Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
They literally pleaded with you to quote and challenge posters who disagreed with you, rather than the ones who only agreed with you.
And I replied to atleast a dozen posters that disagreed with me all within less than an hour. Then Went to get ready for work and by the time I was done, they locked the thread. So a poster needs to sit by the computer replying to every single poster over 9 pages? Bullshit if I heard of it. If they wanted me to reply to even more people than I already did, maybe they should have left the thread open a little bit longer.

It was a completely transparent attempt to stop completely legitimate, reasoned, and relevant discussion because their members were too immature to be able to handle having their views challenged. They just needed a bs reason to do it and the best they could come up with is that I took a 20 minute break from replying to the thread so that I could get ready for work.

OP I'm 5 pages into the Era Thread. No one has accused you of being racist. I'm literally going through the threat with "racist" in the search bar. Every mention has been how it's difficult, impossible to engage with racists and that Ghandi also held racist views.

They do actually explain a reason.



I mean they can sometimes go overboard, but are you sure if I go through your posts in that thread, I'm not going to find something similar to this?
I don’t want to derail the thread anymore based on that other site but Yes I welcome you to keep reading and the racism accusations come soon enough. The reason they cited for locking the thread were all bullshit, there were numerous people that disagreed with me that I engaged with and replied to. I stopped replying at page 6 (around the time people started calling me racist) so that I could get ready for work and get back to posting after that. Unless the expectation was that I somehow put my life on hold and reply to every single person that posted in that thread. not that not replying to enough people that disagree with you (how is a dozen in one hour not enough) is even a valid reason to close a thread.

But let’s get back to topic.

I see many posters here equating the authoritarian left with mass murder. Yes it’s true that Stalin killed more people than anybody in history. However I don’t think it’s fair to call him authoritarian left. He didn’t give a shit about equality, he hijacked the communist movement for his own riches but didn’t share any values in common with the left or with communists. He ruled like a fanatical fascist. Lenin and Marx were rolling in their graves during Stalin’s decidely not leftist reign.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
When has the authoritarian left engaged in racism. The extreme authoritarian


I don’t want to derail the thread anymore based on that other site but Yes I welcome you to keep reading.The reasons they cited were all bullshit, there were numerous people I engaged with and replied to, not that that is even a valid reason to close a thread.

But let’s get back to topic.

I see many posters here equating the authoritarian left with mass murder. Yes it’s true that Stalin killed more people than anybody in history. However I don’t think it’s fair to call him authoritarian left. He didn’t give a shit about equality, he hijacked the communist movement for his own riches but didn’t share any values in common with the left or with communists. He ruled like a fanatical fascist. Lenin and Marx were rolling in their graves during Stalin’s decidely not leftist reign.
Actually MAO killed even more than Stalin

1. Mao Zedong (49-78 million deaths)

2. Jozef Stalin (23 million deaths)
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
They literally pleaded with you to quote and challenge posters who disagreed with you, rather than the ones who only agreed with you.
And I replied to atleast a dozen posters that disagreed with me all within less than an hour. Then Went to get ready for work and by the time I was done, they locked the thread. So a poster needs to sit by the computer replying to every single poster over 9 pages? Bullshit if I heard of it. If they wanted me to reply to even more people than I already did, maybe they should have left the thread open a little bit longer.

That’s neither here nor there. I am more interested in the actual discussion going on in this thread. So let’s get back on topic.
 
Last edited:

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
Actually MAO killed even more than Stalin

1. Mao Zedong (49-78 million deaths)

2. Jozef Stalin (23 million deaths)
The point still stands. Lenin was pretty much the only lefist dictator I can think of. most everyone else that governed communist nations were corrupt, just in it for money and power and showed zero interest inpursuing equality.

You are trying to deflect again, to somehow remove the Authoritarian movement from the left and only move it to the right. Both sides call for racism, genocide or violence. But somehow you have to ignore one side, because it is righteous anger and they will stop, when they are in power and will not do, what they were talking the whole time or similar movements have done in the past. You cannot walk around with the symbols of tyranny which have killed millions and then declare you are not part of them or you will not repeat it, because what you are doing is righteous.
When has the authoritarian left engaged in racism. The extreme authorians engage is classism, banning free speech and such but not racism.
 
Last edited:
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
I see many posters here equating the authoritarian left with mass murder. Yes it’s true that Stalin killed more people than anybody in history. However I don’t think it’s fair to call him authoritarian left. He didn’t give a shit about equality, he hijacked the communist movement for his own riches but didn’t share any values in common with the left or with communists. He ruled like a fanatical fascist. Lenin and Marx were rolling in their graves during Stalin’s decidely not leftist reign.
No, you don't get to play the purity test on ideology otherwise Trump and alt-right wouldn't be considered right either.
Stalin was without a doubt left authoritarian left. Trying to claim that he didn't invoke "real" left values is like republicans saying Trump doesn't invoke "real" right values. If Stalin isn't left, neither is Trump. If Trump is right, Stalin is left.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
The point still stands. Lenin was pretty much the only lefist dictator I can think of. most everyone else that governed communist nations were corrupt, just in it for money and power and showed zero interest inpursuing equality.



