't post a direct link. But like before, I'll direct you to my videos I posted for Dash, go through them, specifically the one where Tim Pool was lied about by the SPLC, which is an incredibly recent case as well, to the point where they were forced to delete their page on him. Real classy and professional for an organization that claims to deal with such serious business. 2: What? I didn't attribute it to "popularity" as you call it, I stated that the definition of the term had changed in terms of what was being considered to be a "Mass Shooting" in order to be capable of incorporating more shootings in general under the term, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with popularity, its a change in definition. But here, you want proof? You can check my quote on the Wikipedia page on of Mass Shooting, top of the page, since you seem to use it so much. Its a direct quote off of it: ". . . The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting with at least three victims, excluding the perpetrator . . ." So there, the legal definition did become lower in terms of how many people are involved for it to be considered as such. Does that not inherently show an effort to inflate decreasing numbers of said events? 3: After first wondering why you put these ones up with next to no context, I figured out why. I suppose I was incorrect about the ADL and the "Okay" sign, that was a lie perpetuated by Hack media outlets, but was totally correct on the SPLC. (In defense of Styx's original video, he was still half-correct in that the Legacy did push this, he was just wrong the ADL part like many others who saw the original article. It still doesn't just change the fact that the only reason they talked about Pepe was because it became a political issue.) But hell, the Archive of the original article, in Tim Pool's second post you provide, explicitly claims that he went to Iran in 2012, and that he was an "Alt Right Journalist" (which is funny, because I find it hard to believe that even the term "Alt Right" would have been used to describe anyone from even that long ago except as a retrospective at best). You're proving me right in that these guys don't know what the fuck they're doing when they're writing some of this shit. They had to be called out as being completely lying about the situation on MULTIPLE individuals before they just scrapped the whole article. In essence, going towards proving my point of how the hell you're supposed to trust them on more serious stuff when they do shit like this? But oh yes, just an "error" that they not only completely made up that he went to Iran and call him an Alt Right Journalist, not to mention screwed up on so many other individuals that they pulled the entire article?! That's more than just an "error", and error, you edit and make a disclaimer about the edit or an addendum. You don't pull the entire article off and then decide not to re-post. So he chooses to defend the ADL from bullshit claims? That's his business as an independent journalist, he goes after all kinds of bullshit claims of all kinds of things, doesn't mean that he actually uses ADL as a constant reference or that I should care to even if he does. 4: If you care to listen, I can explain it. Suffice to say, what you saw aught to be ample proof enough to suggest GG went through a bombardment of media bullshit, and has made me skeptical of most media sources (particularly official outlets and various sources like Huffington Post, Washington Post, Buzzfeed, Jeezebel, The Guardian, the list can go on and on for those types of outlets) since I know they have lied, and will lie or simply refuse to do in-depth research into various stories, or even more simply, refuse to show the sides of the story fairly. The phrase "Game-drop" came into effect eventually because so many of these outlets basically started using us as bogeyman for everything that is hateful on the internet, its how bad it got, they also constantly contradicted their narratives over time. 5: You're going to fucking quote to me Wikipedia, as evidence, when I'm paraphrasing the man's words from the very books the man himself wrote?! And even better, you're using an unsourced and uncited sentence from Wikipedia as your evidence!? (Nearest citation within that block of test is a text on the city of Rome, btw, for an entirely different sentence) Fuck off with this bs, you're insulting my intelligence as an Undergrad History Major now. Your quote doesn't even really contradict what I said, he did lose faith in the Socialist Party after WWI (which was when they actually gained political power in Italy) because of how they operated within a Capitalist system rather than to try and tear it down. I stated how he saw Fascism as the natural evolution of Socialism, and that he transitioned from a Socialist into a Fascist. Again, he disagreed with their strategy, which where he broke ranks with them and formed his own iteration. ----- 1: You think I trust Wikipedia on this subject? No way. Besides, you're missing the point of what I asked for if you're just going to cite me a general page of Obama's entire Presidency, which is no real comparison right now. We can do that once the Presidencies are finished. I want you to list me the promises Obama made, and how many he managed to keep, or started working towards within his first year in office. I liked Obama, but even I notice there seems to be a big difference in how much is actually moving between the two Presidencies in the similar spans of time. I could be wrong though and my memory might be off. That's why I want the more direct comparison. Times also doesn't really say he failed to accomplish anything. He has fulfilled a number of those promises, and is in the process of working towards basically all of the ones they listed. As I said. Are you to say he didn't promise as much? Is that your point of contention? The only one he hasn't that is on their list, is revoking Obamacare, which the only reason it didn't was due to never-Trumpers within the Republican party, like John McCain, who don't oppose him on principle, but out of spite. And the Republicans themselves failing to come up with an alternative for similar reasons. In which case, he still attempted for a while to do so, as he promised. 2: Let's be real here. This is hardly the most hypocritical thing he's done, even in terms of optics alone. 3: So you're going to pretend that the Democrats are any different? Who did Obama infamously bail out first during the recession? The Banks, many of which caused the damn thing. You don't think they exerted pressure through their lobbyists? I understand why you're pointing it out, I just don't see the use when I'm pretty sure we both know its not a surprise, nor is it likely to change. But yes, I agree, such is the situation. I just don't see the point in bemoaning the subject or even bringing it up as an issue when this has gone on for over a century to various degrees in US politics. Trying to change that situation in DC may as well be even more impossible than Gun Control ATM, honestly. 4: There's a few sources that point to this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/nov/09/politifact-sheet-donald-trumps-immigration-plan/ (Outlines the points he made, it does not provide the figure here, but it specifically states that he intends to deport immigrants in the country illegally who are convicted of crimes) Washington Post apparently corroborates this figure, though they theorize on where he got it from it and how its supposedly still wrong: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/13/donald-trump-plans-to-immediately-deport-2-to-3-million-undocumented-immigrants/?utm_term=.0909986eaf5f They also cite specifically, his 60 Minutes interview where he specifically says that exact figure, and uses the words, "those who have criminal records". So there is the original source this all stems from, I'm betting. (Styx talking about it after the election, and where I found out about it.) As for overall Illegal Immigrant totals, and some stats related to them, this page from Pew Research is a year out of date, but it still corroborates how even on 2015 figures, Trump's proposed figure doesn't even cover all Illegal Mexican Immigrants, let alone all illegals in general. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/ ----- 1: I was not using it to disprove so much as raising a question mark about aspects of the current man-made theory, is what I was saying about it. How exactly DID it warm up in the Middle Ages, when there was no possible way our industrial capacity could have been responsible for it? And subsequently, why did it fall again? Its an anomaly, and one which I think is of interest to figuring out how our climate shifts and how the Earth reacts. I never disputed them. Don't claim I did. I simply raised an anomaly, or what others have viewed as anomalies in the data. 2: So what? I know damn well it was caused by us, as do you, I thought it could be left unsaid. I never said that wasn't the case, and besides that point doesn't help your case anyway, because for some reason despite the evidence being so ironclad, you're not seeing as urgent of a reaction to the Carbon Crisis as the Ozone one. Again, if it is supposedly so self-evident, and has been for a while, why was it not adopted sooner or hasn't even yet been fully adopted wholesale (barring the US, many countries are not going full-bore into it regardless, even though the theories, many of them anyway, suggest we NEED to go full-bore or should have been over 20-30 years ago.)? But again, I'm not here to debate this. I merely raised this stuff as an example of public skepticism. ----- Suit yourself. I will say the names have indeed changed, but I still think its mostly a mirror image. IDK, Berkeley suddenly losing its status as the beacon of Free Speech after Antifa trashed it to stop Milo from speaking kinda sealed the deal for me on that alone as an oddly iconic parallel. And the fact that Liberalism has, by and large, become the globalized establishment versus Conservatism, which was the opposite in the 1960s. ----- Yes indeed, and Stalin was a master at getting other people to take the blame and subsequently be killed or exiled for all kinds of stuff, including his party's policies and stealing off of other peoples' successes (Including Lenin's). He simply found new enemies for the mobs to blame every time. He went down the list too as he used the excuses to steal land for his public farming projects, cleanse the military of all opponents, and all kinds of stuff. He knew exactly how to manipulate it all to his advantage. ----- I'll refer you again to the videos I linked. For variety, how about you look through Razorfist's and Count Dankula's? Or even some of Sargon's? They all use first-hand film and photos in many respects to show off their points. I'll note that in my comment, I made a differentiation between what I accuse Antifa of doing, and what I accuse Leftists in a more general sense of doing. ----- Mocking Illegal Border-crossers? My, my, how strange of a President who is running a Nativist platform who wants to deport illegals and work towards putting an end to illegal border-crossing. That's totally out of character isn't it? Not. A crazy woman trying to teach her kids to do stuff that isn't legally endorsed by anyone, let alone the President? How is that Trump's fault? Moreso, how is this limited to the Right? Your point on the set of 8 links in "Meanwhile"? None of those are Trump. If you want to post general Right-Wing (some of it isn't even limited to the Right, or even necessarily the far reaches the Right, btw) shit, guess what? I can post general Left-Wing nonsense, and we'll all get no-fucking-where as we see how collectively moronic each side can be at times. I hadn't forgotten, there was a lot of campaign theatrics on both sides that made me think that neither candidate was that good of a choice, I still stand by my choice at the time that had I been an American, I'd have burned by ballot out of protest of both. But evidently, what he did was far less damning of a thing to do than to call a vague 1/4 of the entire population of the country "Deplorables" who shouldn't be paid attention to, and then POST-election blame practically everyone for her failure but herself. Though I will leave this here on that claim as food for thought. Feel free to go to 35:52 for the exact stuff on the moment and subject in question: Feel free to look through Molyneux's sources on the subject too (and any others regarding the campaign events, if you wish) which he links in his description to a handy page on them all, can you accurately say that Trump was mocking the reporter for the disability, or because of what he wrote and was merely acting as a befuddled reporter? I'd argue that in the absence of actual proof, you're assuming the worst because the media has already primed you to think the worst.

