Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Right Wing Grifters

Options
12357…35

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,513 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks Alex Jones should have been banned does not beleive in free speech...

    That cretin been banned had zero to with freedom of screech.

    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Alex Jones openly states that his content is entertainment by the way and also, he was frighteningly accurate about a few things years in advance...

    Do expand, what did the fúcktard predict exactly?


  • Options
    #123
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Kidchameleon wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks Alex Jones should have been banned does not beleive in free speech...

    Paul Joseph Watson provides sources in the description of all his videos but I guess its easier to call him a "grifter" than to face cold hard reality...

    Many of the "right wing" content creators mentioned here correctly predicted the Brexit result and Trumps victory, completely against the mainstream narritive.

    Alex Jones openly states that his content is entertainment by the way and also, he was frighteningly accurate about a few things years in advance...
    Freedom of speech is fine. Being given a free platform to spread violent nonsense is not fine.

    I liked Sacha Baron Cohen's speech to the ADL. Wing nut social media presence is like someone going into a restaurant and shouting about white power. They would and should be told to leave.


  • Options
    #124
    WrenBoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    listermint wrote: »

    Most other people are just busy doing their jobs and not caring about immigrants or welfare of whatever flavour of the week your troping on about

    You can do both, some people care about what happens in their society/country.


  • Options
    #125
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Alex Jones is infotainment, no?

    Paul Joseph Watson is in a similar vein, some of his videos have been videos have been very funny.


  • Options
    #126
    WrenBoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,614 ✭✭✭WrenBoy


    Winston Mealy Dirt wrote: »
    Freedom of speech is fine. Being given a free platform to spread violent nonsense is not fine.

    I liked Sacha Baron Cohen's speech to the ADL. Wing nut social media presence is like someone going into a restaurant and shouting about white power. They would and should be told to leave.

    I agree but there has been a push to have unpopular opinion classified as "violence"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mcmoustache wrote: »

    As far as I can see though, there is one major difference and that's their reach and audience. Most people here have never heard of Linda Sarsour but everyone knows who Tommy Robinson and Ben Shapiro are. You'll rarely see someone post a Sarkeesian video in response to a point but you'll see plenty of users who have difficulties stringing sentences together post videos of Robinson, Peterson or whoever. You'll never see anyone defend Palthrow but if you insult a rapey looking midget-thug with racism issues like Robinson, you'll have a heap of people pop up to defend him with low post counts making such moronic points that "He exposed muslim rape gangs".

    So yeah, while there's plenty of crazy on the left, it's far more on the fringes while the right-wing grift seems to be going more mainstream. You can clearly see it here. Find some like-for-like comparisons and compare how often they come up and in what context. For example, would it be correct to say that Louise O Neill gets the same support on here as the midget-thug Robinson?

    But like, is half the reason people are more aware of Robinson and others because of negative publicity?

    I personally think Robinson is a complete thug..But like, it's disingenuous to mention him in the same sentence as Peterson or Shapiro..

    It's like someone equating LON and Pol Pot..
    Has Louise ever apologized for the killing fields?..


  • Options
    #128
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,513 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    Alex Jones is infotainment, no?

    When his lies lead to families of slaughtered children receiving multiple death threats.

    Than no, it's neither information or entertainment.


  • Options
    #129
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    As much as I despise these grifters that the OP is on about, I don't think it's fair to be pretending that the likes of Chopra, Palthrow, Sarkeesian and other lefty grifters are somehow different to the likes of Alex Jones or Ben Shapiro. Chopra is basically preacher selling quantum-inspired woo instead of Jesus, Palthrow sells literally the same stuff (rebranded, of course) as Jones while Sarkeesian and others like her are selling the same uninformed waffle masquerading as intellectualism in the same way as Shapiro. One of the most mind-blowing lefty grifters out there is Linda Sarsour, in my opinion. How this antisemite convinced a bunch of feminists that Islam was on their side is baffling but she did it.

    Anyway, point is, it's not right to claim that these lefty grifters are somehow less full of sh!t than those on the right - Chopra's stuff is downright laughable. It may not lead to shooting up Synagogues like that Shapiro fan but it's dumb, really dumb nonsense. And lets not forget that the antivax movement can be a predominantly lefty one depending on where you live and that movement kills.

    As far as I can see though, there is one major difference and that's their reach and audience. Most people here have never heard of Linda Sarsour but everyone knows who Tommy Robinson and Ben Shapiro are. You'll rarely see someone post a Sarkeesian video in response to a point but you'll see plenty of users who have difficulties stringing sentences together post videos of Robinson, Peterson or whoever. You'll never see anyone defend Palthrow but if you insult a rapey looking midget-thug with racism issues like Robinson, you'll have a heap of people pop up to defend him with low post counts making such moronic points that "He exposed muslim rape gangs".

