The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe. Did you have anything of substance to add?

Plenty of substance in the observation that if you're incapable of explaining yourself to just about anybody then it's usually time to look a little closer to home.
Resources are infinite and everybody should enjoy exactly the same success in life, even if it means taking more of those "infinite" resources, most likely provided by the other two lads. That about sums up your pointlessly simplistic cartoon, doesn't it.

I realize I do tend to post a lot of videos, but it is the medium of our time. I apologize to those who cannot watch them, but suppose you would have this problem on a lot of threads, as video abounds.

Anyways:

The Atlantic, a decidedly non-Alt-Right outfit, has released the mini-documentary, (11 minutes), they did on Spencer and NPI.
It was from their coverage the #heilgate (salute) controversy emerged from.

This is a really interesting take and rather unexpected to be honest.
I felt they were actually fair to Spencer et al, as they haven't done much else but post bare footage. I thought it would be a vicious hit-piece, edited to the hilt, but doesn't strike me as so.
Maybe others will feel differently. The antifa/violent leftists come across as they truly are: revolting.

Just so you know The Atlantic's ethos, they hired Julia Ioffe, the former Politico journalist who received a very public scolding from that same publication due to her Tweet suggesting an incestuous relationship between Trump and his daughter Ivanka. They are sticking with her (after she apologized, though).This even though The Atlantic is now rumored to be on some sort of shaky ground re: access to the President-elect.

https://twitter.com/wesearchr/status/809549147275542529

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus. Sorry, women and minorities, we can't address your problems because of a lack of resources. Yes, I know, it's not about resources, but people won't shut up about resources anyway, so you're just going to have to keep having problems, because some people are stubbornly wedded to the idea that everything is a zero-sum game.

You know resources are finite and it is a zero sum game, right? That's the entire underlying fact of economics. Scarcity and choices.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly can't get my head around such a pig-headed determination to miss the point of the illustration that people resort to counting frigging boxes - even after they're told it's not about resources.

Because at the most basic level it is about resources. It's about taking from one, and giving to another.

I can't get my head around the sheer blind idealism. I don't care if you wish there was enough for everyone, I don't care if you believe we can all work together like some Communist utopia.

The photo is one where we have equality of outcome, and that is just never going to happen, specifically because of the lack of resources.

If it isn't about resources, what exactly was the point of your picture? You just thought it was pretty? You're informing us that short people are indeed shorter than tall people?

The picture was nothing less than ego-stroking, that your moral high horse is a better breed than my pragmatic one, and it is predicated on blind idealism and naivety.

AnGaelach

Amazingfun wrote: »

This is a really interesting take and rather unexpected to be honest.
I felt they were actually fair to Spencer et al, as they haven't done much else but post bare footage. I thought it would be a vicious hit-piece, edited to the hilt, but doesn't strike me as so.
Maybe others will feel differently. The antifa/violent leftists come across as they truly are: revolting.

Doesn't seem maliciously edited, it looks like those people just saying what they'd usually say (which unfortunately, is a lot of dumb shít).

How does he expect Italy to rebuild the Roman Empire when they muddle through a new Government every year?

Don't think he expects Italy to do it alone

You can ask him yourself on Twitter of course, he's been reinstated this week after a big ban.

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/807758146777255936

marienbad wrote: »

Wow that is some leap you made there Count Dooku !

Give a black guy or a woman a job and next we are burning books and getting the trains to run on time .

Spare me

If you want to legalize discrimination based on gender and race, then burning books will be next logical step
Facebook is already beginning censorship for news, which doesn't match SJW agenda

Thank you for making perfect illustration that road to hell is paved with good intentions

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not about resources.

osmiumartist wrote: »

Resources are infinite and everybody should enjoy exactly the same success in life, even if it means taking more of those "infinite" resources, most likely provided by the other two lads. That about sums up your pointlessly simplistic cartoon, doesn't it.

AnGaelach wrote: »

You know resources are finite and it is a zero sum game, right? That's the entire underlying fact of economics. Scarcity and choices.

Because at the most basic level it is about resources. It's about taking from one, and giving to another.