Persona 3 FES

Your sources, which are mostly just referring back to SPLC and ADL anyway, outline singular cases. The stats are based upon singular spree killers (particularly the SPLC's). Yes, I cannot prove that Antifa, as a total organization, has done any murders, but you similarly cannot prove that those cases were nothing more than lone wolves either, or that even those groups are the entirety of the "Alt-Right" if they even specifically planned the acts out as a group. Its the distinction that I made. You know what I'm talking about? You proved that there were extremists, I can prove that there are Far-Left extremists out there as well. And no, they may not be arguing for the supremacy of a specific group, but that is where the distinction lies. They argue for the supremacy of collectivism rather than the individual or a specific group, they oppose individual rights and/or favour collective rights. They still argue for the supremacy of ideas because they believe that theirs are inherently the best, no different from their rivals. And again, that doesn't explain why they disrupt events where that topic isn't even being argued. The argument wasn't for Nazism or Racial supremacy at King's College, yet they were there and forced it to shut down. I also find amusing how a Jewish Objectivist can be construed as a Nazi sympathizer, but whatever. ----- SPLC I think I proved the discrepancy already between them, and the ADL alone previously. I also proved how the SPLC inflated statistics by including a singular example that didn't even take place in the US in order to get a more impressive number. They wouldn't even be the first outlet to do it. Hell, a few years ago they changed the definition of Mass Shooting to 3 people instead of when it was a previously higher number because they were becoming less and less frequent. The data on gun violence has been lowering for years, so anti-gun groups change their metrics for the data in order to help bolster their own agenda and arguments. I demonstrated that SPLC is doing the exact same type of thing, and as is shown, many outlets fucking believe them wholesale. But funny you should ask for proof of SPLC getting their shit wrong, there was actually just recently 2 days ago, an incident involving Tim Pool and the SPLC. They claimed that 1) He's an Alt-Right figure. and 2) That he attended some conference in Iran. Tim publicly responded by saying that he's not a member of the Alt-Right, and that despite how he's traveled around, he's never even been to Iran. They subsequently deleted the page on him, which he also called out for everyone to see because of how inconveniently stupid it makes the SPLC look in terms of their research abilities. Sure, SPLC claims to monitor hate groups and individuals, but its blatantly obvious that their definition is extremely politically biased and is entirely at their own discretion. There was one very recent criticism as well where despite sites like Jeezebel and others openly in some of their articles openly calling or endorsing for violence against people they don't like, they're still not considered a "hate group" or "hateful" outlet. That entirely is a discretionary choice on SPLC's part. Not an objective analysis based on an objective definition. I'm still surprised you even bother turning to Wikipedia, they're known throughout academics as one of the most untrustworthy and/or biased sources of information online. And as I illustrated in my experiences with GG, I do not trust them at all to be honest on modern socio-politics. When you have pages that are willing to ignore publicly accessible evidence exonerating a movement because the editors controlling the page have an agenda to push, and the owners of the site don't give a fuck, you've lost objectivity. Read Benito Mussolini's My Rise and Fall (its a fused book of two of his works, both at his height and his lowest points of his short political career), Mussolini is undeniably the grandfather of Fascism, the inspiration and bedrock for Hitler and others, and his book is far more insightful into his view of the socio-political philosophy of the movement than Mein Kampf for Hitler who is far more deranged. Also helps that Mussolini used to be a writer, so of course he could outline his thoughts more compellingly. He constantly refers to the term Socialism, and how Fascism is the natural evolution of Socialism's ideals, and even that Fascism is Socialism in its true form. His difference being that the Socialists had betrayed their ideals by seeking to reform the Capitalist system from within using gradual internal political power. Mussolini argued that no, you had to destroy the entire system before making your socialist system, it could not be done from within. He didn't disagree with Socialism's goals, he disagreed with their strategy. Mussolini's upbringing even gives insight as to why he and his Fascists were disposed towards Political violence too. His parents, both self-described Socialists, are described to have been very heated in their own debates, and his Father specifically ran into frequent troubles with law enforcement due to his violent proclivities towards his opponents and their property. ----- Simple, a person isn't forced to prove a negative, not even a President. Its the prosecutors' job to prove that something happened. Or, more to the point, do you honestly believe that with everything that HAS been caught on camera with this guy, that mysteriously NOBODY has a fucking recording of him saying such a thing? Again, if anyone did, by the Gods, it would be everywhere. Two very different subjects though. Him being hard on North Korea and trading back what they're giving him doesn't mean he's necessarily inclined towards racism. Funny too, that arguing and trading threats with Kim Jong Un, may very well make history as having led to the first face to face meeting between the head of North Korea and the United States since the Clinton-era. Granted, that hasn't been set in stone yet and could fall through, and I doubt anything major will change if it does happen, but the fact that its even being talked about when after so many terms fuck-all has happened and in fact has gotten worse is something that IMO it is already mildly historic. I honestly hope it does happen. MSM will implode, and it'll be hilarious how big of fools they look if that guy happens to have made more progress on the issue than the past 3 Presidents before him. China's reception of him compared to Obama, and the fact that they too have come around to support more sanctions on NK is also a bit telling on this. One could actually argue that Trump, so far, has proven very good at Asian Foreign politics, but less well so on European foreign politics. Again, such is temporary, we'll see what happens after everything is all said and done on those matters. He has allegedly so, yes. But yet where has that case mysteriously gone to since the election? Since supposedly being backed by even Clinton herself? To me, it went up in smoke as fast as the "Lock her up" idea on his own side. I would have thought that given the Democrats' own past political history on the subject, they'd have tried to push this rather than the "Muh Russia" bullshit that their outlets all have pushed non-stop since the election. I cannot say I've heard about any of the women listed before on mainstream media in terms of any major developments since. Now the focus seems to be on Stormy Daniels which by all appears is merely a case of Adultery and now Blackmail. Its also all the funnier for the Dems since we actually got photos on theirs alongside the allegations. More to the point, we KNEW he was piggish and crass in his personality and a womanizer long before he ever ran for Politics. Never once had there been any indicator that he'd abused anyone, nor do his comments necessarily prove it either. I've not even heard the MSM bring up allegations of Pedophilia, WHICH WOULD BE BIG NEWS. Shows you how credible that is that not even the 24/7 propaganda machines against him even bother printing that out as a reminder. As for Puerto Rico, I've seen the arguments made that its "His Katarina", even though he and Congress immediately put in more money and action into trying to deal with the situation than Bush ever did for the mainland US city of New Orleans (Many of the Parishes were still fucked up when I went there several years ago BTW, so an administration change didn't magically fix it totally either). I have also seen several accounts of Puerto Ricans also disparaging their own territorial government as insanely corrupt and inefficient even before all of this shit happened. So I wouldn't say that Trump's criticism is entirely out of touch. But I'll admit, I not as well-versed on this subject as I could be. The Golfing, yea. Arguably one could say he has far more stress to deal with than Obama ever did (though I will say, Obama did visibly age through his two terms, he didn't even have a legion of MSM outlets disparaging every single little thing he does 24/7), he's also done more to fulfill his promises in less time than Obama has regardless of whether or not one agrees with everything he's proposed or done. I certainly don't, but even I can acknowledge he's moving. Gun Control is an inconsistent topic for him, I will agree. Though it looks like the NRA lobbying will have the final word, if not their currently ongoing court cases (which I guarantee you will strike down the current age 21 restriction in Florida as unconstitutional, just watch). I chalk up the inconsistency to a few things: 1) Trump is not a traditional Republican, he's a Business Democrat from NYC at heart, its why the Republican Party hated him when he first started running, and why he has at times given different stances than the Speaker or various party members on certain topics and why he's not as Red of a Republican on some things. Its also why he took them off of useless debate topics like Gay Marriage. Notice how that basically evaporated as an issue when he came in. 2) Potential AB testing, he was seeing how people would react to the idea without fully committing to it. Politicians do this a lot of times on different issues, but its reliant on the people actually responding one way or another. 3) He genuinely doesn't know what to do about the issue in terms of effectively dealing with it. In which case, I don't think he'd be out of line with most of Congress in that boat. The lobbying on its own IMO isn't an issue if we're not going to call it out on both sides. Because it does happen on both sides constantly. It may be questionable (though IMO many of them make sense for the individuals involved), but then so is Uranium One in relation to the Democrats, or the fact that several Democrat figures are implicated into the whole findings of the Mueller Probe in regards to money-laundering, you don't see any of that making much of a spotlight in the news or bearing a massive investigation do you? Or the fact that despite not giving many of their own citizens equal rights at home, many different regimes in the gulf have given the Clinton Foundation massive sums of money during the election campaign? That's not suspicious at all? IMO, if there is corruption, its endemic throughout all of DC, and that unless one strives to root it all out, its going to look stupid. Sanctuary Cities, violate federal law by openly shirking respect for the current immigration laws which are fully the decisions of the federal government. (Its why a bunch of Militias a few years ago along the Southern Texas border were actually not convicted of any crime, they were abiding by US federal law and enforcing it as a Militia because they didn't view Obama's enforcement as adequate) Its frankly amazing that he hasn't just sent in agents to arrest the administrations of those cities, he'd have full authority to do so with the backing of the courts. The fact that he hasn't, I find fascinating, though I wager he'll try and get something on them in whatever immigration deal they work out. I also don't trust the interpretations of groups like the Washington Post, since I basically proved that they're willing to make-up bullshit just to make him seem worse than he is. Okay, so the DNC Dossier outlining the plans for DACA being literally just a means to maintain their stranglehold on the Presidency via co-opting millions of votes mean nothing? The fact that Obama, tried, but failed to grant amnesty so many different illegal Immigrants when it is legally under the Purview of Congress to decide means nothing? The whole reason DACA is an issue at all is because it should not have become a question of legalization or not to begin with, it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The moral issue has become whether or not one feels comfortable with deporting people who entered the country illegally, had kids who may as well be Americans, or whether they came as kids of different ages, and punishing them as well for the crime their parents did. And also deciding who is proven to be productive or not. But it shouldn't have gotten to this fucking point! Obama had no right to circumvent Congress, just as the Democrats had no right to stall Congress over DACA. Trump, is actually doing the right thing by having Congress debate it and figure out what they want to do, and the Supreme Court has even said they refuse to rule on it at this time because they're prefer not to set a precedent of them ruling on these things (even though they technically have the final word). He's implied that he's open to allowing various illegals to stay, so long as they aren't criminals, and they can reasonably be said to be Americans or benefiting to American society through their efforts. I believe 2-3 million was the supposed figure he was aiming for to deport, along with the Wall being built. Estimates vary of between 12 and 14 million illegals across the entire US? That's certainly not every last illegal. ----- Arguably its already too late depending on the theory you believe, they may very well have fucked up by not catching it even sooner. Well then you know even in Al Gore's data, even his data outlines a warming period of the Middle Ages or Medieval Period. So IDK how the fuck you didn't know about it and why it presents a glaring problem with the Man-made climate theory. It also doesn't look good when the crisis is apparently not urgent enough for even him to change his own lifestyle, especially when he has the money to afford it. I've heard of figures and estimates as to how much carbon dioxide and other wasteful stuff Al Gore himself uses, despite his apparent devotion to the cause of climate change. I confess, most of my knowledge on Skepticism of Climate Change comes from one of my University courses on The Social History of Truth, where we devoted a lecture to discussing why skepticism of science on various issues, and in general, has grown. Unfortunately, in the years intervening, I have since lost my fucking notes. I just remember that our Professor had outlined how Environmental issues and especially Climate Change, had run into problems where they presented their arguments more publicly before they had adequate data, and it was used against them because of how the public situation had changed. Well, if you care to search through the Wikipedia you so like to cite, I recommend you go to the page on "Climate Change Denial" look at the History section. According to them, the debates and research have been ongoing since 1824 with research accelerating after 1940. The page does not list any opponents or critics to the ideas really appearing until 1970, though I have to doubt the veracity of that. How exactly was this research and claims not adopted wholesale so long ago in the past, if the evidence itself was not compelling enough or the arguments not fully fleshed out? The page itself marks out how the Ozone Hole was reacted upon VERY swiftly through global efforts once it was presented, yet you don't see that happening historically in regards to Climate Change theories. Look, I'm not going to fucking argue on this anymore because frankly, it doesn't fucking matter. I never said I never believed in Climate Change, you don't need to convince me on it. I was using it as an example of why skepticism has purveyed into the minds of people on certain subjects. You're not going to win anything by trying to convince me, I'm not the one who needs any convincing. I merely doubt as to whether or not our efforts matter if they're not globally synchronized (which they aren't, not even if the US were on board), and if natural cyclical effects will not simply reverse what we've done and just come into effect faster (not that such things wouldn't mean trouble for us either way). I'm not even concerned about the survivability of our species, I'm more concerned about how we can adapt to suit the changing environment, or go elsewhere to deal with it. Because I don't think we're gonna fix it before we see the major effects. I know damn well that's been happening, but you have some people who argue that ALL genetic modification is bad, and don't make the distinctions between which types, or realize that pretty everything has already been genetically modified for our usage, simply over time and use modifying it through usage. The see the words genetic modification, and they think its all Monsanto variety. And yes, I never said I expected Yellowstone to erupt anytime soon, or that I even thought we'd get a period of global volcanic activity increase (which was what I meant, not a global eruption, specifically), but that in the face of those two potential events, however unlikely atm, would render our efforts insignificant, and we don't even have effective means of dealing with those events. ----- This is also a problem with our terms. I do not regard Antifa as being the entirety of the Far-Left, which is the actual equivalent term for which I would call the Alt-Right as you seem to be using (I've also personally used the term Ctrl-Left, but that phrase hasn't really stuck, even though I find it to be an applicable mirror-term). You're essentially comparing a movement with various chapters but all arguing for the same thing, to an entire political ideological side with tons of variations of beliefs and goals and who don't necessarily all seek the same thing. Some of which overlap each other, and can be described generally as being further right than your establishment conservative. Just as the average Far-Left member can be described as being generally further left than your average establishment Liberal. The Alt-Right is a very modern language convention, to the point where I'd argue its not even 5 years old, and up until recently was very strictly used as an insult (and still is, frankly), most didn't openly call themselves that until recently. And Fascism in and of itself is very modern as a political idea, not even 100 years old yet. Communism and Anarchy, two of the traditional Far-Left doctrines of ideas conversely, have reached over 100 years old now though I would argue most don't follow their original iterations, they've morphed since. Funny, I see today as the inverse of the 1960s. The sides have merely switched, especially on the University campuses (where much of it in terms of Free Speech began) and what is rebellious too has changed sides in some respects. And all the more interesting, the Far-Left does the exact same things, and has done so for the past few years prior to the Alt-Right's formalization yet with little opposition. The only thing that hasn't happened is the shootings, but as I pointed out, had the one shooter succeeded, we'd have a line of dead Republican congressmen and a radical Democrat to blame for it, and thus two very public sets of ideological-political deaths. The other being Charlottesville, which I still regard as the first time the Alt-Right as a whole was actually blamed for a death with any credibility, and that only is a case because of how many groups were there, and how they protested prior to it, the actual death itself in all likelihood was not planned. ------ Yes, but Soviet Russia became an Authoritarian state only through the power of an organized and energetic mob both through the public apparatus and seizing control of a sizable sector of the army once the voting didn't turn out in their favour. Lenin actually argued that the populaces of Petrograd and Moscow, despite being a minority against the populace of Russia, were the most fit to vote and therefore their votes were the only ones that mattered because the mostly rural Russian empire couldn't comprehend the class struggle, and would naturally vote for their traditional overlords (in his view). And while he made a compelling argument for why he was right, it still is effectively arguing for a state of mob rule. Read up on the foundations and creation of the Soviet Union, its quite illuminating how much they relied upon mobs in their early days. And yes, I'd say China is quite similar. ----- That's not my point. My point was that he stopped criticizing the Democrats and basically just let the whole issue fall away, when it should have been a rallying cry to reform the Democratic