When has the authoritarian left engaged in racism. The extreme authorians engage is classism, banning free speech and such but not racism.
Mao also was very lefist and a communist leader
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
The point still stands. Lenin was pretty much the only lefist dictator I can think of. most everyone else that governed communist nations were corrupt, just in it for money and power and showed zero interest inpursuing equality.



When has the authoritarian left engaged in racism. The extreme authorians engage is classism, banning free speech and such but not racism.
Anti semitism is really big in the left right now.

As example
http://time.com/4839592/anti-semitism-lgbtq-pride/
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
I have no issue with people complaining to employers about their employees terrible beliefs. If that’s the authoritarian left, then I guess I’m part of the problem. It’s on employers to decide who they want to represent their company.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
I have no issue with people complaining to employers about their employees terrible beliefs. If that’s the authoritarian left, then I guess I’m part of the problem. It’s on employers to decide who they want to represent their company.
What I take issue with is the mob mentality, the doxxing, harassing and completely disproportionate punishments and dog piling. Basically ERA in a nutshell.

So a women makes one crude joke to a friend on Twitter that hurt absolutely no one and probably no one would have seen it if the internet mob didn’t decide to make it go viral. Is that really worthy of destroying that women’s job and her family’s livelihood, doxxing her, threatening to rape and kill her? Don’t these authoritarians realize they are far worse monsters than the person they are attacking?
 
Last edited:
Aug 23, 2017
600
237
240
I have no issue with people complaining to employers about their employees terrible beliefs. If that’s the authoritarian left, then I guess I’m part of the problem. It’s on employers to decide who they want to represent their company.
And what if a Christian run childcare center is notified that one of their staff is gay and she is questioned and let go a month later due to cut backs despite them being in need of staff? That shit happened to a friend of mine and its BULLSHIT
 
Last edited:

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
I disagree partly with you OP.

I think anything should be up for discourse, however what I think you confuse for Authoritarian, is the ramifications of Free Speech. Free Speech allows you to say what you want, but it doesn't make you immune to the consequences of it.

For instance if you say racist things in a public place, you have to deal with a reputation or accusations of being a racist. Within society we have a set of social contracts that govern the consequences of what we say. I don't think we could ever live in a reality without these contracts. If society views racism as bad and you commit acts of racism or advocate for it, you are going to deal with the repercussions of that.

What I think you really want is the following rule. ( I can remember who said it.) "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." In other words as a race, the best way to further discourse is to always look at an argument in the best possible way.

Example.

"I think we need to look at why Black people commit more crime?"

At first glace you could say this is a racist statement. The person hasn't given evidence as to why they believe Black people commit more crime. It's an easy jump to assume this person might be racist, knee-jerk reaction and all.

The best possible version of this argument is that the person has evidence as to back up that statement and they aren't racist. The appropriate reaction would be to request the data, of if you have data to the contrary, assume ignorance on the behalf of the other/incorrect information.

I do agree there is a problem on the left with labeling people too quickly as racist/sexist/ect, but this is not really comparable to what goes on on the right. I think that's where we disagree the most OP. You seem to believe that Authoritarians on the left are high jacking the discourse. I have not seen any evidence of this and if you have any I would like you to present it. I on the other hand could point to any number of policies enacted by Trump/Republicans as to the very real threat they have to discourse.

Same post on Era, because OP seems not to be following the thread there anymore.
That’s a very fair point. But what about the students that riot to get speakers cancelled whose views they disagree with? The only people being oppressed in those instances are those of the speakers and those who wanted to hear what they had to say.

There was a time when people took pride in the notion: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.”

We actually took pride that as detestable as the Westboro Baptist Church’s messages were, we held our principles, especially our first amendment to a higher standard.

Just 10 years later and now apparently society is so fragile that people have to be protected from possibly hearing something they find offensive.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
And what if a Christian run childcare center is notified that one of their staff is gay and she is questioned and let go a month later due to cut backs despite them being in need of staff? That shit happened to a friend of mine and its BULLSHIT
Being gay isnt a terrible belief though. I would gladly vote to protect people like your friend from discrimination .
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
And BLM is a fucking movement not a fucking minority. BLM does not speak for every black person. They are pushing an agenda which fits their believe nothing else. They are not a protected group. Black people are so what? Just because I am against Feminism does not mean I hate women and see them as something lesser.