I can't get my head around the sheer blind idealism. I don't care if you wish there was enough for everyone, I don't care if you believe we can all work together like some Communist utopia.

The photo is one where we have equality of outcome, and that is just never going to happen, specifically because of the lack of resources.

There's something incredibly pointless in trying to have a conversation with people who insist on telling me what I mean (despite me making it clear that it's not what I mean), and then demanding that I defend my point within that frame.

If it isn't about resources, what exactly was the point of your picture? You just thought it was pretty? You're informing us that short people are indeed shorter than tall people?

The picture was nothing less than ego-stroking, that your moral high horse is a better breed than my pragmatic one, and it is predicated on blind idealism and naivety.

Oh look, now I'm virtue signalling.

Tell you what, I'll give you a different take on the metaphor. I'm pretty sure it's just going to give you a different set of quibbles to nit-pick over, but hey: if you're that determined not to understand something, nothing's going to force you to understand it.

midnight city

Amazingfun wrote: »

Don't think he expects Italy to do it alone

You can ask him yourself on Twitter of course, he's been reinstated this week after a big ban.

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/807758146777255936

If Spencer is back how is Milo not allowed back.

midnight city wrote: »

If Spencer is back how is Milo not allowed back.

Why are you equating them?
Spencer didn't do anything against Twitter TOS I guess.

midnight city

Amazingfun wrote: »

Why are you equating them?
Spencer didn't do anything against Twitter TOS I guess.

Because both were banned due to twitters new leftist agenda. Besides Milo never really broke the terms they just used other peoples harassment of an actress to get at him

FreudianSlippers

midnight city wrote: »

Because both were banned due to twitters new leftist agenda. Besides Milo never really broke the terms they just used other peoples harassment of an actress to get at him

If you don't like it, you're free to create the alt-right version of Twitter.

Leftist agenda... smh.

beans

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you don't like it, you're free to create the alt-right version of Twitter.

Leftist agenda... smh.

A lot of those banned from Twitter seem to be heading to gab

midnight city wrote: »

Because both were banned due to twitters new leftist agenda. Besides Milo never really broke the terms they just used other peoples harassment of an actress to get at him

I didn't agree with Milo's banning either, but that is what they got him on, "incitement" or some such. Spencer didn't do anything.

And for Freudian: there is a new platform which many banned from Twitter are already using:

https://gab.ai/home

FreudianSlippers

beans wrote: »

A lot of those banned from Twitter seem to be heading to gab

Amazingfun wrote: »

I didn't agree with Milo's banning either, but that is what they got him on, "incitement" or some such. Spencer didn't do anything.

And for Freudian: there is a new platform which many banned from Twitter are already using:

https://gab.ai/home

Good luck to them. :waves:

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is what SJW are pretending for, while in reality, majority of artificial barriers have been removed by laws and only natural, such as perceptions of various groups and ability to do specific jobs depending from gender, left Effectevely SJWs cannot do much there and they are ruining their achievments by imposing unfair advantages to various minority groups with consequences of growing anger from their actions

marienbad

Count Dooku wrote: »

If you want to legalize discrimination based on gender and race, then burning books will be next logical step
Facebook is already beginning censorship for news, which doesn't match SJW agenda

Thank you for making perfect illustration that road to hell is paved with good intentions

why will burning books be the next logical step ?

Usually groups that believe in empowering minorities write and read books ,not burn them , so I am curious as to your thought process

PopePalpatine

Isn't it funny that the people ranting about "Nazis" taking control of Ukraine are siding with the alt-right?

...come to think of it, not really once you ask them about Nazis within Russia.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Isn't it funny that the people ranting about "Nazis" taking control of Ukraine are siding with the alt-right?

...come to think of it, not really once you ask them about Nazis within Russia.

Not nearly side splitting as the people ranting about Nazis taking over the USA cheering on Hillary's rape and execution sharia deathcult squads across the Middle East to be honest.

Widdershins

marienbad wrote: »

why will burning books be the next logical step ?