Party after their failure, and it makes him look like he doesn't give a fuck about it to me. Soon as Trump gets elected, he turns over to jump on the bandwagon of how evil he is, meanwhile this motherfucker got screwed by the other party that should have at least given him a chance and not screwed him out of the gate for a dynastic candidate! Blame them for the fact that Trump's President, Bernie! Use it to your advantage to show how fucking stupid they were to go for a candidate who for the first time in decades lost Michigan and Wisconsin, and who was the corporate candidate status quo! He didn't. And now the Dems are still fucked, and likely will be even moreso depending on how Mid-terms go. I know no independent since Washington has won, that wasn't my point. My point was that he gave up on the chance to actually do some good for the Democratic party even in the aftermath, when the public likely would have supported him on it, and instead just fell back in line. ----- You're arguing two different things that have entirely different basis of logic, and one which you haven't even provided a reason for, nor have you proven him wrong. He claims the tax plan offers breaks to quite a few different groups of people including corporations. You merely claim that it ONLY benefits the corporations. What the fuck does he have to gain out of lying about the fucking tax changes? More traffic to his channel? Oh yea, that really matters when he runs no fucking ads, and its been a real benefit to him since he's spoken about it numerous times and yet no discernible change in the average number of viewers has happened on said videos or in general. His books? I fail to see how lying about that will help his occultist books sell. Other than being hopeful that more people will likely have more spendable income to perhaps buy one of his books. His patreon? Oh yes, that totally will just bring all the backers flooding in immediately, especially when he later goes on to criticism Trump on a bunch of other subjects, because he really likes to get those short-term backers who don't pay attention to what he makes for content. You gonna claim he's a Russian bot next? Or an Alt-Right member? Give me a fucking break. More to the point, if he's lying, so are these guys: https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-details-analysis/ Their conclusions are that the system will be much more simplified, it is a pro-growth plan, will lead to wage increases, boost the GDP and produce hundreds of thousands of jobs, based on their models. ----- The title is not indicative as merely a historical account, in any case. This whole thing was about optics, which was the point I was making. That it looks like an advocation or support of the platform. K, so still cannot prove that he's racist. Your source also makes a distinction between Antifa and the Far-Left, basically saying how they aren't representative of all groups within it. (Again, you are associating Antifa as being of equivocal to the Alt-Right, I think we've confused the scales of our terms here, as I said earlier.) Nor do they exonerate Antifa, they merely say that Antifa is not the entirety of the Far-Left, and that most attacks of a political nature in the past 10 years have been from Far Right extremists. They don't even say that the Far Right as whole is responsible for it, merely that its ideology has generated more violent extremists in recent memory, which I wouldn't necessarily dispute. And guess who one of their fucking sources is for information, AGAIN. The ADL, the same organization whom again gave the incredible assertion that Pepe the frog is a fucking White Supremacist Meme . . . yet you want me to believe that they know what they're talking about when they define this shit, and aren't just going with whatever they want? "Oh yeah, we just completely over-exaggerate this, but these people are over-exaggerating Left-wing violent tendencies!" They have no right to claim over-exaggeration as a bad thing when they repeatedly do it for their own benefit. I do appreciate how even their guy admits that the shooting on Scalise and the other Republicans is a troubling development though, because it is. ----- Again, many of those shooters were lone wolves. Not even your source really disputes that. Its one thing to claim that an ideological side produces lone wolf extremists who act independently and cause suffering and death, and that an entire group is responsible for it and actively planned it (Which TBF, I don't think either side has actually done this in any total sense, you've merely got extremist groups and outlets who may propose the ideas). If the latter were true, boy, wouldn't Trump have just an iron-clad reason to ban all Muslims, wouldn't he? ----- I never said that. I merely think that more than ever, its EXTREMELY important to see the different ends and criticisms of various outlets and organizations since it has been proven more than ever how much so many different organizations, outlets, and individuals will publicly lie to your face in order to make you believe them, or will print bullshit because they know it'll benefit them. I think that is the biggest lesson people should be learning from various incidents these past few years. Also, its important to analyze the data they're presenting, if its accessible. What does it actually show? What does it actually prove? Not merely what they CLAIM it proves, but what does it actually prove? You see this in statistics all the time where governments, media agencies, or independent agencies, will twist the data and how its presented in order to present a very particular thing if it suits their agenda to do so. Its why you need to take context into account and know how to analyze statistics. Its why two different outlets can report the exact same issue, yet emphasize different aspects of it depending on what they want to talk about. Gun deaths and shooting stats have been manipulated like this recently to push anti-gun arguments, if you want a prevalent example. None of the major outlets pushing the figures on them are taking the wider context into account, in that overall violent crime with guns has been steadily decreasing in frequency and numbers over time. The incidents might be individually worse in some cases, but the incidents themselves are becoming fewer and fewer. Or, even considering the idea that removing guns will actually solve the problem of mass deaths in incidents like the ones occurring anywhere. Why? Because its inconvenient to their data. The people who cited Japan as an example for lack of deaths by gun violence failed to account for how they just recently had a knife attack that resulted in even more deaths than the Parkland shooting. Or the wider context of how odd it is to compare Japan as as country and culture to the US on such an issue, but that's another matter entirely. Its why cross-referencing is important. I managed to find discrepancies in your sources' numbers alone, man. They all claim to be representing the same stats, yet they differed, and they're on the same fucking side. I also never suggested putting full faith in government agencies, so IDK where you're getting that idea from. Though I will say, I would hope that you could trust your government to actually get decent and reliable statistics on various subjects, otherwise how the fuck could you ever hope that they'd ever solve ANY problems? That doesn't mean you should be skeptical of the government, I think people should be skeptical of their governments, but I mean be skeptical of many things besides. ----- True enough on that bit on him. I most certainly don't agree with him at all, but he is quite an impressive specimen. ADDENDUM BASED ON NEW POSTS: To kraken: We'll see what those bombings turn out to be. Still could just as likely be a lone wolf, but if it were different, I will say its one of the few cases I have seen of an organized act. To dash: I figured I'd save you guys the time and clutter of not going through every last bit of video footage that Sargon, Razorfist, Lauren, Tim, Styx, or others have posted over the past few years on the subject. Its not that fucking hard to search up, considering you guys seem to be able to do it amply without my input. Also, admittedly and embarrassingly, I don't know how to link videos in anything other than their URL links. So sue me. But okay, allow me to go through a "brief" list, not in any particular order and not even a comprehensive list, but all videos which in some way have informed my view on various subjects (Mostly specifically Antifa chapters and different videos related to them or Far-Leftists and/or SJWs specifically, but a few others on other topics I talked about) I highly recommend you do not go through all of these unless you have A LOT of time to kill: Sargon (His main channel and The Thinkery): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM0VyoVsCYg (On Pepe being declared a White Nationalist Hate symbol) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtXwkD-KgLg (Same again, this time specifically the SPLC) Tim Pool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNkXd4qyV0 (This one is on Tim Pool commenting on how the SPLC lied about him among other things) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp2K1e2Fd4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZUjpqgRo4 Lauren Southern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io3VpyL4RoE (With Tim Pool) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVORaw0_PpA (Not on her channel, but footage of her, and there are others.) Razorfist/The Rageaholic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNWAIJfzGZc&t=498s (On Antifa's eerie similarities to Historical Fascists) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuuoqjGAWNc (His experience with Antifa in Phoenix and media bullshit) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGhmrutv8no (Antifa trying to boycott a Swedish Black Metal Band for being supposed Nazis) Count Dankula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPTZ7hz_vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFdYFWZrsQ (Via Sargon's channel, doing a TWIS episode to fill-in) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCnPtd8CWno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-Wcl7lP3o (Not Antifa or even Anarchists, but bullshit about a brand of collectivist arguments from a brand of Far-Leftist) Styxhexenhammer666: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEh87xZAg60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72PcphViyOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P7UbBGWu3Y&t=534s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NWUdrv4lks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dwCuWj14_c&t=343s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bQ-TQqHDeQ (ADL believing the "Okay" sign = "White power") But on to the topic of Trump apparently calling countries shitholes. This claim literally has no evidence that isn't complete hearsay, and you know it just as much as I do. There is evidence of Antifa being violent, there is evidence of them shutting down, or trying to shut down events and people around the "Western" world that have zero relation to Nazis or Racists at all, and people have it on fucking film. There is even recordings of people of various Leftist groups calling for violence and or the deaths of various groups or people they don't like, of them beating up people they don't fucking like. There is also a shitload of photo and video evidence of them vandalizing and destroying the public and private property of individuals who have fucking nothing to do with the issues either. Conversely, there is no evidence that has actually been presented by ANYONE, let alone the fucking media outlet that originally broke the fucking story that isn't hearsay on this particular issue of what Trump supposedly said! So don't give me this smartass crap. But on to your evidence: Oh wow, real hot fucking scoop from the 70s, a time where tons of fucking realty companies, and other businesses did this all the time because of legal loopholes. You gonna boycott every single last one of their modern iterations too? Or are you guys scrapping the bottom of the barrel because you had to go back over 40 years just to find anything remotely racist on this guy's business? Who was the candidate who in modern times when she went south actually used a hot sauce comment and southern drawl to try to be relatable to blacks down there? Considering the only one of those allegations in terms of acts I recall sticking and being repeated in the media was the 70s one, I'm inclined to believe they weren't big fucking scoops. Or are you gonna say that CNN and other outlets are apparently all racist sympathizers as well too, even though so many of these outlets made it their 24/7 business to dig up and repeat every last bit of dirt they could find on him no matter how out of context they spun it? Hillary's ads didn't even run the fucking things and they had no shortage of material to choose from. Ted Cruz got criticism for being born over in Canada, I believe, which I wager would have been foisted on him, had he made it. JFK got shit for being catholic in a time where the Church had basically none of the power it held centuries ago. Don't fucking try and claim that no white guy has ever faced criticism for whether or not they were legally able to hold office based on their backgrounds. Sure, maybe they were never asked for their birth certificates, but the accusations were about as fucking dumb. And yes, I would say that the accusations on the certificate were stupid, but at the time did you honestly think it was anything other than Trump trying to fucking drum up publicity by acting crass? Acting like an idiot for the few minutes of fame, because nobody considered it to be a serious challenge at all? Hence why they never went anywhere? We all knew that about him prior to the election. Didn't see many racist allegations flying around prior to the election, except perhaps in regards to these comments, did you? And what do you know? He doesn't even stick to those comments when he gets into office. Real fucking proud racist there, not even sticking to his guns when he gets into power. That actually really pissed a lot of the genuine racists off. But oh yes, he totally ran a racist fucking platform, he's secretly vehemently racist even though since he started running for office nobody has caught him even saying a racial slur, he hasn't proposed any racist legislation since he's gotten into office or repeals of amendments surrounding them (hell his tax plans helps all people), he totally got the majority of whites to vote for him and for the Alt-Right to be completely on board with him because he ran an ethno-nationalist cause (not, on either count), and he totally didn't get a single voter of any other race or sexuality to vote for him at all because he's such a fucking bigot (not, again). And despite all of this flagrant racism, a media outlet has to fucking make up an account of it happening and have dozens of other outlets act all enraged over hearsay!? You realize you're making the case for the shithole comments look even more unbelievable now, right? If he is such a racist, why would they even need to make it up? The White House and Congress are as leaky as a shiv right now, how is it apparently impossible to get even ONE instance of racism on any kind of recording, if he's such a racist? No, they apparently have to make it up. Oh, and the Dems totally aren't racist by the same historical or modern nit-pick analyses or simply by the fact that their administrations have done fuck-all to meaningfully solve many of the race issues in the country? Or the fact that they've now, in many respects, become the party that hates Whites (Hell, even Bernie, with his comment on "Whites don't know what its like to be poor.", real fucking endearing for a guy who supposedly knows the Working Class), or the party that views a quarter of the fucking country as "deplorables" unworthy of being listened to. Whose internal memos show they don't give a fuck about illegal immigrants for any reason beyond more votes, whose former candidate has by now publicly blamed every single last person and demographic but herself for why she lost, and whose pundits love to throw around the race card of why the election turned out as it did even if the data doesn't support it a la Van Jones. I think we can both say that everyone's got baggage in there that have made them look like total fucking morons who arguably shouldn't be running the country for a variety of reasons, and leave it at that. Oh really? The Supreme Court doesn't think so, and I'm inclined towards their 7:2, non-bipartisan ruling over yours. Not to mention, again, it is the single most ineffective "Muslim ban" in all of history, by not even including the top five Muslim majority countries on Earth. Real great fucking discriminatory legislation, he's really hitting it hard, especially using a list of countries Obama's own administration drew up! Especially since they're temporary too and won't even last a year! You're casting assumptions onto actions that do not necessarily support those assumptions. I've seen tons of Leftist protest groups bring their kids along as much as the Right, inculcating them into their ideologies while they're young, and last I checked, Antifa's membership isn't a bunch of geriatrics either, man. Its mostly University students, whom may or may not have had their own critical thinking abilities fully developed yet. Fuck the SPLC, I'm tired of you guys linking it like its the Ten Commandments of all that are hateful, when I've repeatedly shown how false they can be and how misleading they can be, and I'm not going to explain it again if you guys refuse to listen. How about I link the state of New Jersey which officially branded its Antifa chapters as a domestic terrorist organization a while ago? I've talked about how Mussolini saw his own fucking movement, he's the grandfather of the thing, and inspiration to those that came after, and his parents were self-described socialists. I'm pretty sure he had a grasp on what he meant. Terrible though he was. Fuck off on the Climate Change bit, I didn't want to get into an argument over the damn thing since I do believe it is a thing. You obviously didn't read why I brought it up, and I'm getting pissed that it even went this long. I'm not the one who needs convincing on it. I was merely using it as an example. And again, like kraken, this whole fucking thing is getting its terms mixed the fuck up where we're apparently equating Antifa to the entire Alt-Right whereas the Alt-Left would be the better phrase. Can you even link an organized modern event where an Alt-Right group actually organized bombings and shootings? Can you say that all who claim to be members of one group or another have, or that this is entirely indicative of the Alt-Right? All kraken has been able to link are lone wolves who were INFLUENCED by them at best (which if that's the basis for what we're using here, it is purely luck that the Far-Left hasn't produced as many murderers so far. Because both have various groups and speakers that have advocated for murder and in some cases even mass genocide.), I don't recall any account of those people acting under orders or following some grand plan beyond their own where a bunch of them all got dragged into court afterwards on conspiracy charges. (I'll admit though, my memory isn't the greatest on this, so feel free to show me otherwise if that is the case) Really? I spent time on one as well, quite recently. I even visited a couple years ago. I will admit, it is definitely dependent on where you are, and what program you are in, but I cannot deny, it most certainly seems to be a growing problem when more and more incidents seem to be occurring on more and more campuses across NA and Europe. You're lucky perhaps, like I was when I originally went in that I managed to avoid and not see much of any of it, to the point where I was shocked to find out that it was actually happening elsewhere, because I could not believe such things were actually occurring, but by the Gods has it come to many campuses, including increased its presence at my own. I never thought I would see the day where my own University would have a group shut down and yell-out a speaker they didn't like, but it did, and quite recently. At the same University, earlier when I visited again, I saw an audience explode and practically try and rip a guy apart on my campus because he had the gall to say he would have voted for Trump. IDC what you say, that is not behaviour I want to see at an academic event at a University. So again, maybe you're lucky, and I know I was for my years in Uni because my Uni wasn't known for having much of an activist core or being all that controversial in terms of topics and discussions. But that doesn't change the fact that this shit IS happening and is developing more and more with each year. As more Professors feel censored, more student societies feel censored, and more Free Speech events or simply talking events are brigaded for no good