    So yeah, while there's plenty of crazy on the left, it's far more on the fringes while the right-wing grift seems to be going more mainstream. You can clearly see it here. Find some like-for-like comparisons and compare how often they come up and in what context. For example, would it be correct to say that Louise O Neill gets the same support on here as the midget-thug Robinson?

    I agree with a lot of what you say here.
    But on Sarsour....was she not one of the main leaders of the womens march? Where women wore knitted vaginas on their heads in a mass delusion of empowerment....
    I think she was, she also wished the whole of Ayaan Hirshi Ali's vagina had been taken off when she was subjected to FGM. Charmer. I would say she is more well known than people like Molyneaux or Watson. Alex Jones is a well known name because he is a parody.


  • Options
    #130
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Paltrow is a lefty? i've never heard her express political opinions. Chopra is new age woo but a lefty?


    The antivax movment that has a large christian conservative contingent is left?

    The audience of Chopra is mainly US liberals as is Palthrow's. Admittedly, they don't have much to say about the proletariat or their relationship with the means of production but they are definitely grifters popular with liberal caricatures. I should probably used "US liberal" instead of lefty.

    As for the antivax stuff, I'm aware that it's big among christians but it's also big with US liberal types too. Outbreaks happen in Portland just as they do in Salt Lake City.


  • Options
    #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lefty Bicek wrote: »
    Quite silly for you to corral 'left-wing' in America into those categories of yours.

    But anyway... Michael Moore is an obvious big name in the US MSM who is by any standard, left-wing.

    Michael Moore is a terrible example. His latest film is heavily critical of Obama and HRC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    So yeah, while there's plenty of crazy on the left, it's far more on the fringes while the right-wing grift seems to be going more mainstream. You can clearly see it here. Find some like-for-like comparisons and compare how often they come up and in what context. For example, would it be correct to say that Louise O Neill gets the same support on here as the midget-thug Robinson?

    Plenty of Muslim gangs doing all sorts of horrible things in the UK but it gets less or no publicity in the MSM because of its leftist bias. Nowadays the colour of your skin and your gender is important in whether and how much a crime gets highlighted or not.

    Even watched a bizarre interview where two gangs of black kids attacked each other in a cinema in Birmingham and the whole discussion centred around it being racist to not show the film - instead of the bigger issue of censorship and gang violence among black commumities.


  • Options
    #133
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Boggles wrote: »
    When his lies lead to families of slaughtered children receiving multiple death threats.

    Than no, it's neither information or entertainment.

    there's no accounting for taste.


  • Options
    #134
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,513 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    there's no accounting for taste.

    Inciting criminality has nothing to do with taste.


  • Options
    #135
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,130 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    there's no accounting for taste.

    I'm sure you had a right laugh when Jones continually put the families of the sandy hook victims in danger.


  • Options
    #136
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Boggles wrote: »
    Inciting criminality has nothing to do with taste.
    not going to defend AJ, leave that to his millions of subscribers


  • Options
    #137
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Michael Moore is a terrible example. His latest film is heavily critical of Obama and HRC.

    But very pro Bernie.

    Nice to see a famous leftie actually call Obama and HRC out on a few things though.


  • Options
    #138
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I'm sure you had a right laugh when Jones continually put the families of the sandy hook victims in danger.
    i dont watch him but carry on with your righteous finger wagging if it amuses you


  • Options
    #139
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Gynoid wrote: »
    I agree with a lot of what you say here.
    But on Sarsour....was she not one of the main leaders of the womens march? Where women wore knitted vaginas on their heads in a mass delusion of empowerment....
    I think she was, she also wished the whole of Ayaan Hirshi Ali's vagina had been taken off when she was subjected to FGM. Charmer. I would say she is more well known than people like Molyneaux or Watson. Alex Jones is a well known name because he is a parody.

    Like I said, her grift is impressive - convincing America feminists that Islam is good for them.

    The big difference that I see is that a thread on her in here wouldn't be full of her low post-count supporters making asinine posts about how she talks a lot of sense. Even threads on Alex Jones inspire people to defend him under equally asinine grounds that demonstrate a misunderstanding of freedom of speech.


  • Options
    #140
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,656 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    20Cent wrote: »
    There is a whole mini industry out there. All they do is spread what they think their audience wants to hear and they lap it up. No lie or exaggeration is too much. They will still get the clicks, likes and sales. Have asked before but not seeing similar behaviour on the left.

    Why are such obvious frauds and misinformation so popular with right wingers?
    Why aren't they calling them out themselves?


    People throughout this thread have given you numerous examples of exactly what you asked for in your opening post. Frauds, Charlatans and misinformation is just as popular for an audience of people who imagine themselves to be progressive.