Usually groups that believe in empowering minorities write and read books ,not burn them , so I am curious as to your thought process

I can't answer for the poster but it isn't so hard for me to imagine. Every 3rd wave feminist I know is very pro censorship of anything that they feel might inspire or support negative views of their causes and the people they see as part of the causes. It's not seen as censorship when it's for a 'good' cause and to 'protect' people with sensitivities. Within reason it can be harmless but taken to the extent they would like to take it is is very sinister.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Tell you what, I'll give you a different take on the metaphor. I'm pretty sure it's just going to give you a different set of quibbles to nit-pick over, but hey: if you're that determined not to understand something, nothing's going to force you to understand it.

Oh, another simplistic to the point of useless kindergarden level cartoon. Keep saying that metaphor word and the evil real world will go away.
So if you're as dull as ditchwater it's the state's job to make sure you too can be an airline pilot by ramming any and all resources necessary at the "problem"... or simply remove the barriers altogether! Now EVERYBODY can be an airline pilot no matter how thick or blind!
Can't wait for my next flight with SJW airlines!

marienbad

Widdershins wrote: »

I can't answer for the poster but it isn't so hard for me to imagine. Every 3rd wave feminist I know is very pro censorship of anything that they feel might inspire or support negative views of their causes and the people they see as part of the causes. It's not seen as censorship when it's for a 'good' cause and to 'protect' people with sensitivities. Within reason it can be harmless but taken to the extent they would like to take it is is very sinister.

If you are talking political correctness gone mad then I fully agree with you , Banning speakers in universities . or kicking people off facebook etc , all that kind of stuff I fully agree with you . Free speech as long as you are within the law must always be defended .

oscarBravo

osmiumartist wrote: »

So if you're as dull as ditchwater it's the state's job to make sure you too can be an airline pilot by ramming any and all resources necessary at the "problem"...

There are only two possibilities that I can see: either you actually think that's the point of the metaphor; or you don't, and you came out with this bizarre non-sequitur anyway.

It's hard to say which is worse, frankly.

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are only two possibilities that I can see: either you actually think that's the point of the metaphor; or you don't, and you came out with this bizarre non-sequitur anyway.

It's hard to say which is worse, frankly.

Nearly there. Just say metaphor again and 20 or 30 times and your idealistic cartoon will have real world relevance.
Why do you keep pretending you haven't been rumbled? It's obvious to everybody that you can't use any logical argument to back up your position and you're just crying "disingenuous!" and "metaphor!" repeatedly hoping for the best.

marienbad wrote: »

why will burning books be the next logical step ?

Usually groups that believe in empowering minorities write and read books ,not burn them , so I am curious as to your thought process

You should learn history more. Bolsheviks were first, who started to empower minorities. Nearly everything what modern days SJWs are trying to achieve, have been tried already by bolsheviks. And bolsheviks were also reading/writing books and destroying books which they been disagree
It was opponents of alt right who proposed total censorship in social networks under excuse of fight with "hate speech" and "fake news". First step is already done, more to follow

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Isn't it funny that the people ranting about "Nazis" taking control of Ukraine are siding with the alt-right?

And people, who are whining about rise of far right in Europe, are proudly supporting Nazis in Ukraine;)

Widdershins

Count Dooku wrote: »

You should learn history more. Bolsheviks were first, who started to empower minorities. Nearly everything what modern days SJWs are trying to achieve, have been tried already by bolsheviks. And bolsheviks were also reading/writing books and destroying books which they been disagree
It was opponents of alt right who proposed total censorship in social networks under excuse of fight with "hate speech" and "fake news". First step is already done, more to follow

Now that you mention it there's some uncanny similarities between some of the things my ''SJW'' type friends come out with, and the Bolshevik antics.

PopePalpatine

Count Dooku wrote: »

And people, who are whining about rise of far right in Europe, are proudly supporting Nazis in Ukraine;)

Oh, this old canard again. Let me guess, all the proof you'll offer will be from the likes of Sputnik News, RT, GlobalResearch.ca, etc., and whatever I find to disprove the notion that Nazis are in control of Ukraine will be ignored as "MSM propaganda".