reason, and people are seeing it across nations. Interesting topic to end on. I still do not believe that Antifa are the ones I would trust to do that, nor would I trust any kind of movement like it to do so of any description or leaning. Arguably, the government doesn't even adequately defend it, why would a public organization, one based upon opposing another ideology, one which has no real unifying leadership or overarching organizational structure, and has proven to be very liberal at who they brand as a Nazi, necessarily be any better? (To use my own experience in GG, we never really proposed to be the ones to remain in place to sit in judgment on games industry and journalism ethics forever or even make any kind of final decision on the matter, we were a consumer revolt. We had no leader or formal organization that wasn't impromptu and temporary, and nobody really had 100% control of the hashtag by nature of it being a hashtag. We merely knew that we wanted the situation to change, and that the state of affairs which had been building over the years had been exposed as being almost exactly what many had feared it was. But a common sentiment was that GG would have gone nowhere and just evaporated like so many other consumer revolts before it, had the source of the major qualms been resolved or addressed. But that never happened, so it persisted despite multimedia bombardment and a mountain of hack articles for a while. But we were under no illusions that it would ever continue forever.) Ideological fanatics with no qualms for authoritarian tactics do not arbitrators of Free Speech make, IMO. They would remove one source of tyranny, only to impose another by virtue of the fact that they are fallible in their proclamations, and have caused suffering to quite a few through their false deductions. We already view such a state as intolerable when our justice systems make such mistakes, and we'd be no more forgiving on others. Plus, not to be judgmental of the Supreme Court's words, but that's a very vague sentiment when you're dealing with a population whose morals can and will change throughout the decades and generations. Does it mean that Free Speech is not inalienable and Hate Speech is merely whatever the populace of the day desires it to be? If so, why did we even fight for Universities to be centers of Free Speech at all? Why did racism even die out from mass public law and language at all? Why is Free Speech even considered an inalienable right if it can be revoked or limited by the majority on its whim? Why trust a populace to make the right decision, when we apparently don't already trust to make informed or rational decisions based on the current system of Free Speech, since we're arguing for the censorship of ideas based on public receptions and perceptions? Surely a public we don't trust to be capable of dissecting a BS argument is not capable of deciding what speech is and isn't allowed? Just some of my thoughts in response. I don't necessarily have an answer to the situation. Nothing lasts forever, is what I'm saying. Both good and bad. I'd merely prefer that we don't leave the door open for authoritarians to seize power so easily given the opportunity through well-meaning means, and that we simultaneously try not to jump at every shadow but actually seek to deal with the real problems rather than merely perpetuate them and create new ones. And on the subject of blocking people from speaking, Since you gave me a quote for thought, let me reply first in an old quote from whom I cannot remember saying it and am probably paraphrasing: "By cutting out a man's tongue, you don't show that you're better than him, you merely show that you fear what he has to say." Censors have rarely actually succeeded in eradicating something, they merely make it more difficult to obtain or listen to, and arguably it becomes more rebelliously attractive because it has become taboo. Doesn't matter what it is that is being censored. And arguably, the more brutally it is censored, either by a government or group, or wider society, the more attractive it becomes to those who wish to be rebellious. To use a perfectly mundane example. In the French Enlightenment just prior to their revolution, despite it being incredibly blacklisted by the crown and illegal to sell, there were more pornographic and smut texts produced and sold than both the accumulated number of political philosophy and natural science treatises combined. Granted, we're talking porn's attract-ability here for mass consumption, but its prevalent for socio-political contexts because guess what types sold the most to the masses out of the various content in said smut? Ones involving nobility participating in depraved acts, the very people who wanted the stuff censored. Small wonder they sold like hotcakes ahead of the French Revolution via the underground press. But back to modern reality. In the manner in which Antifa have conducted themselves, EVEN IF, we say that they actually succeed in eradicating Nazism via their methods (which personally I don't even think is a guarantee), they have simultaneously "red-pilled" an entire generation of people who look ready to seize power away from the groups they support anyway, because that generation has seen that such groups are no better. They know that in time, those same groups will abuse their power over others, given the chance. And so, they will do all they can to avert them ever gaining much substantial power again with all their might. Which is arguably what is happening now as well. Centrists are not inclined toward supporting Antifa, certainly not when it looks like various chapters are ready to declare anyone "right of Marx" at times a Nazi or Fascist or Racist bigot, or anyone who even is mildly nationalistic as a Nazi, and beat the fuck out of them or their supporters and disrupt whatever they're doing because they think that they're the arbiters of social justice. And its a problem at Universities because many times, a lot of these speakers are INVITED by student societies on campuses. One group's opinion on who isn't allowed to speak apparently overrules the other who wants to hear them speak and perhaps question them? Yeah, that's gonna go over well, welcome to the 1960s again. And while I have no love lost on seeing Spencer apparently go, he's an easy one to remove. He's argued explicitly for an ethno-state and is perhaps one of the few cases where Antifa is actually justified in what they're saying. What about the cases where its not so cut and dry? I still fail to see why Sargon and Yaron alone were shut down when their discussion had nothing to do with that, and neither argue necessarily for an ethno-nationalist state. Or why Anarchists saw fit to lie about Count Dankula's speech to defame him and those who invited him (despite stupidly providing audio that in and of itself disproves their case). Why the SPLC and ADL consistently seek to over-exaggerate what makes an Ethno-nationalist or right-wing extremist and who is one on account of that. Or why Milo Yiannopolous despite how many times he's been threatened and shut down, continues to get more invites to events? Hell for a bunch of these cases, the tactics backfire. They get even more invites, more people who're inclined to support them or listen to them, and more reception in general as others spread what happened and how ridiculous it looks. The other big thing is, just because you silence a speaker does not mean that their audience suddenly reverts. All that's arguably shown to them is that there are enemies who refuse to even allow their opponents to speak. And that lead to a couple things. In some cases, you get more violent radicals emerging, in others over time, it creates a silent opposition. Wherein you have no idea that people oppose your way of doing things and thinking, because they know better than to say anything and mark themselves out for you. They may nod their heads and clap, and they'll play the masquerade, but in places like the ballot box, they let their true feelings known. IDK, just my thoughts.

dash, my oh my, you seem to be incapable of understanding the nuance to what I said prior. You do realize that simply watching one's content does not necessarily equal an endorsement, right? I'll admit, I did not rank my sources in any particular order as to how much I actually fucking watch, or even where I line them up in terms of where I align with their views on various subjects or even my own strict opinions on various subjects, but I gave the list as a perspective of into the wide variety of types of content makers who classify themselves as the Alternative Media whom I so happen to have seen. Which the Alt-Media generally is overwhelming Centrist and Right-wing for my tastes. I get my fill of Leftist media all the time in my country's media outlets, I don't need to go to the internet to hear the same thing repeated to me again and again, nor am I really inclined towards communist arguments anymore than I am ethno-nationalist ones. But my replies. You understand WHY Sargon argued for that, right? Why he specifically outlined the types of courses he refers to, and how it serves nobody any real purpose other than to indoctrinate one into a cult and encourage them to go into political activism of a very particular variety? More to the point, we're talking about courses where they in and of themselves, police speech and topics in their own fucking classes man. Where you have no choice but to either go with the line, or remain silent because the difference in opinion does not matter so much as the propaganda. Yet you go after him because he wants to ban such courses? FFS, had this been the 1940s, you could argue the exact same shit was going on in the Hitler Youth programs, merely from an entirely different direction. Its also in the context of SJW activism on University campuses, which these classes inculcate, and which I hope I don't need to explain to you how THEY are the ones who've been the real front-runners of silencing free speech on campuses across NA and Europe both among faculty and students in recent years. But oh yes, Sargon is the real hypocrite for merely making a petition to see these removed, if at all possible. Right. Kinda an ideological trap there isn't it? Both of us can argue the other is silencing free speech, it merely falls along ideological lines as to who believes who is correct. I would argue mine is the pervasive argument since its far more widespread and is easily document-able to prove that it is censoring speech in and of itself, but I will say that yes, in a vacuum, Sargon is arguing for censorship of classes and therefore speech. Even though that's already fucking happening on Campuses anyway, and his petition was to try and deal with some of that. In fairness, I will admit, I do not think Sargon is a very good debater when faced with an actual opponent in most cases, I feel he needs to work on his argumentation, and I think he has been tempered too much by the kinds of debaters who are more likely to just shut him down rather than debate him to the point where he isn't the most well-suited for many different debates with skilled opponents. Yea, and I could show you a bunch of moronic Leftists who are just as likely "useful idiots" for "Fascist" recruitment, just as I'm sure a whole bunch of Right-wingers are "useful idiots" for Far-Left recruitment, THE TWO FUCKING ENDS OF THE PENDULUM PLAY OFF OF EACH OTHER. When some of the top figures of the Alt-Right, many arguing ethnostates or some such ideas and laws, consistently cite how its the Far-Left that has given them such boosts in membership over the recent years, I'm a little more inclined to believe their reasoning since why would they have any reason to lie about why they're experiencing such a growth, to themselves? As for Tim Pool. I actually don't watch much of his material, I got interested in him after his trip to Sweden, where he impressed me by being one of the few journalists I had seen to actually go over and investigate the situation over there in regards to the Migrant situation in that country, and show the actual situation on the ground as much as he could with first-hand footage, and showing some very interesting material in regards to it. His footage was quite fair and balanced in perspectives, I thought. He gave different people the ability to voice their opinions. His sum-up of his trip there, I thought was very equal and could be verified based on what he had seen and shown us, exactly what I would expect for a journalist to do. Then, what do you know? He gets fucking branded by the Swedish government's media figures list, and has his words twisted by Swedish media afterwards (If I recall correctly). IDK where the hell you're getting the idea that he's some pawn of FOX news or the Right-Wing, I've seen tons of them call him a fence-sitter. Go figure. I also don't watch much of Lionel either, I only watched a couple of his videos recently and personally don't find his long-form dramatic style to be my favourite, but that between the lines he does give some insight into some things by virtue of being a Lawyer and being far older than most of these types of content makers. I will say, he's interesting to listen to, but I do agree his hyperbole isn't the best and a trifle unnecessary. He's more amusing for me to watch than anything else. I will say though, I did think he was one of the better speakers at the recent Meeting of the Minds discussion in NY, of which Styx and Tim were two of the other attendants. Again, I watch Lauren on certain subjects (I believe the last bit of hers I watched was on Count Dankula's trial over in Scotland and the complete shitshow that is, will probably look into her recent and ridiculous detainment in the UK). I am inclined to her partially because I'm a Canadian as well and her antics here I've found to be very amusing in regards to pointing out some of our government's ridiculous ideas and policies in regards to political correctness. Again, I was impressed with her for similar reasons to Tim Pool in that she's one of the few actual "investigative" journalists I have seen in action that are actually bold enough to go into subjects that most mainstream outlets won't devote time and effort to, in her case, actually going into the various Free Speech protests that have broken out into violence, and the Antifa antics in Hamburg at the last G20. I'm not a big fan of her immigration videos, I find that other content makers I watch have argued those subjects better and with less drama, and I don't look to her on many feminist issues especially since I don't really support the views particularly. I've watched barely a handful of PJW's videos and those were from over a year ago, I lost interest in him pretty quick as I realized he was a dramatic nut bar like Alex Jones, playing a character mostly. But a broken clock is right twice a day, and he claimed to offer a different perspective, hence why I paid any attention to him at all. Stefan, like many of the others, I don't fucking watch him for everything, in fact I also hardly watch him at all. There are actually some subjects I do highly disagree with his interpretations on, and others I think he's right on the dot on, funny how many socio-political commentators can be like that for people. The set of videos that got my attention that he was even worth my time was the 3 videos on the "Untruth of Donald Trump" during the election. Where in long and detailed fashion, he tears apart the mainstream media's interpretations of what they claimed Trump said, versus what he actually said and showed how far the media was going to lie about, or simply spin what this guy was saying. Considering how much propaganda has since been spun about the man non-stop since, I find it immensely illuminating towards the BS of the MSM. So for that mostly, I appreciate him for. Black Pidgeon Speaks is a recent one for me, like Lionel. I'm not even subbed to him. Considering that I don't even entirely know where he's from (I'm guessing Japan, though I don't believe he's a native. So sue me, I haven't had the interest to fully look), I merely find his perspective fascinating on numerous subjects, even if he is melodramatic in presentation and not the most detailed. FYI, I don't necessarily treat casual racism as a criticism considering how often I've seen legions of the Far-Left disparage Whites with casual racism (not that they ever call it that), and the MSM as well, but nobody seems to give a fuck. The double standard does exist on that issue. Strange world we're living in now where racial segregation and discrimination is actually being argued by some Leftist groups on the basis of social justice and "reparations". But either way. I've watched one fucking video of The Golden One's (one that was in regards to Styx, actually, I watched it for context) and could tell very apparently that he's a ethno-nationalist, I merely listed him to show that yea, I watch the odd ethno-nationalist video, if for nothing else than to see what the fuck they're even arguing. Its the same reason why I watched the odd video made by Anita Sarkeesian. Doesn't mean I agree with them, hell for the one video of his I watched, I was laughing most of the time for how over the top dramatic he was and how even his titles read. Some sources, you purely watch to see what they have to say, not necessarily because you agree with them (which I think you could say is a take-away of my list), but because you've never actually heard someone try to argue it in such a manner. I will say though, his character is the only amusing part of him for me, I just have no care to actually buy into his arguments since I don't believe in an ethnostate working any better than any other or any racist principles. So, if you noticed, there is a differentiation on how I view the content of various makers. Some, I watch every day, others I only turn to on certain subjects, others still I only watch the odd video of for context, or because they have made a valid point in the past. None of it is necessarily endorsement of all of their views at once. If you want someone whose ideas I actually mostly align with, and haven't listed, its the late George Carlin. Whom even now I wonder what he'd be thinking about the various situations going on right now. Certainly wouldn't be a fan of all of the sanitation of speech, I know that for a fact, and he was well aware of the problems both the Left-wing and Right-wing causes have even in his time. But okay, you smug bastard. You go right ahead, your parting comment was an nuanced as your interpretation of me. After I myself said that there aren't necessarily "better" sources, but no matter. As for my views of yours, I honestly can't say that I've watched many of them to go into detailed comment (though going through a brief look through some of their content, I daresay, some of them I could pin you to the wall for them picking low hanging fruit of rival content makers or generic political interpretations on the other end of the spectrum, since that's what you seem to be doing to me. I assume these are the people you associate "A" Class content with? Glad to know we have some similarities in the types of content we indulge in. We're mirrors.). Though I do know some of them (hbomber specifically) and I must admit I used to watch Jim Sterling very regularly, daily actually, and am still subscribed to him (because IMO its meaningless to unsub now), and I still appreciate the service he did and in many respects continues to do for exposing shitty Early Access and Indie Developers as well as some of the antics of the AAA industry. I simply stopped watching when it became very clear to me that a) Anyone can do that in just as interesting or even better manners, especially on the AAA end of things. Ross IMO does it just as well, just not as a regular a basis since that's not his prime focus. And b) Its incredibly obvious where Jim Sterling's biases are on various subjects even just on gaming alone. Its obvious because for those subjects, the quality of research and argumentation goes to shit compared to other times, its like night and day IMO, and its embarrassing IMO because I know he's intelligent enough to know better that these pathetic arguments won't convince anyone. He just doesn't care, I think, because he sees it as beneath him to argue those particular points effectively in ways that don't belittle the people for holding them, or because he has friends whom the subjects relate directly to. Which is fine, he can do whatever the hell he wants, its his channel, but its why I lost interest. Its why I arguably have more respect now for a person like Styx or Razorfist, because they actually keep fairly consistent in their quality of arguments, by and large. I also just grew generally disinterested in him over the years, I only watch his odd video now. Just like many others I have an eye on both for entertainment or otherwise. Ross is actually one of the few exceptions where I've kept watching everything he's made over the years and years and enjoyed (albeit for different reasons) throughout. As for Kraken, I'll reply again to yours shortly.