And I will be honest here a ton of opinions and laws have a negative effect on my live but it is still not hate speech. You have no idea what this word even means. In Germany we have also hate speech laws and everything I have said is totally fine. I think you need to understand that ideologies do not represent gender, they do not represent races or religions (even you could argue that religion is just nothing else than an ideology which I think is the case)
Ehh, problem is BLM is demonized as if they are the New Black Panthers shooting and every wacko on twitter = vetted approved representative of BLM. Which I find laughable that the Toronto BLM “leader” gets trotted out; the bitch aint even from the United States!

By and large you’re going to find mainstream black orgs (NAACP) and people aligned with BLM because its just an umbrella term for police brutality protests and they don’t watch foxnews. Its similar to when MLK was marching American news media would throw Malcolm X at his most angriest and say they were BFF and MLK wanted to fuck their white women and burn their homes, lol
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
I have no issue with people complaining to employers about their employees terrible beliefs. If that’s the authoritarian left, then I guess I’m part of the problem. It’s on employers to decide who they want to represent their company.
Also when they stalk these persons and doxx them to get to these informations?
Ehh, problem is BLM is demonized as if they are the New Black Panthers shooting and every wacko on twitter = vetted approved representative of BLM. Which I find laughable that the Toronto BLM “leader” gets trotted out; the bitch aint even from the United States!

By and large you’re going to find mainstream black orgs (NAACP) and people aligned with BLM because its just an umbrella term for police brutality protests and they don’t watch foxnews. Its similar to when MLK was marching American news media would throw Malcolm X at his most angriest and say they were BFF and MLK wanted to fuck their white women and burn their homes, lol
This is all maybe true but they are still no minority or a protected group and they never will. So saying that BLM are terrorists is not any form of hate speech
 
Jul 9, 2008
1,120
75
750
Vancouver, BC
I had a quick gander (I regularly browse both forums but dont post there) and yeop, didn't even make it a single post before it hit the fan.

The majority of responses are made of up of snide remarks, people posting hostile remarks at OP and going full authotarian straight out the gate.

Granted it is a much more active forum so it has a lot more responses, but I'm guessing it doesnt make it 10 pages before the lock.
9 pages exactly. Dude, you called it!
 
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
Also when they stalk these persons and doxx them to get to these informations?


This is all maybe true but they are still no minority or a protected group and they never will. So saying that BLM are terrorists is not any form of hate speech
They aren’t, and you’re right, saying BLM is a terrorist group TECHNICALLY isn’t hate speech.

But ideally a group where most of the people marching just wants equal protection under the law (in their mind, even misguided), calling them terrorists tells more about you then them; the beliefs you have, the media you consume.

I can say ALL SOUTHERN GUN OWNERS ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS and while technically it isn’t hate speech, but it’s not a leap to assume I come from a place of anti-white bias.

Unfortunately people tend to see the nuance in the later, not the former
 
Last edited:
Likes: Dunki
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
They aren’t, and you’re right, saying BLM is a terrorist group TECHNICALLY isn’t hate speech.

But ideally a group where most of the people marching just wants equal protection under the law (in their mind, even misguided), calling them terrorists tells more about you then them; the beliefs you have, the media you consume.

I can say ALL SOUTHERN GUN OWNERS ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS and while technically it isn’t hate speech, but it’s not a leap to assume I come from a place of anti-white bias.

Unfortunately people tend to see the nuance in the later, not the former
I agree with this and I never would call all BLM terrorists even though there are some encouraing violence and fear to change the political climate in the US. I think it is stupid but being stupid is not outlawed so they have the right to say it.

"I do not have to agree with anything you are saying but I will defend your right to say it"

This is basically my stand on all this.
 
Oct 24, 2017
255
468
215
You were the one to start comparing him to dictators. Do you at least admit that when he does stuff like this, he is affirming the beliefs of people who would be anti-trans?
Of course, but that neither makes alt-right nor Dictator. Bush was against same-sex marriage, nobody would call him alt-right.

He might not have the power of Putin, but don't pretend he doesn't have power to hurt people or groups. Also DACA was an executive order, not legislation. He overturned the moment he could and now the lives of thousands of people are at risk of being deported.
DACA, however, was something the Democrats could have done years ago, but they did not want to do it. They gave it to him on a silver platter. For years the parties used the dreamers for their politics. To pin this now on Trump is a little bit dishonest.

Obama policy not being ok, does not make Trump policy of removing press from the White House, criticizing media and having an award system for the fakest news outlet any better. If Trump can get elected by promising to build a wall, just imagine what he'll do if he can get elected promising to stop "fake news."
But unlike Obama, he has yet to arrest a member of the press or use the Espionage act like he did. But of course, Trump hurts their feelings, which is also very bad.
 