    I’m guessing you aren’t “calling out” their behaviour (if that phrase now could quickly fcuk off I’d be delighted), is for the same reason I don’t - because too often I can’t be arsed acknowledging, let alone legitimising what I perceive to be pure and unadulterated nonsense. I’m only addressing your pure and unadulterated nonsense because it’s a slow morning here in work. Other times I just wouldn’t be arsed, like when I read your opening post last night. Immediately I dismissed it as a poor attempt at trying to wind people up.

    No lie or exaggeration is too much for you either it seems.


  • Options
    #141
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Like I said, her grift is impressive - convincing America feminists that Islam is good for them.

    The big difference that I see is that a thread on her in here wouldn't be full of her low post-count supporters making asinine posts about how she talks a lot of sense. Even threads on Alex Jones inspire people to defend him under equally asinine grounds that demonstrate a misunderstanding of freedom of speech.

    But yet somehow she got enough support at very high levels to be a big public figure in US so obviously those people thought she was making sense.
    Im not sure on this but it may emerge later that Ilhan Omar is not squeaky clean, I have seen videos of herself speaking where she makes poor remarks eg the some people did something remark. Plus financial fraud in her complicated personal life, perhaps even immigration fraud. And yet the normal media is of una voce in her praise over there.

    I think one of the reasons far left wing ideologues are not so visible is that they are hidden in plain sight. They are also very close to right wing, especially with the weird exuberance about certain religions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Lefty Bicek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭Lefty Bicek


    20Cent wrote: »
    Americas most left wing politicians Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered run of the mill normal in Europe. They would fit right into FF, FG or the Tory party. That they are called far left is because of the success of the right in painting them as such. They are not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

    Sanders is considered far left because he is in America.

    That's a relevant distinction here, rather than your irrelevant comparison with Europe.


  • Options
    #143
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    “Show me some left wing grifters”
    “Here’s a few”
    “I’ve never heard of them so they don’t count”


  • Options
    #144
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,130 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    i dont watch him but carry on with your righteous finger wagging if it amuses you

    you are the one who seems to support the idea of putting sandy hook victims families in danger as legitimate entertainment.


  • Options
    #145
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you are the one who seems to support the idea of putting sandy hook victims families in danger as legitimate entertainment.
    wag wag wag


  • Options
    #146
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Deleted User wrote: »
    But like, is half the reason people are more aware of Robinson and others because of negative publicity?

    I personally think Robinson is a complete thug..But like, it's disingenuous to mention him in the same sentence as Peterson or Shapiro..

    It's like someone equating LON and Pol Pot..
    Has Louise ever apologized for the killing fields?..

    The negative publicity might be what makes him more famous around these parts but calling him a thug is actually a controversial opinion here when it shouldn't. While Shapiro and Peterson aren't primitive violent midgets in the same sense that wee Tommy might be, they get a similar defensive reaction whenever they are criticised here and it's often from the same people.

    You won't see anyone just to the defence of Louise O Neill in the same way.


  • Options
    #147
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    You won't see anyone just to the defence of Louise O Neill in the same way.[/quote]

    I dont know who Louise O Neill is but up until a couple of months ago I have read numerous people on boards defend the effective castration of children in support of irrational gender theory. In another life I was persistently called names and sneered at by certain long term posters for going against their abusive and contemptible ideology.


  • Options
    #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    The negative publicity might be what makes him more famous around these parts but calling him a thug is actually a controversial opinion here when it shouldn't. While Shapiro and Peterson aren't primitive violent midgets in the same sense that wee Tommy might be, they get a similar defensive reaction whenever they are criticised here and it's often from the same people.

    You won't see anyone just to the defence of Louise O Neill in the same way.

    I'd see Robinson as more anti foreigner little England etc right wing, whereas Peterson and Shapiro are more conservative really, for different reasons..

    Calling Robinson a thug is hardly a controversial opinion, is it?.. The only people that would consider it as such would be 20cents' equivalents on the right surely..And there's a hundred page thread where various posters offer a vigorous defense of the bould Louise..You could probably name a couple of them off the top of your head..


  • Options
    #149
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,513 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd see Robinson as more anti foreigner little England etc right wing, whereas Peterson and Shapiro are more conservative really, for different reasons..

    Calling Robinson a thug is hardly a controversial opinion, is it?.. The only people that would consider it as such would be 20cents' equivalents on the right surely..And there's a hundred page thread where various posters offer a vigorous defense of the bould Louise..You could probably name a couple of them off the top of your head..

    Is Louise a career criminal who makes money from bigotry?


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Boggles wrote: »
    Is Louise a career criminal who makes money from bigotry?

    Well..she's pushing misandry.. Making her living from it..so that could be considered bigotry.. I haven't read any of her books to comment on whether or not the writing is actually criminally bad. Quite possible I'd say though..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,130 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Boggles wrote: »
    Is Louise a career criminal who makes money from bigotry?

    or who turns up at peoples house in the early hours of the morning to threaten them


Advertisement