There is a difference between speaking and disrupting. Are you saying that its okay then for a ton of robe-wearing Klansmen or say, a whole contingent of uniformed Nazis to storm a leftist speaking event of any kind and do the same (to use an extreme example)? I don't see it as productive. It mostly only leads to conflict, and nobody really learning anything except becoming more ideologically disposed towards one side or another they likely were already leaning towards. I attended, personally, a teach-in at my old University that was on a subject full of people I disagreed with on their opinions, but whom made up the majority of attendants. I didn't start shouting in the middle of the fucking event and stopped them from even outlining their views fully. I waited, I waited until the end, formed a question for the Q&A (which took a while, considering I felt pretty intimidated in the room I was in, and I had to think about how to pose it without getting yelled out of the room, but I did it nonetheless), and walked out after I got a response (the response was BS, especially from Academics, but that's another story). But I point out the Yaron-Sargon event specifically, because they were actually discussing (because they heard them chanting outside) how yes, Antifa does have a right to protest their talk, if they so desire, but that so long as they allow for them have it, it doesn't matter for Free Speech. Both can exist at the same time, the problem becomes when the one tries to literally stop the other (which is also why its important to have Police or security keep the two at least minimally separated, yet they haven't in various situations). Lo and behold, not even 5 minutes later, they burst in, storm the stage, try to pick fights with numerous people in the audience, pull a fire alarm, chant all over the place, set a bull-horn to siren mode, and have to be forcibly evicted by both administrators and security. You pull a fire alarm, its almost guaranteed you're shutting down whatever event is going on, or at least significantly disrupting it to the point where they cannot continue as planned. Anti-GGs did it to us all the time, and I know Antifa's chapters do it fairly often as well. 1:I say "formerly" because I'd say GG is basically dead at this point, or at least dead in terms of any sort actions it may do, KIA still exists, but that's basically it. That's all I mean by it, my opinions on it haven't really changed, so much as I've moved on from it, as have a great many of its former supporters. But oh boy, you had to bring up the Wikipedia page, and the exact reason why I do not trust Wikipedia, if I didn't already because I was educated as an historical researcher that one page has shown me why you never trust Wikipedia. Do you know how many edits that page has gone through? How Wikipedia had to freeze public edits on it because it became a literal tug of war between two sides of the same story with hundreds of edits back and forth every single day? Have you any idea of the chat logs of the various appointed maniac editors who have controlled that page over time and how much shit is on that fucking page that is so poorly sourced, it'd be a fail if it were submitted to a University for analysis. The page pays token homage to the movement's concerns, and instead gives full and almost complete supremacy to the accounts of its "victims" and how we're basically the progenitors of all that is evil on the Internet. It is entirely one-sided, and almost entirely uninformative of the reality of what happened. They don't acknowledge the victims GG's opponents made, they don't acknowledge the actual ethical concerns that were raised, nor do they even acknowledge the efforts GG took as group to control the Trolls, because that would harm their narrative of how we're the devils that need to be exorcised by their patron saints and angels who cannot possibly do anything wrong. I understand I'm using dramatic language, but then the Wikipedia page blows the whole thing as much out of proportion. They also refuse to acknowledge the FBI report that pretty much fully exonerates the movement, is publicly accessible, and goes into quite a large amount of detail on the harassment allegations. ". . .Difficult for commentators to discern their goals and motives" my ass, they refused to even talk to us or do any research beyond the "victims" accounts, which is basically what you'll find of almost every single MSM account of us, if they even talk about us at all. And the few that have actually talked to us, like Brad Glasgow, are shunned for having fucking talked to us! Fuck, Milo, back when he jumped in to bolster his own career but at least he pretended to care about us and actually gave the movement some coverage, he got fucking death threats sent in his mail with dead rats stabbed with a razor. It was that page that inspired me to get off of my fence and actually do some digging into GG and its past, because I could not fathom how the page could possibly be accurate. And what I found kicked me off of my fence. 2: You've yet to prove to me that I'm wrong about how the Antifa I've been seeing is somehow not the real Antifa. There's a big difference from egg-pictured one-day old accounts claiming to be GG supporters throwing throw-away harassment at individuals on Twitter, and chanting, black bloc uniformed, officially organized flag-bearing chapters of Antifa (all conveniently flying the same basic Antifa flags, too). Prove to me I'm wrong then. I will extend an olive branch in that I will say that I base my observations based off of all of the Antifa organizations or chapters I have seen, but they seem to be pretty fucking consistent across the ones I have witnessed. 3: Show me a recording of Trump actually saying Haiti, or African countries were shitholes, and the context in which he said it, because I've yet to see anyone show it. Fuck, they can get recordings of everything else he fucking says because the White House is so fucking leaky, yet magically the Washington Post cannot produce one for that OR the time he supposedly said the N-word. Boy, that would be fucking compelling evidence of him being a racist wouldn't it? Yet where is it? And how he is xenophobic towards Muslims? They're not a race, BTW, anyone of any skin colour can be a Muslim, the fact that many are of Arab or Asian ethnicity doesn't mean shit. His "Muslim travel ban" that the Supreme Court ruled was no such thing? The single most ineffective "Muslim ban" in history because it didn't even include the top five biggest Muslim majority countries on Earth in it and doesn't even specify Muslims as being the only ones banned? Plus, in terms of witnesses to the "shithole" comment that is pretty much entirely hearsay, I've only heard one Senator say it happened, versus three other people who claimed to have been in the room when it happened at the exact same time, and claim nothing was said. But again, they can find recording of every other fucking thing he's said, magically the Washington Posts gets this one apparently through "an Anonymous tip". Otherwise no, I don't think he's a racist or a bigot. He runs a very nationalist and nativist platform in many regards and is crude and crass, but he's no racist. I have more evidence of Hillary being a racist with her "hot sauce" comment she made back in the election. But I must say, that's a very simplistic definition of Nazi. Yes, racial supremacy and hierarchy (quite detailed ones, actually, they even categorize Whites in tons of levels) does go hand-in-hand with Nazi ideology, but not every racist is inherently a Nazi. Racists existed long before the Nazis. Why is Trump apparently a National Socialist, and not merely a Racist, if that's what the argument is? He's yet to even propose racist legislation or anything that would divide US rights into a hierarchy based on race, funnily enough, groups like BLM seem to want just that (maybe not the hierarchy part, but certainly racial segregation of rights). But this definition is even stranger when looking at other figures who aren't even racist and yet are called Nazis by Antifa. Then again, I suppose the definition of racist itself has shifted quite a bit if some people are thinking a less than 100% score on Black Panther's Rotten Tomatoes score indicates Racism, but that's another story. 4: So fucking what? The original Nazis and Fascists identified themselves as Leftists and Socialists and as being distinctly different from Conservatives, yet most Leftists won't own up to that embarrassing fact of history. Or the fact that most Communists refuse to acknowledge that almost any singular Communist regime has caused more human suffering than all Hitler did himself and his Third Reich, and that Communism as Marx envisioned will never happen, yet you don't see so many Communists being automatically disregarded, do yea? In fact Neo-Communism seems to be booming, last I checked. 5: Are they? This whole argument started around the fact that there's no shortage of Antifa violently opposing anyone they so much as think is a Nazi. Are you saying that this is somehow not the case, and my original points on arguing were correct and is the norm? Because it certainly doesn't look like it. It looks like they, or other Far-Left groups, at best, pressure and intimidate people into not even having debates at all. I've also seen this same thing pulled by Far-Left speakers, by the by. So turnabout is fair play, man. If this isn't the case, please kindly explain to me what the fuck I've been witnessing on countless campuses and Free Speech rallies in the US, Canada, and Europe the past few years. Hell, even explain to me the most recent one I saw and how that somehow matches the fantasy you're peddling. ----- 1: Its been mishandled in that they fucked up when they first started doing research into it and presenting it. The Environmental Sciences debates have been going on for a long time, arguably since the start of the Industrial Revolution, but didn't really kick into gear until the 50s and 60s after the Atom bomb tests, huge devastating wars, chemical agents like Agent Orange, etc. Back then, you had scientists and researchers put forward theories and arguments based on very limited data. They understood the urgency of what they were studying, but the reality of studying the Climate is that it takes a LONG time to get adequate data on it that Science demands. Science already takes a long time to generate data and knowledge on its own, it does so by design so as to try and generate the most accurate depictions, descriptions, and statements about reality that it can. But they jumped the gun, and turned out that a lot of their early arguments and theories were innaccurate or blatantly false not by intention, but because they didn't possess the full picture. We arguably still don't possess the full picture of climate data, and its no guarantee we ever will (though I believe we'll get a lot of it, certainly). I'd argue it was mishandled so badly that it created a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome in many people on the subject. It certainly hasn't fucking helped when modern situations like Al Gore do the exact same thing, and his data was decades later. Boy was it a fucking joke when Kilimanjaro was covered in ice a year after the date he claimed where none would ever be on it again. THAT sort of thing, doesn't fucking help the issue of making people believe its actually a serious issue, and that we're primarily responsible for it. 2: There is a difference between peer review, and trying to incite public action on a subject without fully knowing the whole picture, man. The 60s were the age of activism in many respects, including early Environmental and Climate activism. 3: Of course, but the problem is two fold: The Public (for better or worse) has basically come to expect that Science should work as fast as everything else, with Scientists having repeatedly come under pressure of Governments and public bodies to put forward information faster, even though they may not have ironed out all of the kinks in the data, such incidents risk promoting skepticism of Science in general, which has been happening increasingly over the decades. And secondly, because it has been proven on several different ocassions that Scientists will often bend to the whim of whoever pays them, because they've become basically partnered with government agencies (seriously, you don't see many Nikola Teslas or Thomas Eddisons anymore) rather than any objective pursuit of knowledge and truth, and thus can and have falsified or pushed certain data over others (even environmental data both hiding and overexaggerating cases in the past). Its basically creates hurdles in how science traditionally works, and why its not 100% believed by everyone anymore. I don't like it, but it is reality. 4: The debate is not that Carbon emissions did not go up during the Industrial Revolution, that is very much provable, its as to whether or not our contributions even have that big of an effect or not in the face of longer climate trends or factors, or that they will actually have the effects that some have predicted. In fact, if we want to talk Carbon emissions and why the whole goal to lower emissions by a significant degree is basically impossible, China alone produces more C02 than the entire world did at the point of the peak Industrial Revolutionary era, not just Britain or a single nation of the period, but the entire world. The point where even your graph admits where it all went awry. Doesn't matter what the rest of the entire world does, China is still making up the difference for the rest of us. So you found a graph that says otherwise by measuring C02 volumes as opposed to actual temperatures, of course its likely to say the amount of carbon is up, search up 10,000 year trends in Climate data graphs and you'll see a bunch that describe the situation I'm talking about. Plus, its compelling enough that Historians are basically telling how there was a Medieval Warming period, and a "Little Ice Age" at the end of the Medieval Period (hence why there was widespread famine, nobody could grow anything that long, tons of historical accounts remark on it). There's even the Young Dryas Period during our early Hominid days which arguably allowed for us to expand out across the world as the climate became warmer. 5: If they are so easy, why isn't it self-evident that every country takes them all? I've not even heard of Canada delving into any of these initiatives on the kind of scale necessary for this sort of thing, and we're running Federal and Provincial governments that are all about Environmentalism (or claim to be) AND we have the enormous space for it since most people don't want to leave the GTA or Vancouver and Montreal areas. The most we've been talking about is carbon taxes and a few boosts to green energy production. More to the point, how many of these things would you need to off-set our current output and our continued growth? Even if they work well and were cost-effective, and we had the available space for all of it, you're still left with billions of tons of solid Carbon that needs to be put somewhere. Plus a still increasing population that is heavily reliant on heavily fertilized food production that causes a lot of pollution on its own. These methods also don't deal with methane production or levels, another gas that is basically right behind C02 as a greenhouse gas, though I already know a method for that: Replace Cows and other livestock with insect protein. Because that's something that's sure to be adopted readily across all nations even faster than this stuff, right? The Algae bit is gonna cause problems since research into genetic modification is being tip-toed at best in many cases, but yea I knew about it years ago. Even more to the point, all of our efforts come to nothing if a Supervolcano goes off, or tons of other Volcanoes go off during a period of intense volcanic activity (which has also happened several times in the Earth's history). Not that I'm a fear monger about Yellowstone, but it is a reality if we're talking carbon and climate change. ----- 1: I never said they didn't. You're the one acting like Antifa is different, my argument is that they're two sides of the same coin. I'm not impressed if I see an Alt-Right group of whatever description doing the same things. 