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
But unlike Obama, he has yet to arrest a member of the press or use the Espionage act like he did. But of course, Trump hurts their feelings, which is also very bad.
Obama was a piece of shit for the way he treated press and whistleblowers but lets not act like the administration discrediting journalism as a whole is just ‘hurt feelings’. Honestly race, gender, religion all these fiery debates I can see us moving past, but the pushing of the idea that ‘Facts don’t matter’, ‘Distrust all news’ will be the eventual death of the republic
 
Oct 24, 2017
255
468
215
The point still stands. Lenin was pretty much the only lefist dictator I can think of. most everyone else that governed communist nations were corrupt, just in it for money and power and showed zero interest inpursuing equality.
You can not remove Mao or Stalin from the communist movement just because you don't like it. The Khmer Rogue in Cambodia also were members of the communist party. You can not jump around and declare who was not left, just because it weakens your argument. In Cambodia, the genocide of minorities and religious groups was even justified by the need for an agrarian socialism.

When has the authoritarian left engaged in racism. The extreme authorians engage is classism, banning free speech and such but not racism.
You have to read what Marx said about poc, Jewish people or other minorities. Stalin used anti-semitism to fight against Trotzki and there is a very long, very unfortunate history of the Authoritarian left with anti-semitism. The genocide in Cambodia was already mentioned.

Obama was a piece of shit for the way he treated press and whistleblowers but lets not act like the administration discrediting journalism as a whole is just ‘hurt feelings’. Honestly race, gender, religion all these fiery debates I can see us moving past, but the pushing of the idea that ‘Facts don’t matter’, ‘Distrust all news’ will be the eventual death of the republic
But in any other country somebody like Trump would have no chance to say something like that or people would not believe him. The US media has weakened itself during the last few years.
 
Last edited:
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
But in any other country somebody like Trump would have no chance to say something like that or people would not believe him. The US media has weakened itself during the last few years.
No chance? You can’t say, “Dont believe any source but me”.

Obama was a kenyan born member of isis. Bush was a half wit who had cheney run the presidency. Reagan who everyone loves? THEY SHOT HIM SEVERAL TIMES BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY EVIL.

There’s nothing overwhelming about the opposition Trump is facing; all we gotta do is love him or hate him, look at Bill Clinton where we wasted two years and millions of tax payer dollars on getting head from an intern. All of them dealt with fake and false news; this isn’t something that fame about in the last year or so. Even Nixon wasn’t like, “media? FAKE!” when everyone was gunning for him.

Its just breeds an environment where the miami school shooting on wednesday was all fake and all the kids/parents are actors and companies are trying to intentionally give us cancer through GMO veggies so they can have us in their debt (along with nuggets of wisdom that stage 4 cancer can be cured by veggies). This is the world we live in; news media been fucking up/biased from the get go, this is different
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
867
3,116
245
From my point of view, there is some kind of McCarthyism that's being cultivated by radical left ideologies. The definition describes quite aptly what you've been experiencing:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. [...] The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

The cognitive framework constructed out of notions of radical feminism, intersectionality, critical theory (not critical thinking), the progressive stack and identity politics is creating a tribalistic group-think mentality that is highly divisive and extremely retributive. In these closed-minded communities, anybody who's deemed not being ideologically pure enough is met with utmost hostility and quickly ostracized. This creates an atmosphere of fear, that makes it impossible to engage with these notions in a critical manner, thus further radicalizing its members.

This extremist mindset that's being cultivated on English-speaking campuses is slowly seeping into hobbyist communities through politicization efforts by members of these close-knit circles. They often seek to abuse the vulnerabilities of minority groups in order to weaponize them for their own political gains. The reason why these ideological groups proliferate so rapidly is because they divide people by easily identifiable external characteristics, like gender, age, disabilities, skin-color, personal pronouns or ethnicity. They operate on the premise that everybody who belongs to these ingroups through one or several of these characteristics is put into a status of victimhood, i.e. the oppressed, while everybody else belonging to the outgroup is considered the perpetrator of some kind of sexism, racism, homophobia, abelism, ageism or islamophobia, i.e. the oppressor.

This creates a very black-and-white 'us vs. them' mentality that makes it a moral obligation to 'punch up', which means to dehumanize, to shame, to silence and to violate anybody who could be perceived as the opposition. These groups emanate an extreme sense of belonging by providing a positive feedback loop to those acting upon their moral obligations. Hence why it 'feels good' if you engage in these kinds of activities by shunning and vilifying those who do not belong. Even more so, these groups fabricate the hysterical persecution-complex that if you do not act on these self-righteous principles, you literally risk dying.

If you think I am exaggerating, take a quick look at what happened to Nicholas Christakis at Yale, Bret Weinstein at Evergreen, Jordan Peterson at the University of Toronto or Lindsay Shepherd at Laurier. If you want to know more about the ideological underpinnings of these radicalized movements, I recommend Benjamin A. Boyce who does a really good job accounting and investigating these happenings from an academic and reasoned point of view. Of course there's also the interviews with Weinstein, Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Camille Paglia, Sam Harris and many many more. There's also this academic yet uplifting lecture by Gad Saad on how political correctness and identity politics are stifling the exchange of ideas.

Now for the sake of the argument, let me add that I'm not bashing the left. In the past, the religious right applied much of the same methodology, albeit for different political reasons. Be it the aforementioned McCarthyism, creationists or other religious fanatics like the Westboro Baptists Church and the lesser known Gloriavale Christian Community. There is also the Jesus Camp, Tipper Gore and Bill Maher's comedic yet comprehensive documentation Religulous. It's just that the the ideological outgrowths that are making the news nowadays have been cultivated among the left. Much like the right was mostly blind for the authoritarian tendencies within their own political circles, the left seems to have a blind spot for the growing radicalization within its own ranks. They are slowly waking up to that fact, but not without much criticism from the opposition shining a light upon these problems. Hence why diversity of thought and the presence of opposition is a necessary social and political mechanism in order to keep people from going off the deep end.

It's not some grand conspiracy, just another form of mass hysteria accelerated by the interconnective power of social-media. Through the notion of intersectional feminism and identity politics, Anita brought much of the same ideological baggage to the gaming community. It's not hard to see since she cites the same literature, uses the same vocabulary and promotes the same ideological core values. It's only natural that most gamers reacted strongly to that kind of rhetoric. It has nothing to do with misogyny or any kind of phobia, it's just how multi-pluralistic democracies tend to auto-correct themselves. Unfortunately for many young gamers, Anita was their first contact with feminism and uncritically supported by the gaming press, she has largely poisoned the well for any kind of reasonable debate pertaining to the representation of women in video games. It also lead to the side-effect that other feminist voices were swept under the rug, like Camille Paglia, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Erin Pizzey and yes even Christina Hoff Sommers. I take umbrage to the fact that the gaming press propped her up as the single voice of feminism in video games, while either completely ignoring other feminist voices, labeling them as fake-feminists or borderline smearing and misrepresenting them.

Anyway, my argument is not whether Anita is still popular or not and honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about how many likes, views or followers she has. She's fallen down railing against butts in video-games, so make of that what you want. My argument is about what she and her company has introduced into the gaming community, a particular set of far-out core ideologies that have torn the community asunder. The mindset that I've been trying to explain above is still going strong among colleges, certain gaming communities and internet personalities. There's no denying the fact that there is still a particular subset of very vocal and aggressive ideologues among the gaming community that's constantly out for blood and honestly, that kind of mindset frightens me.

What angers me the most is how these social authoritarians claim to speak for all individuals of the social group they seek to represent. They prey on the emotional vulnerabilities of those who oftentimes feel excluded in order to prop up their ranks. They then proceed to make outlandish demands in order to underline their 'otherness' only further isolating these groups from the rest of society. It's a vicious cycle that does incredible damage to the public perception of these minority groups, essentially reinforcing their isolation. The demand to be treated differently is in direct contradiction to their wish for inclusivity.

Cult-like groups often behave in the same manner. They identify the outside world as a threat in order to strengthen the social cohesion between its members by making people afraid to leave the group. Hence why they also react very strongly if outside forces are penetrating their domain. By principle, that's what 'safe spaces' do to you. I agree that safety is a basic human need but these spaces are your homes, your friends, your partners, not the public domain.

It's as you say, if you treat people the same as everybody else, that's when they can feel truly integrated. People don't want to be obsessively reminded of how different they are, because that's when alienation effects appear. Of course, any community should strive to be as accommodating as possible, that's why most social groups reduce adherence to a simple set of common denominators. For the gaming community it's the shared interest in games, for sports-fans it's a specific sport, for interest groups it's a common policy and for your work-group it was a professional task. You simply cannot expect a whole social group to bend to every specific individual need, that's not how socialization works. Like, it's fine if you express your needs and discuss differences, but it's not fine to make demands through social extortion by going "do/say X, or you're an -ist and -phobe".

What intersectionality and identity politics do is basically introducing more and more differences, further balkanizing the gaming community. Because now you have gamers not only identifying themselves as gamers, but also as male/female, black/white, left/right, hetero-/homosexual, cis/trans and any combination in between. Essentially splintering the community into smaller and smaller tribes that tend to become very hostile to each other because everything outside of their ingroup is considered evil. If we take the GAF exodus for example, we now have gamers who basically divide the community into two camps, the 'alt-right GAF' and the 'progressive left ResetERA' and that's what these ideologies do to ya. It goes without saying that that's not how diversity works.