2: Really? Because that hasn't been the trend I've been seeing until lately when they finally got tired of being pushed around and especially silenced. Funny how the feed-back loops work for this. 3: N/A 4: I don't entirely understand what you mean on the question of Germany/America comparison. Explain? Off the top of my head, I would say that Germany most definitely is going WAY further than practically any country to remedy its history. You cannot even show Swastikas on any media in that country for any reason, even if you're depicting Nazis as the most villainous and unsympathetic people imaginable, you cannot use their classic symbol to identify them in any media. I don't know of many other cases where that kind of situation has occurred anywhere on Earth. Is it though? I'm talking about a theoretical situation of total Free Speech, wherein literally nothing is barred from being said in public (I don't necessarily think it will ever happen, but I was referring to what my ideal solutions or theories for solutions would be). There is no such thing as Hate Speech of any variety, and threats don't matter unless you have reason to suspect that they're credible through the suspected individual's actions. People have the freedom to basically say anything they want to each other, no matter how crude or how sophisticated, just not do anything they want to each other. Trolls make fun of the current situation of this all the time by testing one's tolerance limits to get a rise out of people. Philosophically speaking, if you're to take seriously what everyone today says in language conventions seriously, you'd think everyone was throwing death threats at each other constantly, and that the internet was full of genocidal maniacs of all varieties. The film "Twelve Angry Men", while being quite old, demonstrates this idea of intent and meaning versus literalness very well when they discuss what "I'm gonna kill you." can mean, depending on the situation. Its why context matters. Its why you can have debates on tough subjects while knowing its not going to go anywhere in terms of intent beyond the debate or discussion. What I meant by a double standard is how you can have a situation where two statements can exist at the same time, basically arguing the same thing in principle, yet elicit different reactions. On my genocide example. I know for a fact that you cannot post up anything publicly regarding say, IDK, Jewish genocide or Holocaust and promoting the idea in a serious manner that can be linked back to you, and not be immediately charged with a hate crime in many different nations. However, I have also seen people who unironically call for white genocide, yet face hardly any repercussions, certainly not Hate speech charges. These statements are both effectively the exact same thing, both are calling for genocide, we have internationally agreed (supposedly, I studied Rwanda so that assumption is tenuous) that genocide is supposedly universally bad in all circumstances it occurs and that advocating for it is bad, yet one elicits a different response from both the public and law enforcement than the other in the same country depending on who they're referring to. THAT is the kind of double standard I'm referring to. ----- Well, that depends on your definition and how broad you want to see it. The USA most certainly would be, if the Constitution hadn't given the rural communities and states a measure of equalizing political power to counter the Urban centers being the only places politicians would need to appeal to. The coastal areas or top 5 major cities of the US would dictate the elections every single year without fail, pretty much, if that had been the case. Instead, you have a case where a party and candidate needs to at least try to cater to a wide swathe of the country and the wide demographics across it, if they want to have any hope of winning. And you have an electoral college that CAN (never has, to my knowledge) overrule the peoples' decision if a candidate is objectively unfit for rule (though that risks causing civil war if it ever were to occur in such a situation and would arguably be a tyrannical move in and of itself). Now, the US could arguably be better at this, they're not perfect since its still basically a two-party system with most of the country not being swing-states, but its still a better system in principle than many. Many Democracies that don't have the controls the US has arguably already are, all it needs is a political system where one merely needs to covet the support of a very specific demographic or area that is larger in power than the rest, and you technically have the rest under a Tyranny of the majority because they can effectively be ignored. Our current global political climate in general is disposed towards ignoring various voices in different ways for various reasons. Canada we have close to such a system. The only thing that really stops it is the fact that Quebec and Ontario never agree on anything. They're still the two major Provinces that dominate Canadian politics, with good reason, half of the country lives between Windsor and Montreal, but it remains that you're in a situation where a Politician could effectively ignore a large swathe of the country, and only cater to the specific areas. The Maritime provinces, 4 whole provinces of Canada, can be effectively ignored if one merely caters to Alberta alone, I believe. Quite literally in our system some votes literally matter more than others in terms of representation in Parliament, how is it that 2 elections ago, the Bloc Quebecois could have somewhere around 50 seats in Parliament with roughly 10 million votes, and yet the Green Party only has 1 seat in Parliament with over a million votes? The answer is due to the concentration of those votes in particular pockets of the country, creating situations where, on paper, one's votes matter more than others. Proportional Representation isn't the answer though on its own, because that would be literal mob rule or tyranny of the majority in a different direction, though it would create more variety in Parliament. Lots of Democracies have this problem, some naturally, others by design because of poor fore-thought on how democracies would change over time. I'd argue a more effective system that would encourage voter interest would be a Hybrid system, kinda like the US but different. Wherein you guys can vote separately for President, Senator, House Representative, Governor, etc, and they could all be effectively different parties. I'd want a Proportional Representation system for the voter numbers that determines how many representatives one can have in Parliament of a given party (I work off of the basis that most Voters don't even see what their average MP does anyway, or interacts with them most of the time, so it effectively doesn't matter who is in charge in terms of party representatives for seats, especially since we have no power anyway over what specific cabinet offices they hold if they're even in charge), but you could vote say for individual PM officials who are party leaders or Senators (who are not elected currently in Canada) Canada doesn't have that, your vote for your regional MP is inherently a vote for the Party leader, and the PM of the hour has the power to appoint any Senators they desire if a seat is open. If it were otherwise, you could end up in a situation where in Canada you have a PM who is Liberal, but a Conservative-majority controlled House, and an entirely different Senate, forcing them to have to work with the the other parties and make compromise. Or at least that's the idea, I think Democracies arguably work best when you have to reach a compromise on a situation by incorporating all different viewpoints or opinions, not merely catering to a Left or Right side. One could argue that Soviet Russia was, the Communist Party there was in charge, but it was obsessed with having mobs of people fighting tons of "minorities" that were apparently the cause of every single problem in Russia and securing their power by being basically the "heads" of the Mob, the "Vanguard Party". They just changed who was most to blame when it suited their goals at a given time. They also seized power with mobs after the election didn't fully vindicate them. Most Communist regimes in the past have arguably operated on this principle of justifying their power by mob-assistance or military control, or both. ----- I only brought her up because she's who the obvious alternative would have been. Bernie might have been better, IDK. Certainly more appealing in some respects, and certainly wasn't right how he and his fans got screwed, but he's basically shown he's not willing to fight that, so that left me disappointed in him. Just my view. ----- Does it? I've found some individuals to be far smarter than whole groups of people at times. That's not what he claims, and I'm inclined to trust his word. Why would Styx lie about the tax cuts when he's been perfectly fine to call out criticisms of Trump on other topics, AND he has reason to care about tax cuts? He's been poor, he grew up in a poor family, he advocates for lower tax rates across the board, and he's certainly not in the upper middle-class tax brackets based on his Patreon income. He also never denied that it has a tax cut for the wealthy, he merely says that it says that there's an even bigger cut for lower tax brackets as well, to the point where the poor are hardly paying any tax. The only criticism he's seen people level at it is that it gives the wealthy a tax cut, ignoring that it provides others to other groups as well. My point being, what reason does he have to lie? We're also discussing a tax plan that hasn't even fully taken effect, that'll happen next month. Do you somehow have a way to prove Styx that his reading of the plan is wrong, or are you just saying what CNN and other big agencies that have used every opportunity to hate on the plan have told you? ----- 1: K, so the flag is an older version that stylistically aligns for the book cover. I know the modern red and black double flag one as well, that's the common one I've seen flown, and the same Antifa chapters I refer to. 2: The point was you tried to counter by essentially saying that it is purely a historical document. Its not merely an account of past groups. Certainly not how the Deputy Chair was using it in the context of his post. 3: I wouldn't disagree, I do see history repeating its cycles again. But you haven't proven to me he is a Racist, nor has anyone else in any compelling way I've yet seen. Mass deportation of individuals who illegally entered the country and don't respect the sovereignty of a nation, and have not gone through the same processes as legal immigrants is not the same as what Hitler desired which was ethnic cleansing and complete genocide, nor is deportation even a uniquely Nazi thing to advocate for. Every Nationalist or individual who cares about people respecting a nation's sovereignty is a Nazi now? My Gods, Japan must be full of Nazis then. He never blamed Muslims for every single problem in the US, he merely remarked on a specific subset of them as an issue, as has the US administration done so, for pretty much the last two administrations prior at least in terms of public acknowledgement. He specifically said, multiple times: "Radical Islamic Extremists" or Terrorists for the last bit depending on the speech, you people merely just don't trust that he or the US administration would actually keep to that definition, and that's fine, but don't try and say he meant all Muslims when the Supreme Court doesn't even support your interpretation (7:2 on the Travel Ban, I might add, so it wasn't merely a partisan split). Hitler and the Nazis made no distinctions among Jews. You can argue that his method may not do shit to solve the problem, I certainly don't think it'll do a damn thing on its own, but it doesn't make him in the same general ballpark as Hitler. You've yet to even show how there are significant differences between chapters, I can easily demonstrate similarities across chapters separated by CONTINENTS where they demonstrate in the exact same fashions and use the exact same tactics to shut down people they don't like, which so often happens to be people who aren't even Nazis. All you've given are vague statements of "Oh not all Antifa chapters are 100% identical". Which of course they wouldn't be, but you've not proven that there is some grand misconception about how I'm viewing events. Are you conversely somehow able to prove that all "Alt-Right" groups are 100% identical in their extremism? Because that's what you seem to imply on your end. The data you showed me certainly didn't prove that. You proved that extremists exist, I can prove extremists exist in Antifa, no fucking different. That hypocrisy is a two-way street if you're going to claim it, bud. Its a general enough book to be a representative advocation of the whole platform, or do you disagree on that? I wasn't specifically referring to Spencer, but he is most definitely the case that sparked that "debate", if you can even call it a debate. Okay, so you're fine with someone who sees someone else as completely inhuman or even simply terrible, to be able to physically harm them? Okay. That's fine. Just don't be surprised that they get violent back, and everyone else steps back while you two beat each other senseless because they think you're both the same thing. The only difference you have is where your moral compass aligns, and both trying to appeal to everyone else how you're somehow better than the other guy as to what is objectively the right thing on a given subject. Unfortunately for such ideas, morals never stay the same. Hence why I think such a thought process is dangerous. The UN couldn't even get 100% agreement on the UDHR, they merely got it so that no country disagreed with it, yet you guys know better? ----- The data you provided showed individuals, Antifa is a group of the Far-Left (you changed to ask about the Far-Left in general, not merely Antifa, which is why I make differentiations at different points), just as the Alt-Right has various groups with not all of them being the same. I didn't see any account of how all the groups organized to commit any murder or have consistently done so, and I already explained how the ADL and SPLC are VERY liberal when it comes to defining an "Alt-Right" member. But wasn't it strange that nobody seemed to acknowledge how the general phrase of the Alt-Right groups as responsible for any murders until Charlottesville, really (I'm talking mainstream media)? I certainly didn't even see many even acknowledge the groups existence as a whole "body" under that phrase until then, even you claim they've been doing it for a long time yet where is the organization? Most of those examples you gave are lone wolves, who may have been influenced by various groups, but does that make them "members"? The only data you gave is on sources that relate back to mostly individual cases that I would argue are not wholely reflective of the entire "Alt-Right". Hence why I said the "Alt-Right" didn't really have any blood on their hands til Charlottesville, not as a collective, it became that because so many showed up there from different groups, and they got caught up in an incident that resulted in someone's death, it was also the first time I can recall where someone actually died in a protest-conflict. Which was why it was so noticed. They've clashed several other times and had no deaths repeatedly for a long time before. Hence why I didn't mention them in bombings, since The Weathermen I cannot think of many that have tried. But your comment in that context was on Far-Left groups, not merely Antifa which was why I brought them up. ----- I don't think there are necessarily "better" sources on this, the whole fucking issue is so politicized, it has fucked the entire media apparatus and has made very big political divides across nations all over the place. All I know for certain is that I do not trust most popular media sources since many have zero journalistic integrity or actual investigative capacities that don't cow-tow to corporate interests, and I don't trust politically leaning outlets to give an honest account (which I could prove with the ADL and SPLC which were the basic primary sources of the others) when they have agendas to push. I lean towards sections of the Alt-Media since, at least for some of them, especially ones like Styx, they are not corporate entities or aligned, they are not friends with any of the bigger entities with agendas and interests (they may have their own, but they usually state those openly unlike the bigger media outlets who usually lie, if they contradict themselves its another matter.) They most importantly allow for criticism and debate among their comments sections and viewers and generally don't try to police the discussion. You see more variety of opinions in a channel like Styx's (even though some are more prominent than others) than you ever do on any of these outlets that don't like anyone criticizing them or their articles. ----- Maybe not, but simply not trying to get to even attempt to get to that point will insure it never happens, and instead increase the likelihood that the worst case scenario happens. ----- They have their problems, the first that comes to mind is that they're kinda reliant on a more actively thinking audience to actually keep them honest, and work best if you have a variety of people to look to on various topics to compare and contrast on various information. (I myself have a fairly wide set, I've got subscriptions, or otherwise keep tabs on Sargon, Styx, Shoeonhead, Armoured Skeptic, The Rageaholic, Tim Pool, Lionel Nation, Lauren Southern, Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneaux, Count Dankula, Top Hats and Champagne, Black Pigeon Speaks, The Great Work, and The Golden One) I most certainly do not watch them all actively, I don't agree with all of them on everything, some I find to be more compelling debaters than others, in fact I disagree on various things they may argue, but I find that having a wide variety helps to discern who are the more melodramatic, who are more joking and humorous ones, and who are the more sensible ones. I still prefer their variety over the mainstream media which basically has none and are boring to watch.