That's why I'm happy to see people disagreeing with me, no matter if I approve of their arguments or not. Because that's when I know that I'm part of a healthy community. Sorry for the lengthy reply, but there is a lot to unpack in order to kinda maybe explain what's going on.
I don't know if it's allowed to quote oneself, but over at the GG topic, I've written an equally long post touching on many of the same points stated by the OP and coming to pretty much the same conclusions. I hope that it adds to the discussion at hand.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kadayi
Oct 24, 2017
255
468
215
No chance? You can’t say, “Dont believe any source but me”.
Yes, if Merkel would say that people would laugh. All the examples you added are nice but there is something missing. The news media in the US is terrible and it already was terrible 10 years ago when Jon Stewart said it. Everything he said about CNN then is still true and news shows became less about news, more about feel-good stories or talking heads. And this was a trend long before Trump was even in politics.

Also, the US media weakened itself after 9/11 and before and during the Iraq war. Or look at the election, they rather showed an empty podium of Trump than a speech of Bernie. Trump used the weakness of the US media. Because during the election they pretty much all rolled over before him. He got them the high ratings. Only after they realized that he may win, they changed the approach and that only helped him.
 
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
Yes, if Merkel would say that people would laugh. All the examples you added are nice but there is something missing. The news media in the US is terrible and it already was terrible 10 years ago when Jon Stewart said it. Everything he said about CNN then is still true and news shows became less about news, more about feel-good stories or talking heads. And this was a trend long before Trump was even in politics.

Also, the US media weakened itself after 9/11 and before and during the Iraq war. Or look at the election, they rather showed an empty podium of Trump than a speech of Bernie. Trump used the weakness of the US media. Because during the election they pretty much all rolled over before him. He got them the high ratings. Only after they realized that he may win, they changed the approach and that only helped him.
Ehh, I don’t disagree. Where I diagree is that the most important man in the world saying the media is bullshit is more than just ‘hurt feelings’ it pushes a narrative that both left and right are starting to believe. Now everything is fake, including you Lupingosei! you might be a russian bot. perhaps a blm infiltrator. Maybe you’re stealing my ip address by me replying!
 
Likes: Lupingosei
Jan 3, 2018
1,436
593
225
Ehh, I don’t disagree. Where I diagree is that the most important man in the world saying the media is bullshit is more than just ‘hurt feelings’ it pushes a narrative that both left and right are starting to believe. Now everything is fake, including you Lupingosei! you might be a russian bot. perhaps a blm infiltrator. Maybe you’re stealing my ip address by me replying!
That's one billion percent true. It's not like the US and the world were particularly strong in their belief in our institutions going into this. Systematically eroding the belief in every single one and public trust isn't helping anyone.
When people think the only way to do something is to start taking the law into their own hands we get dangerous vigilantism.
 
Oct 24, 2017
255
468
215
Ehh, I don’t disagree. Where I diagree is that the most important man in the world saying the media is bullshit is more than just ‘hurt feelings’ it pushes a narrative that both left and right are starting to believe. Now everything is fake, including you Lupingosei! you might be a russian bot. perhaps a blm infiltrator. Maybe you’re stealing my ip address by me replying!
 
Sep 2, 2013
16,512
612
490
Liberals best strategy is to build up the middle class, millennials and focus diversity. This country will eventually be run by today's minority and they need to appeal to their values, needs and outcomes.
 
Likes: pramod
Mar 10, 2015
943
854
290
Portland, OR
One thing that I haven't seen said by anyone is that there's a lot of deflection coming from people who don't like the OP's message (mostly from the other site, a smidgen of it here) who are saying "People like that are the fringe, they don't represent the rest of us on the left who are reasonable" but that is EXACTLY how most of us feel about the alt-right. They are the extreme of the right, and most of us deplore the KKK and neo nazi type people who proudly belong that group. The problem is the tendency on the left to dismiss any discussion with conservative (and even liberal) people by virtue of them simply being alt-right garbage who aren't worth the time to talk with. Both sides have extremes that make poor representatives of that group, but only one side is refusing to engage with the other whether or not their views are actually extreme.
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,030
721
270
I think Leftist Authoritarianism fits the regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot more than the current American left.....which I would describe as a combination of tribalism/identity politics/race baiting. Those Communist regimes had lots of racism and didn't really focus on identity politics.....

Liberals best strategy is to build up the middle class, millennials and focus diversity. This country will eventually be run by today's minority and they need to appeal to their values, needs and outcomes.
Yes that sums up the current Democratic Party/Leftist movement of the US pretty neatly, although I would probably drop "middle class'.

The American Left sees white people as the enemy in this country. Therefore the goal is to achieve a non-white majority populace as quickly as possible. It's ultimate tribalism. Whether this will lead to a better more harmonious society in the future remains to be seen.
 
Likes: Fanthomas
May 4, 2005
11,192
522
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I was a leftist before the asylum crisis in 2015 but know im a rightist AFD supporter
So you also changed your view on fiscal politics completely? On taxes, social security, ecology, eduation and so on, you know, classical left policies? Even if you have an issue with refugees, does this take priority over all other political issues?
 
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
What I take issue with is the mob mentality, the doxxing, harassing and completely disproportionate punishments and dog piling. Basically ERA in a nutshell.

So a women makes one crude joke to a friend on Twitter that hurt absolutely no one and probably no one would have seen it if the internet mob didn’t decide to make it go viral. Is that really worthy of destroying that women’s job and her family’s livelihood, doxxing her, threatening to rape and kill her? Don’t these authoritarians realize they are far worse monsters than the person they are attacking?
What do you want to be done in regards to doxxing or online threats?

In regards to Justine Sacco, she posted on Twitter, not some text message to friends that got exposed. Company decided to fire her, that seems libertarian to me, not authoritarian in the least bit.
 
Feb 6, 2018
63
45
175
The American Left sees white people as the enemy in this country. Therefore the goal is to achieve a non-white majority populace as quickly as possible. It's ultimate tribalism. Whether this will lead to a better more harmonious society in the future remains to be seen.
It's funny - if the republicans started talking about importing millions of poor and undereducated white people to the US to vote republican there'd be apocalyptic levels of hysteria, but it's ok for the democrats to openly talk about bringing in more latino voters and how minorities will take over the US.

This will absolutely not lead to a harmonious society in the future, unless the marxists brainwash all the white people. America's pretty much done really. This is America's future:


The left figured out that the white kids holding these views can grow older and wiser, but if that ideology and resentment is joined by race it's a guaranteed lifetime vote. I read that Reagan thought hispanics were going to be republican voters, lol what a dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pramod
Jul 10, 2013
1,194
82
360
49
Mount Pleasant, SC
Liberals don`t even exist where I live

Though in Americas case it seems like most of these liberals are just virtue signaling and I honestly doubt they even care about social problems.
I think an argument could be made for this by pointing to, possibly, the most liberal conclave in the US - Hollywood. It has played home to womens' rights for at least as long as I can remember. It has also played home to the "casting couch" for as long as I can remember, which is only now being openly discussed.
 
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
The American Left sees white people as the enemy in this country. Therefore the goal is to achieve a non-white majority populace as quickly as possible. It's ultimate tribalism. Whether this will lead to a better more harmonious society in the future remains to be seen.
Stop that man thats hyperbole to the extreme. White people aint going nowhere; there are gay white people, insufferable fake ally women white people, Cuban’s in Florida consider themselves white people (lol).

Black folks are like 13% of the country and havent really changed over the last century. You’ve got a distinct rise in latinos in the past century but even with the heavy anti-latino rhetoric notice the uptic in latino voters as they consider themselves more and more white too. I dont have the stats on Asians but even then i would assume that even with growth the numbers dwarf black/latinos as minorities. “Diverse” in the near future will most likely be mostly white, but with sexuality/non-binary gender playing a bit part of the makeup
 
Last edited:
Feb 10, 2018
67
36
175
Tokyo, Japan
I think an argument could be made for this by pointing to, possibly, the most liberal conclave in the US - Hollywood. It has played home to womens' rights for at least as long as I can remember. It has also played home to the "casting couch" for as long as I can remember, which is only now being openly discussed.
Funny how there are people in hollywood who called for ending sexual harrassment but they ended up being a sex offender. Though I feel someone them are innocent.

I`m not saying women don`t get sexually harassed ever but this twitter witch hunt will end up with employers not wanting to hire women anymore in fear of being falsely accused of sexual harassment.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,124
950
735
Funny how there are people in hollywood who called for ending sexual harrassment but they ended up being a sex offender. Though I feel someone them are innocent.

I`m not saying women don`t get sexually harassed ever but this twitter witch hunt will end up with employers not wanting to hire women anymore in fear of being falsely accused of sexual harassment.
No they won't. They will offer men training and psychology classes to get over it.
 
Oct 24, 2017
1,030
721
270
It's funny - if the republicans started talking about importing millions of poor and undereducated white people to the US to vote republican there'd be apocalyptic levels of hysteria, but it's ok for the democrats to openly talk about bringing in more latino voters and how minorities will take over the US.
Yeah what unnerves me is that the left openly talks about this, with nary a hint of hesitancy, with immigration being an integral part of their plan of political domination through demographic change. It wasn't like this 10 years ago.

Stop that man thats hyperbole to the extreme. White people aint going nowhere; there are gay white people, insufferable fake ally women white people, Cuban’s in Florida consider themselves white people (lol).