This is in reply to Kraken, I'm not quoting your whole thing in order to save space, but my responses correlate to your points. So a decentralized organization that just so HAPPENS to show up constantly to disrupt Free Speech talks doesn't oppose Free Speech as a whole? Give me a fucking break man. I'm a former GG supporter, I know all about decentralized movements and how the actions of a few do not necessarily reflect on the whole, but Antifa, from what I have seen, has consistently shown that they oppose the idea of Free Speech because it inherently allows for Nazis to speak and therefore gain supporters. Hence why they love disrupting Free Speech rallies, or even merely just Conservative speakers of different varieties in North America and Europe. They cannot allow Nazis to speak because they think they'll convince people regardless of how good your arguments against them are, you admit so yourself, essentially. The problem being: who do they define as a Nazi? From everything I've seen, they're EXTREMELY broad with their definition, to the point where its a running joke that "everyone Right of Marx is a Nazi". Antifa organizations have routinely, and repeatedly been present to protest numerous Free Speech gatherings, talks, or meetings wherein anyone they consider to be a "Nazi" might be both in North America and Europe over the past years. Do you want me to list the incidents? How about I give you one from a few days ago which is undeniable. King's College, London, UK. Flag-bearing members of the Antifa chapter there tried to shut down a talk on Free Speech between Yaron Brooks, and Sargon of Akkad on the belief that they are Nazi Gatekeepers, Fascists, or Alt-Right supporters. You cannot oppose someone's right to speak merely because you believe that they are a Nazi or a Fascist. But they did, hence they oppose Free Speech, especially since the topic being discussed was, ironically, Free Speech. ----- Global Warming/Climate Change is a different issue entirely, and one which has far greater problems because of how it has been handled by Science over the last 50 years than merely the current presidency, but let's discuss it. How about the fact that people have become skeptical of it because some of the first scientists involved decided to try and push their earliest findings without much evidence to actually support their ideas, and were subsequently found to be incorrect on numerous fronts? Or even Al Gore, who in his popularized movie, it is subsequently almost a laughing stock if you were to go back and analyze it today, and a whole generation (mine) saw it and were led to believe it was entirely accurate. I wouldn't be shocked if people came to think of it as a hoax after that, and I myself do believe in climate change. Its also a far more complex debate than whether you believe it or not. One can not believe in Man-made climate change, and still believe that it is a thing, merely a natural shifting in the Earth's climate and beyond human control or that human contribution is extremely marginal. The data isn't entirely conclusive that it even is entirely man-made anyway, nor will the people who believe in it also admit that if it truly is caused strictly by us, we're already screwed? Any measures we take would ultimately be meaningless if we are the be-all-and-end-all of climate change. You would need to commit the single greatest humanity atrocity the world has ever seen just to save us as a species in order to go carbon negative and correct what we've done, if that is the case. But that's why Climate Change is a unique example, the context of the debate has reached a point where there is not enough data to totally be certain on much of anything, therefore how can anyone argue one way or another with 100% accuracy? (Since that is the stakes they are playing with) Its not the same kind of argument. The situation there won't change until science works as it always does and finally gets enough data to be able to form more concrete observations and statements. They still don't even fully understand why the data shows a climate warming in the medieval period, a time when human industry was nothing compared to what it would be many centuries later. More data is the only thing that will help resolve that argument, and when it comes to climate, it takes time. ----- No, but their "talking" is shouting over people and simply causing disruptions and chanting mantras like they're some kind of religious cult than an actual intelligent debate. I don't call that "engaging" I call it "disrupting". Because they're specifically trying to stop people from speaking to others, and are refusing to engage on the same field as them, they'd prefer to deplatform, which was exactly what happened in London just a few days ago as the latest case showing this exactly IDK what other evidence I would need to cite besides this. Unless you're to say that those were not the real "Antifa". You're also making a false equivalency with the mass shootings idea. Yes, of course one can say they're bad, but that doesn't help actually come up with an idea to fix the situation, does it? I doubt you'll find many politicians who will actually say that mass shootings are a good thing. No, with Mass Shootings, the argument is over what kind of remedy would actually be best to prevent such situations from happening, not whether or not they're bad. Me, from my observations, and living in Canada, would argue that banning or controlling guns will not solve your problem in the way that it will prevent mass tragedy. It won't. People will just obtain the guns illegally like many criminals do, they'll use knives (of which there was one knife attack several months ago in Japan that resulted in even more people dying than in the Parkland shooting, figure that one out) or home-made bombs, or cars, or some other type of weapon. The types of people we're talking about can be endlessly creative in the methods they choose to cause tragedy. I'd argue the best methods of prevention would be to change how your education system deals with kids who are bullied (specifically in regards to teachers and their role), change the treatments of people with mental illnesses instead of just giving them a ton of pills, and actually provide outlets for people to release their emotions and problems in other safer ways, whatever those may be. IMO those would go far further than any kind of control on any weapons in terms of prevention. But in the end, I also don't think you can ever 100% prevent tragedy, so there is that. IMO the best methods to deal with the situation of people falling for extremist ideologies is through education (specifically the development of critical thinking and research capacities that aren't merely echo chambers.) Tolerance in the intellectual sense being promoted where we are not afraid of discussing various topics or hearing certain opinions because we can tolerate that they exist, and can provide our own counter-opinions and arguments if necessary. And in general, an adherence to total free speech. Wherein it doesn't matter anything that someone says, so much as their actions are what matters. A guy could argue for genocide, but so long as they don't move to actually do it, its no crime. Right now, there are double standards that exist around that very type of incident depending on who is saying it, and who they're talking about as to what reaction it will elicit from the public and law enforcement. I wouldn't want such double standards, we either set a single standard, or don't bother enforcing it at all. Just my thoughts on a thousands of years old problem. ----- You're missing my point and got hung up on my Oligrachy comment. If you do not trust the citizenry to be capable of making an educated or informed decision, then you have no faith in a Democracy. I'm not talking about a Democracy's leaders, I'm talking about its people. In a Democracy, you need to be able to trust the fact that a state's citizens have the ability to make a decision after being confronted with arguments and evidence as to which option is the best. If you don't believe that, then what is the point of being in a democracy? Now, the US is a Democratic Republic, which is not strictly a Democracy, built to try and make the situation as fair as possible so as to prevent mob-rule or the Tyranny of the Majority versus a Dictatorship or Monarchy, so the popular vote is not the be-all-end-all. But it operates on the same basic assumption in regards to how its citizens vote, if it did not, then what's the fucking point in even voting? (Which is a problem a lot of Democracies face, voter apathy due to a lack of meaningful contribution by the perspective of the voters) The rich being, by and large, the only ones with the power to become politicians is a problem across many democracies also, not merely the US. Its a problem of how elections have become in that they're big money-spending races, of course the rich are most well-suited for such a game, and its not likely to change without electoral reform (and I can tell you just from our experiences up here in Canada, no standing politician in power is hardly ever willing to do it). There's also the idea that someone who is rich has obviously accrued some measure of success in order to reach that point and thus is arguably capable of being a leader of others. Not necessarily the case since not everyone who's rich is capable of leading no more than one who has less, but I'm just outlining the thought process. ----- IDK why Donald Trump became President. But I do know that neither choice was fucking amazing from my view, and based off of your comment of how he looks, I'd argue the same could be applied to Clinton. Hillary very vaguely calling over a quarter of the US "deplorable" who weren't worth of attention didn't help (hurts a lot more than any of Trump's comments because she was so vague about who), her support organizations claiming that a green frog is somehow entirely a white nationalist symbol, and claiming Wikileaks is a Russian State Op didn't do any favours either. I also know that it wasn't a "Whitelash", what data we do have is enough to prove that. ----- I find it funny that you think that just because Styx isn't the most well-watched commentator on all of Youtube, you can simply disregard him, yet you want me to take seriously a movement that is quite a minority in its own numbers and is not even strictly public knowledge (As is the Alt-Right, but that's another matter), or Wikipedia (which I'll get to later)? Would you prefer that I cite Sargon? Or Molyneaux? Or Lauren Southern? Or Shoeonhead? Or Armoured Skeptic? Or Tim Pool? Or shall I abscond the Alt-Media entirely and go for the Mainstream Hacks at CNN, Fox, or Washington Post, or Huffington Post who half the time don't even research what they're talking about without slanting it towards whatever agenda they want? I chose Styx because he makes some fairly compelling arguments on his channel, and he's a Centrist. He has no love for partisan politics, and he's often been quite right not only in his predictions and insights on various subjects, but he does it in ways that are fairly eloquent or make sense. But no, I obviously have to wait until he's some big Youtube star or something for you to acknowledge his opinion. You're not even claiming he's wrong. ----- You obviously didn't read my brief summation of it, or looked it up yourself. Were it merely a history book of past Anti-fascist movements, why does it so conveniently show the official flag of the modern one, and after the historical bits discuss modern anti-fascist movements? Maybe because it does have a fair bit of content that relates to the MODERN antifa alongside the older movements? And what do you mean by "relevancy to the current context"? You're going to argue with me that Trump is "Literally Hitler" now? Or that he's somehow a Fascist even though he's a Capitalist and not a Socialist? Because that's the only context you could be referring to in relation to what the Deputy Chair was saying. ----- Yea, and the fact that all of the ones I've seen bear the exact same flag, use the similar tactics, and all dress the same don't fucking matter? Give me a break. The most I'll grant you is that there may be different Blocs of varieties Anarchists, and they get by by not having any singular leadership (because that would antithetical to Anarchy), but that they may as well all be doing the exact same things since I've yet to see a situation where two different Anarchist groups have actually come to blows over political maneuvers. The only flag I've seen is the Red-Black Flag of Antifa, whom to me are basically Anarcho-Communists. I know the other flags variations for the different others and that they exist, but by the Gods do they seem to be notably absent. More to the point, it doesn't change the fact that the action was still an open endorsement of Antifa, doesn't matter what fucking iteration you want to claim it. ----- I don't care if that is their mandate, they're welcome to it, or whatever it is they want. It doesn't change the fact of what they have DONE. And what their various chapters have been proven to have done, on numerous live videos both they and others have taken. I don't care that they think that it's morally right to punch someone they think is a Nazi, I'm still going to oppose them punching said "Nazi" because its not going to help the situation. Can you not see that radical actions promote even more radical actions by ideological oppositions? They become feed-back loops. ----- Okay, I'm gonna stop you right there if you're honestly going to try and claim to me with 100% honesty that Antifa, or since you said it, The Far-Left, has NEVER done: Harassment Violence Doxxing Threats Mass Shootings (Admittedly, this one I cannot prove as strictly Antifa, but I'm pretty sure the mass shooting and attempted murder of those Republican Senators last year qualifies) Attempted Bombings (Yea, since The Weathermen fucked up and blew their own apartment hideout to bits, I can see why most haven't tried since, at least in the US) Attempted Murder (Well, that's admittedly vague, do they beat up people with the assumption to not kill them? What if nobody found someone beaten into unconsciousness?) Murder (Not Antifa, no, but I chalk that up as to total luck that they haven't killed someone yet, just as the Alt-Right groups had no blood on their hands until Charlottesville, and even that is a stretch given who the killer was) ------ Since you were so damn picky of Styx, I figure I have the liberty to be as picky with your sources. Wikipedia I don't trust on this subject, in fact I trust them on basically nothing other than dates, if that. Some pages may be better than others, but there is zero consistency and little ways to actually confirm which are honest since Wikipedia picks and chooses which pages it actually enforces honest research procedures on. They cite the SPLC and ADL as main sources among a couple others. -But even aside from that, the Wikipedia page still doesn't deny that the Klan has fragmented over time. The organization itself seems to be completely fragmented according to it into dozens of organizations all fighting for the same members. The only number I saw listed there that is even remotely modern is at apparently 120 members. Real big fucking upswing in membership from fucking 75. I'm sure they'll be out lynching tomorrow en masse like they were in their heydays. Even if it is 120, its still down from the 1999 report that gives a vague number of several hundred members. Quartz, IDK much about them, but yea, real big fucking scoop, so Right-wing extremists apparently killed 20 people last year, I'll wager not even all of those were done on behalf of any groups if a couple of the more famous incidents are the ones that come to my mind (if lone wolf extremists can shoot up Republican football games, I wager similar lone wolves can act on right-wing causes without endorsement from any major groups). Politifacts lists even more violent attacks committed by Radical Islamists in the US in 2016, could it not merely be said that extremist attacks in general have been going up over the years? The data doesn't lead me to see why the Alt-Right are apparently the sole urgent problem that need to be stopped immediately when it comes to extremist attacks, it merely suggests to me that extremist attacks in general are on the rise and all need to be dealt with. Hell, even in terms of crime statistics, that's not a lot across the entire US, unacceptable though all crime is. They also cite the ADL, not their own research. Huffington Post? Yeah, because they're just the pinnacles of journalism and unbiased opinions. Their GG coverage was enough to make me doubt their coverage of more serious matters. Again, what reason do I have to trust their coverage? They also cite the ADL. -But let's look at their coverage. A sensationalist title trying to claim its more impressive than it is. "More than doubled", what's the actual number? 34 deaths, 18 of which were killed by right-wing extremists. That's interesting since it seems to contradict Quartz's number even though both are citing the same source, but even more interesting since a 59% increase means a rise in roughly 10 deaths, again, I'm not trying to belittle loss of life, but this is a pathetic number when compared to other crimes across the US, and not really indicative to me of a urgent issue, especially since I doubt all of them can actually be proven to have been done by an organized group and not an individual. The ADL has similarly fucked up a lot on this issue to the point where I don't have reason to immediately trust their numbers, you'd think Hitler won the second world war if you listened to them all the time. These are the morons who tried to claim that the "Okay" hand sign means fucking "White power", even though the traditional sign for it requires two hands. Much like the SPLC, they're seeing Nazis everywhere and are basically pulling a reverse of the "Reds under the bed" bullshit of past eras. They've been trolled into thinking this bullshit, and yet you think they're reliable sources? -I will say that the page you linked doesn't support your case. Its 2016 statistics which actually support the idea that Right-Wing extremist attacks are not the only form of extremism to worry about in the US on this issue. IDK why you didn't link the 2017 stats since that's what Huffington Post and Quartz both cite, but whatever. The SPLC are total ideological fanatics who disregard reality for their mandate. They fucking label Pepe the Frog as a White Nationalist Meme after Clinton's campaign said so, a meme that is by no means inherently a racist meme but is actually one of the more versatile memes ever made. How am I supposed to trust their interpretations of what is and isn't an extremist when they don't even understand memes or are politically influenced? Oh they magically care about the actual stats, but want to mislead people on the same issue in other ways by misrepresenting information as propaganda? Get fucking real. -But what does their page show? "100 killed or injured by the Alt-Right". Okay. What data do they give? On individuals and lone wolf rampages over the past 4 years who apparently bore all the "signs" of being Alt-Right followers. I'm sure they had tons of Pepe memes and tons of pictures where they showed "Okay" signs, for all the good that statement of theirs implies on what that's supposed to mean. But more seriously, they're stretching it back to over 4 years ago!? That's pretty damn generous, considering I don't even recall most people even using the term "Alt-Right" widely until the last 1 1/2 to maybe 2 years at best, but I'm betting they did it because they like the round 110 number, so I'll humour them. In terms of deaths, 43 were killed over those 4 years, 25 of those being killed outside of last year. They completely skip over 2016 where apparently no right wingers killed anybody for some odd reason. They include Alexandre Bissonnette for 2017, which is funny, since I thought they were supposed to be an American agency, concerned with American crimes, last I checked, our agencies up here in Canada don't include your American stats into ours to bolster a narrative, but whatever. If we remove Bissonnette's totals since he didn't kill Americans and was in Quebec, that actually lowers the number of people killed by Right wing extremists in the US in 2017 to 11 people, according to SPLC's stats here, which is less than half of ADL's and almost less than half of Quartz's reports and even lower than their own 2015 numbers of 18 deaths, they should be applauding that Right-wing extremist murders are apparently down in the US comparatively and are losing! Now there are more injured in 2017, but we're talking murders, and the data shows that murders are down. That's not even going into analyzing if these attackers were actually official members of any "Alt-Right" groups and acted in their name to do these various acts and not merely for their own reasons, or how big these groups even are. And Snopes is referring to ADL for their source. I'm going to repeat again why ADL and SPLC are not good sources for this, they are politically slanted and deny reality when it suits them, they're prone to being trolled and promoting "Nazis under the bed" propaganda, and as I showed in SPLC's case they're willing to inflate their numbers by using particular foreign examples when they're a distinctly American organization (probably because they don't want it to look like the actual number of deaths went down in the years where they have occurred). But okay, so you proved that Alt-Right individuals have killed and injured people. Congratulations. They're not the only extremists to kill or injure others in the US. I've seen plenty of video evidence showing Antifa members injuring various people to know they're fully capable of injuring others, many Far Leftists have made threats towards killing people if they were given the opportunity to do so, and I chalk it up to pure luck that hardly anyone has died of a Leftist killer yet, had the shooter at the Republican game been a better shot, that'd have been a different story. ----- By that argument, you're saying that just because Antifa hasn't reached that most vile point yet, what they do is a necessary evil. Yet it is their own actions that have spurred the Alt-Right to become as they are, and its total luck that they HAVEN'T reached that most vile point yet (one's definition of vile being subjective as well, I've read some accounts by claimed former Antifa members from some Chapters that IMO suffered far more traumatic experiences than death, but this entirely subjective). Is it somehow unfair to say I condemn one as much as the other, and would prefer that both merely verbally fight it out on an equal field rather than use aggressive attacks to try and intimidate people or injure or even kill people? ----- Yet where is the evidence of their critical thinking? I've yet to see any when they seem down to label anyone to the right of Marx as a "Nazi" if they're going to label so many Alternative Media figures as Nazis and Fascist Gatekeepers when those same people regularly spar with Nazis or Identitarians and repeatedly don't endorse Nazi or Fascist ideology. I'm sorry, I have no evidence of many of Antifa's chapters actually showing much critical thought when it comes to picking their targets. They are the Communists of Weimar Germany, the enemies of the Nazis, yes, but merely a different brand of puritan and extremist that ultimately just feed off of each other until one destroys the other. That is why I brought up the Weimar comment.

and here's something specifically i want to touch on. Two things i want to talk to about this: For one, debate isn't the end all be all for destroying REALLY DANGEROUS ideologies, like fascism. Debates only work if both parties come into the discussion with good faith. And Nazis do NOT enter debates in good faith. They WANT to debate not because they want to inform themselves or come to the best ideas, but because they want to spread their message AND intimidate people who they target. If someone says, "I think Cultural Marxism is destroying the west because of a jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race, therefore we need a white ethnostate" then I heavily doubt any amount of debate is going to change that persons mind. Sure, they may seem like morons, but these people are going to make themselves as watered down and "presentable" as possible. They aren't going to say what i just said, they'll use dogwhistles and very "acceptable" language to try to spread their message to as many people as possible, maybe without those people even realizing that the ideas they repeat are dogwhistles. And trust me, once you pick up on the dogwhistles (which in my case i feel like i have to because if the alt-right ever do rise to power i'm a pretty big target for them) they're very easy to notice. And when some is in a university, spouting hidden message after hidden message, it's designed to also silence people who would be abused by the alt-right via intimidation. So, rather than fall into the useless trap of debate with people who won't change their minds and are trying to sneak in fascist ideas into the minds of ordinary people (why do you think crypto-fascists is a term) Antifa instead seeks to show that those types of messages aren't tolerable.I haven't watched the debate but i'm guessing Styxhexenhammer666 wasn't criticized for being a nazi sympathizer, but because he's unintentionally spreading the fascist agenda. And this: Can i see some actual evidence of this please? Because Antifa isn't an organized political group, I don't think they HAVE a "handbook" the only thing I saw was a book from 2017 by one guy (not put out by any organization or leader of any organization) that's about the history and tactics of historical antifa groups. You know, the ones that fought fascists in the streets because there really was a huge rise of fascist sympathizers? Same as today? Buddy, have you not been paying attention to anything? There are far more hard-right groups and members today than 4 years ago. The whole reason for the Charlottesville rally was because of a "Unite the Right" movement where hard-right groups from all over the US were trying to work together to spread their hate messages. In short, when you take a look at the crimes commited by antifa and their very purpose for existing (which is to be anti-fascists) vs. the crimes of alt-righters and their purpose for exsiting (which seems to be "white power") then the hatred and demonization of antifa just doesn't make sense to me. If antifa had committed HALF the murders the alt-right did, I'd be more understanding, but I haven't found one murder at the hands of antifa. The only thing they as a whole seem to hate are fascists, and it's hard to feel any sympathy towards fascists in my opinion First off, how you described Nazis is exactly how I would describe Antifa when it comes to debate. They literally may as well be the exact same thing if that's your argument. The Nazis, by your definition, don't enter into debates in good faith, and Antifa doesn't like the idea of Free Speech because it inherently endorses Nazism. Therefore neither actually desire any debate, they desire obedience to what they want. I would argue though that changing the mind of the opponent in a debate is not the goal. Let's take it out of the context of Nazis and Antifa, but to a divisive topic. Lets say its a Theological debate between a Christian Preacher, Muslim Imam, and a Jewish Rabbi. Or heck, we could even picture it as a Christian versus a Hindu if you'd like. The topic is debating religion, and which is the more compelling one to believe, or that people should believe. The debators themselves have no hope of convincing their opponents, or odds that are basically 0% unless the person isn't firm on their stances to begin with, or has some personal epiphany of which the debator has limited control over anyway. The objective is to convince the audience, the spectators, as to who can create the more compelling argument, as its to be assumed that the spectators are smart enough to understand the more compelling argument from one that is weaker. This should be the ideal situation in a secularized society that claims to educate its people in critical thinking. To the point where you don't need to police ideas, the people will figure out on their own which ones are complete nonsense. Its a very democratic system which aligns to the politics we claim to be the most fair, its a critical part of science, and it is basically the whole point why Democracies have their candidates debate each other on different topics. It doesn't matter if some schmuck spouts complete nonsense, we have faith that the vast majority will see it as complete nonsense, if it truly is and if we've developed people's critical thinking skills correctly. Yes, debate is not the be-all and end-all for destroying ideologies, but stifling it does nothing but drive said ideology underground and promote it as rebellious, taboo, or appealing in edgier qualities, and ultimately doesn't refute its points, but merely shows you refuse to talk about it. If we don't have faith that people, specifically, citizens with the power to make decisions in relation to various issues in a country, cannot dissect a debate, see who is making the argument that makes more sense, and make intelligent decisions based off what is the more compelling option, then why are we even in a Democratic system? We'd be more efficiently run as some variant of a Dictatorship, Monarchy, or even merely an Oligrachy if that were the case. Appealing language is no excuse. Everyone who is in a serious debate and wants to win is obviously going to use any measure they can within the debate to make their point seem to be the most sensible and compelling, via dramatic gestures, tone of voice, choice of words, and all kind of other things. Doesn't matter who they are. Business people do this all the time when they're trying to sell you something. It falls to the opponent to create a more compelling argument that people believe more and can cut through the bullshit, if that is what it is. No amount of flowery language can cover a logical inconsistency or flaw in the argument. Hence why I used the Styx example. They could not respond to his criticism without stumbling into a hole, so they ignored it, and people noticed it about as much as if they'd stepped in the hole. So yes, debate is not everything. But to claim that censorship of thought and deplatforming of debates, and refusal to engage is the actual way to crush Nazism I think is a foolish prospect that will do nothing beyond make more Nazis. Its the same way the Free Speech Movement gained momentum when they tried to bring up Vietnam in the 1960s. Second, for your proof of the DNC endorsing Antifa, or at least its literature, this is comes from a video of Styx's I watched on the subject of the Deputy Chairman of the DNC tweeting a picture of him holding an Antifa handbook and saying how it "Makes Trump tremble", he archived the link. Both his video and the archive link here: http://archive.is/EPLN1 The book looks pretty obvious to me, IDK about you. Unless we're going to say that the guy was fucking trolled. But let's analyze it. A modern book from last year, talking about the older movements, and their contemporary resurgence, no doubt painting them in a favourable light since this isn't a satire or Conservative criticism. Maybe you could say its not the "core" material an Antifa member in the past few years prior had read, but this is obviously an open endorsement of Antifa as a book, and providing at least some portion of what those other works may have done in a single book. It doesn't matter if every single last member of Antifa were own this as their movement's Bible, I would safely say someone showing it off could reasonably be said as endorsing Antifa as a movement, meaning the Democrats did since a high ranking member of their party administration did, essentially, last year. Three, Of course there are more active further right groups than there were 4 years ago. Not all of them are Nazis though. You actually have a wide variety of various Right-Wing groups that have arisen. Some are ethnonationalists, others are genuine racists and Nazis, some are simply Gun Right supporters, others are Christian Conservatives, some are Constitutional Fundamentalists (I believe that's the Oathkeepers group, but I might be wrong), others are former Leftists there merely because their disdain for many other Leftists and Liberals have grown so much over the years that they have been thrown into the Conservative camp. Did they pick one of the absolutely worst way to broadcast their message that I could think of in Charlottesville? Absolutely. But Antifa is not much better if they stroll in to many prior demonstrations or gatherings (ONES WHICH I WILL ADD WERE NOWHERE NEAR AS RADICAL) looking for fights, or disrupting them, and NOBODY in the police departments or security service of various places doing anything about it (That also happened in Charlottesville, the police were told to stand down by several officials in the area, small fucking wonder the two groups broke out into conflict and someone got killed, then the police stepped in.). What the hell do you think would happen? They'd suddenly stand down because they were being intimidated? Or that they'd only become more radical? At least among some of them? But I'd counter by saying how many Far-Left groups have been operating for years prior without ANY opposition of any serious form? I'm a GamerGate Supporter, I've seen the power these groups and individuals have held over the media especially, but also tons of other industry bodies and groups because they have so many ideologically aligned allies regardless of whether or not they're actually right or wrong. That's only within one industry. For every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Especially in the case of politics, and what we're seeing is almost an inverse of the 1960s as to who is in which roles. The difference being that instead of the media saying there are Russian agents, pinko radicals, and communists everywhere, the media is saying that there are Russians, racists, and Nazis everywhere. The establishment flipped, even if the Far-Left will never admit it fully, and even if it wasn't truly all that sudden or noticeable in a moment. The pendulum has been swinging the other way, so it only makes sense there would be movement back. Show me a murder the "Alt-Right" has committed, or the stats that somehow show they're worse. Because by the Gods, I've yet to see a single one done on behalf of any singular organization that didn't already exist decades before. When the hell was the last time a Klansmen was caught murdering someone? I certainly haven't heard it make the news. Meanwhile, I see Antifa supporters attacking people with all kinds of makeshift weapons, gang-beating them, destroying or vandalizing tons of property that apparently was somehow reality to Nazis 100% of the time, and even attacking people who aren't even in "Nazi" groups or related to "Nazi" figures but are so fucking unlucky as to just so happen to be in the same photo as when one "Nazi" takes a selfie. (Which happened when Laura Southern was in Germany during the G20 summit, at least one person was beaten because some fuck thought they were a Nazi sympathizer because they just so happened to be in the same photo as her, and their Antifa fellows beat them up.) I do not trust Antifa to be arbiters of who is an isn't a Nazi, or what is and isn't Nazism, and I certainly do not trust them not to harm innocent people in the process. In my eyes, they're no better than the enemies they claim to seek to defeat. Self-righteous moral arbitrators who'd be more at home in Weimar Germany than today.