Black folks are like 13% of the country and havent really changed over the last century. You’ve got a distinct rise in latinos in the past century but even with the heavy anti-latino rhetoric notice the uptic in latino voters as they consider themselves more and more white too. I dont have the stats on Asians but even then i would assume that even with growth the numbers dwarf black/latinos as minorities. “Diverse” in the near future will most likely be mostly white, but with sexuality/non-binary gender playing a bit part of the makeup
I'm simply saying this is what I hear from the left (like people on the other forum) regularly these days. "Taking the country from evil Republican white people" through illegal immigration or whatever means is no longer a "dirty" secret. It's what they are hoping and dreaming for openly, whether it will work out the way they hope remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
The American Left sees white people as the enemy in this country. Therefore the goal is to achieve a non-white majority populace as quickly as possible. It's ultimate tribalism. Whether this will lead to a better more harmonious society in the future remains to be seen.
Instead of trying to generalize the entire left as being racist towards white people because I’m sure you love it when the left says the entire right is racist. For discussions sake Tell us what type of actual policies the left are trying to push that indicate that we want a non-white majority? Is it helping refugees or dreamers that make you feel that way or is it some other type of policy?
 
Last edited:
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
I think an argument could be made for this by pointing to, possibly, the most liberal conclave in the US - Hollywood. It has played home to womens' rights for at least as long as I can remember. It has also played home to the "casting couch" for as long as I can remember, which is only now being openly discussed.
Hollywood cares about women's rights?!?! USA? Hollywood?!?! Where Mel Gibson works?
Where woody Allen works? Where Roman Polanski is applauded? Where Quentin Tarantino still works? Hollywood is what it appears to be. It's a creative industry run mostly by Liberal leaning men. And like almost every industry run mostly by men, it has a sexual harassment problem.

The whole "these dudes are all just virtue signalling" thing people say is corny.
 
Dec 6, 2008
85,351
54
1,060
I don’t think it’s an ideology issue. It has to do with how the internet develops echo chambers. Whether Twitter, Tumblr, /Donald, or Facebook and their insidious algorithm, it’s a deeper issue than specific ideologies or world views.
 
Oct 10, 2012
5,205
2,357
480
UK
theconclave.net
I don’t think it’s an ideology issue. It has to do with how the internet develops echo chambers. Whether Twitter, Tumblr, /Donald, or Facebook and their insidious algorithm, it’s a deeper issue than specific ideologies or world views.
I think ideology definitely plays a part, but I concur that the algorithms are certainly muddying the waters in terms of peoples ability to see a clear picture, coupled with the sheer amount of noise they have to contend with.
 
Nov 28, 2012
658
17
0
There seems to be a lot of paranoid White Conservative males that think they are endangered because a lot of societal problems pertaining to minorities are being raised. An abundant of over reaction calling groups like BLM racist or echoing this fake news movement bs. Know this. Times are changing and everything is being questioned. Nothing is sacred. A lot of old values will die in exchange for equality because bullshit can't hide forever on this beast called the internet.
Good luck. Evolve or die.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,094
3,719
315
There seems to be a lot of paranoid White Conservative males that think they are endangered because a lot of societal problems pertaining to minorities are being raised. An abundant of over reaction calling groups like BLM racist or echoing this fake news movement bs. Know this. Times are changing and everything is being questioned. Nothing is sacred. A lot of old values will die in exchange for equality because bullshit can't hide forever on this beast called the internet.
Good luck. Evolve or die.





The Black Lives Matter leader then wondered how the white race could be wiped out. According to her, “Black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

“Do you ever wonder how black ppl after centuries of colonial violence, genocide and destruction—no matter what systems created to make us extinct… How we keep coming back? It is because we are superhumxns,” she added.

what would you call this as an example?
 
Last edited:

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
Oct 27, 2017
613
367
340
I would call it a radical authoritarian leftist that speaks a bunch of BS to sound woke but poses no serious threat to anyone because she clearly has no idea what carrying out a genocide of all white people would actually entail.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
867
3,116
245
There seems to be a lot of paranoid White Conservative males that think they are endangered because a lot of societal problems pertaining to minorities are being raised. An abundant of over reaction calling groups like BLM racist or echoing this fake news movement bs. Know this. Times are changing and everything is being questioned. Nothing is sacred. A lot of old values will die in exchange for equality because bullshit can't hide forever on this beast called the internet.
Good luck. Evolve or die.
Sounds more like a declaration of war. Must feel pretty good to be power tripping like that. If that's your definition of inclusivity and equality, I'd rather drink the cup of hemlock.
 
Likes: pramod
Mar 23, 2008
1,074
28
755
she is the "leader" of blm toronto
Don’t do that. I addressed it in my previous post.



In that case then every Republican congressman is against race mixing. Can’t take a few outliers, say “SEE, THEY BELIEVE THAT” and have it be true. We can be here going back and forth, like I said from before Toronto’s not even a city in the United States :D.

Patagonia sponsored Deray is clearly the biggest BLM leader and that dude wouldn’t hurt a fly. But thanks to foxnews, the Canadian “leader” of an American movement is the official spokesperson
 
Last edited: