Unwritten rules of this forum ?
-
So … I'm just wondering if this section of the forum is a de-facto pro-Trump space ?
In other words, a far-right, white nationalist space ?
If so, I'm OK with that - I don't need to participate here. Plenty of other places on the Web to engage in debate.
I like my porn and don't wish to be banned.
Let it be stated for the record that I, so-and-so, just want to suck dick in peace ! Cheers.
-
I certainly hope not. But I can understand why many won't bother to come here.
-
In other words, a far-right, white nationalist space ?
Are you saying that liberals are far left, black-ivists?
Just because liberals can't defend their positions on anything, so they don't come here, doesn't mean this forum section is only for pro-Trumpers.
-
"Just because liberals can't defend their positions on anything, so they don't come here, doesn't mean this forum section is only for pro-Trumpers"
- "On anything" ? LOL. Liberals did pretty well on November 3rd, at least on the national level.
I refer to white nationalism because that is what Trumpism boils down to - it's the early 21st century equivalent of the Confederacy, politely repackaged as "populism".
In America, white nationalism is the last refuge of a shrinking demographic that lags in most indicators of well being: more likely to be rural, less educated, lacking access to health care and infrastructure, and left behind by the greater economic prosperity of the coastal regions.
And yet at the same time, feeling most entitled to a position of dominance solely on the basis of skin color and ancestry.
Let's be clear - Trump lost in particular because WHITE SUBURBANITES rejected him. They want no part in the race war that the GOP so desperately needs to save itself.
-
You can't defend yourself on any position. You're the racists. The group Proud Boys is actually run by a black dude. You're a bunch of liars. The fact that you don't have anything relevant to post is the problem. Why don't you post a topic about your ideology and see how people react? I want to hear what you think, cuz that tells me what I think. I don't want to censor like you by labeling this as white nationalism. The problem is you act like this is white nationalism when you can easily click "New Topic." It's ridiculous. You act like you're not welcome here but you don't say anything. It's not white nationalism. That's stupid. That's your belief system, not facts. It's you guys who are the racists.
Here's an example. You think it's ok for Mexicans to jump over the fence. Why can't they just come across the border legally? I guess they got something to hide. Everyone knows there's a lot of crime in Mexico. Trump said rightly so that they're criminals, because if they weren't criminals, they'd just go through the border patrol like the non-criminals do. He was talking about the mass crime coming from those who crossed the border illegally, and it's serious. It's got gangs and drugs and rape. But oh it's so racist right? No, it's you who have the stereotype that all Mexicans are poor and helpless and therefore everyone of them should be set free. Just today there was a serial murderer who came into the country a third time, because of liberal policies in California. It's sick. You're sick.
-
I can defend liberalism easily. It’s not hard at all.
Just because you both haven’t come across anyone who can, doesn’t mean it’s not possible I’m afraid. That’s a very naive way of looking at things..
-
Too opressed on a gay forum by nazis?
No it makes sense, I beleive in liberalizm now.
I guess you guys have nightmares with Hitler and stuff and that informs your politics. -
Educated white females voted for Trump 50+%.
Do you think they are nazis because they are white? -
Educated white females voted for Trump 50+%.
Do you think they are nazis because they are white?Um, no? Why would anyone think that?
-
But it is a particularly interesting conundrum, one which I would love an answer to!
Why would a majority of white women vote for someone who has, for his entire life, denigrated women?
Some of it could be explained by racism - sure. I'm certain some of them were, just by demographics. But it couldn't possibly be all of them. (the fact that they are accommodating and or acquiescing to racists is a different charge that would be difficult for them to get away from… but that's another matter).
I think it's interesting to look at the campaigning that was done by the Trump Campaign targeting white women specifically: it talked up to their fears about their communities and housing being destroyed by the 'Democrats wanting to build more affordable housing' (no point going into whether any of this is true or not for the purposes of this question. The Trump Campaign did this - and it's on record, so we can at least see that).
So I think it's much more plausible that white women voted for Trump out of fear and the want to protect what they have at the moment (status, income, tax advantages, etc), which is a perfectly understandable and rational position to take to the ballot box.
It's also interesting to see the split when you break down white women into whether they were more college-educated or not - and in that case, only slightly more than half of white women voted for Biden if they were college-educated than if they weren't. So again, no real demonstration that it was a matter of education either.
Leads me to think that, largely, they were protecting their status quo - and were willing to go along with a group of people who are racists, and to support someone who is a misogynist - in order to do that.
I think this makes much more sense than the rather base explanation of "they were Nazis".
-
You can't defend yourself on any position. You're the racists. The group Proud Boys is actually run by a black dude. You're a bunch of liars. The fact that you don't have anything relevant to post is the problem. Why don't you post a topic about your ideology and see how people react? I want to hear what you think, cuz that tells me what I think. I don't want to censor like you by labeling this as white nationalism. The problem is you act like this is white nationalism when you can easily click "New Topic." It's ridiculous. You act like you're not welcome here but you don't say anything. It's not white nationalism. That's stupid. That's your belief system, not facts. It's you guys who are the racists.
Here's an example. You think it's ok for Mexicans to jump over the fence. Why can't they just come across the border legally? I guess they got something to hide. Everyone knows there's a lot of crime in Mexico. Trump said rightly so that they're criminals, because if they weren't criminals, they'd just go through the border patrol like the non-criminals do. He was talking about the mass crime coming from those who crossed the border illegally, and it's serious. It's got gangs and drugs and rape. But oh it's so racist right? No, it's you who have the stereotype that all Mexicans are poor and helpless and therefore everyone of them should be set free. Just today there was a serial murderer who came into the country a third time, because of liberal policies in California. It's sick. You're sick.
1. Yes we can - I've done it to you plenty of times already…
2. Proud Boys being run by a black person does not mean they are not racists (they can still be racist if they are black... shocking, I know...). In the UK there is an Indian decent, highly educated woman running the home office - who is definitely a racist.
3. I haven't lied to you once - but if you're going to say an entire group are liars because of individuals in the group, you should probably exclude Trump from your group... as he's, so far, one of the worst liars in the history of the US presidency... only worse as a liar because it's so public. His lies are being flagged everywhere... which is... pretty bad!
4. "we don't have anything relevant to post" ... hmmmm... I think your view of what's relevant and my view of what's relevant are going to be two different things... aren't they? So you might not view it as relevant... but I don't really think that matters, as it is relevant to me. And you - are unable to make this claim. It's a foolish claim - which does you no good.
5. You demonstrably do not want to hear what other people think - it's clear from your reactions to everything I've been patiently trying to explain to you. You deny it, try to ignore it, tell people you're not going to read it... basically, you do everything short of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la la la" at the top of your voice... This... doesn't encourage anyone to want to talk to you or with you. I've already wanted to stop bothering wasting any time on you at all because of this reaction. If you do truly want to engage with people, this route will ensure you never do.
6. Labebelling something and censoring it are not the same thing... obviously. They're even different words so you can tell...
Labelling: putting a label on something so you can discuss it
Censoring: removing something from view so as to prevent others from seeing it
I do encourage labelling - and yes, if you post white supremacist gibberish, I will label it as such. If you post hate speech, that's against the law and can get you in trouble - but they are not the same things. There is an argument for why certain things are labelled as hate speech and removed (and you get in trouble for them) - and that's the thing called the Paradox of Intolerance. It's incredibly difficult to get one's head around, but basically… if you allow certain freedoms of speech, eventually you end up with no freedom of speech. So... to protect freedom of speech, you have to curtail some freedom of speech... a paradox! This is why hate speech laws exist. And all sensible people support them - and also support the constant monitoring of them to make sure they do not become overly censorious (a task for all demos to undertake, constantly!). So I applaud and encourage people to always be vigilant for overly censorious laws and rules - but always also with the mind to the paradox outlined above. If you are a good citizen, this is what you must and should do.5. We don't act as if something is white nationalism... but... if it is around... people often don't want to be a part of it (unless they are convinced by it's arguments... and that's certainly not me!). And most people would rather not be around it and not waste their time with it. I don't mind a lively debate… and I can easily hold my own against very capable interlocutors. But that is not everyone. Most will simply - leave. So... again... your choice: make the forum a more welcoming place for views other than your own, or be isolated to your own little bubble of 2 or 3 people who only say the same things as each other and you never make any friends. Entirely up to you
6. A belief system does not make a person a racist... unless that belief system includes an 'I'm better than you because of things I have no control over' clause. So racists are people who believe, for example, that being white means they are superior to black people. This does not follow if the person believes their political outlook, or their intellectual capability or anything else which they themselves have worked on and improved (there's an argument there about if they think their intellectual capability is somehow inherent in their skin colour... which we'll just leave for now, but suffice to say that's not at all what I'm talking about - education is!). So again, you're using a word incorrectly. I would really really encourage you to stop doing this. With a word like gaslighting (which you continue to use incorrectly elsewhere), it's understandable... as the concept is a bit more complex. But with racsits/racism, you really should understand the principles behind those words. There really is no excuse for that. So it's either lazy thinking which made you make the claim above that someone's political views made them a racist (which is wrong) or you have a significantly greater lack of understanding of these topics than I first thought... which is concerning, and really doesn't make it easy to believe much of what you say. If you want to improve trust and get people to believe in what you say first... then you really must work on the words you use.
So now... your example. And there really are so many worrying holes in your example that... it is almost pointless to go through them all for you. But I will make a start.
Believing all Mexicans are criminals is the same silly failure of logic as believing all Liberals are Comunists, all Trump supporters are racists and all Biden supporters are 'true believers' (or whatever silliness you called them before). This is so patently silly that... it really doesn't deserve our time to go over and you should be saddened you needed to use that claim to make your case. BUT - you try to redeem yourself by suggesting that 'only the criminal' would want to enter the country illegally... well, that is an interesting claim! So... we need to look into it. Why do Mexicans (and other citizens from the countries they are in) want to go to the USA and what would possess them to do that illegally, other than their own criminality? Well... thankfully, there are people out there who have answered this for us! Here is a good start: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line - in short… there is no such line, or it's woefully inadequate for the numbers involved. So... they can't do what you are suggesting they do. And so... turn to illegal means. So that takes care of your initial (flawed) assumption and (flawed) logic. And we're only 4 lines in...
Line 5: "Everyone knows there is crime in Mexico" - yes... and everyone knows there is crime in the USA. So what? What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Unless you're retreating to your previous, now disproved, claim and also somehow insinuating that, because there is crime in a country, all people from that country must be criminal? I sure hope that is not the logical leap you're attempting to make... else maybe we should label you a criminal as well, because there is crime in your country?
Line 6 is a repeat of lines 1-4... and is already shown to be nonsense...
Line 7: So... this claim is that, effectively, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime in the USA than local native citizens, correct? Well, aside from the federal crime of having entered the country illegally (so excluding that statistic from the data), we can see that... it's not the case. Immigrants are less likely to commit a violent or property crime - and we can also see by the data that areas with higher immigration have lower cases of violent or property crime than areas of lower immigration. I can find no data at all that support there being any other type of crime wave occurring - and I can't find any statistics on drug use. So… please do feel free to provide your carefully selected and tested sourced information that proves there is:
a) a crime wave from Mexican illegal immigration
b) that Mexicans have a higher propensity towards crime (any type) than natives as illegal immigrants to the USA
For the avoidance of doubt:- you claiming there's loads of evidence but I'm refusing to see it... is not evidence
- you saying that it's a thing... is not evidence
- you sharing other people who say it's a thing who also are not backing up their beliefs with real data... is not evidence
I hope that's clear - and apologies if you already know this... but judging by your previous replies, I do not think you do.
So... if you can prove this, and show it to be true... then I will very happily accept it and concede to your concerns. If, however, you can't... then you should change your mind quickly and your views must change also accordingly. If you don't do that (when presented with the evidence, change your mind to follow the evidence…) then you might then be being a racist, but it would depend on why you're refusing to change your mind. You might, for example, just not believe the evidence presented to you - whilst still not being able to present any evidence to the contrary... But you might not be doing that because you dislike Mexicans because they're Mexican. Maybe you have another reason... but I'll leave that to you to explain.
-
You’re so full of shit. You’re “factoid” on Proud Boys is ridiculous. It’s about the organization being “white supremacist.” Why would white supremacists join an organization run by a black guy? Of course black people can be racist too, that’s not the point. You know you’re lying. You’re a con-artist. It’s very simple for anyone to see.
Yes, black people can be racist as you point out as the argument. That's not the argument. An organization run by a black guy, will not attract white supremacists. The argument I'm making is that it's not a white supremacist organization. You know you're ignoring that. Your argument that black people can be racist is correct. And you totally avoid the fact that white racists wouldn’t follow a black leader. You are a liar because you’re leaving that factoid out.
Trump hasn’t denigrated women. You act like talking about one girl’s period is denigration. He attacks men much worse. You want equality when you dish it out about his hand size? No… that's not hypocrisy! White women fear Joe Biden. They fear Antifa and BLM killing their protector police, and burning down their businesses. That's why. They pay for that shit and expect it.
-
But it is a particularly interesting conundrum, one which I would love an answer to!
Why would a majority of white women vote for someone who has, for his entire life, denigrated women?
Some of it could be explained by racism - sure. I'm certain some of them were, just by demographics. But it couldn't possibly be all of them. (the fact that they are accommodating and or acquiescing to racists is a different charge that would be difficult for them to get away from… but that's another matter).
I think it's interesting to look at the campaigning that was done by the Trump Campaign targeting white women specifically: it talked up to their fears about their communities and housing being destroyed by the 'Democrats wanting to build more affordable housing' (no point going into whether any of this is true or not for the purposes of this question. The Trump Campaign did this - and it's on record, so we can at least see that).
So I think it's much more plausible that white women voted for Trump out of fear and the want to protect what they have at the moment (status, income, tax advantages, etc), which is a perfectly understandable and rational position to take to the ballot box.
It's also interesting to see the split when you break down white women into whether they were more college-educated or not - and in that case, only slightly more than half of white women voted for Biden if they were college-educated than if they weren't. So again, no real demonstration that it was a matter of education either.
Leads me to think that, largely, they were protecting their status quo - and were willing to go along with a group of people who are racists, and to support someone who is a misogynist - in order to do that.
I think this makes much more sense than the rather base explanation of "they were Nazis".
So you see them either as racist or greedy and voting for somebody they hate otherwise just to keep their wealth.
Is it all of them or like 80% how do you think?
And how that statement of you can be tested?Concerning education I believe that if you filter-out garbage degrees and ones with no family
you should get even bigger number of Trump voters among university graduates.
And likely Trump lead even among college graduates. -
LOL.
Priti Patel (UK Home Office Sec.) is a racist because she is against illegal immigration.
Typical liberal mindset.
-
LOL.
Priti Patel (UK Home Office Sec.) is a racist because she is against illegal immigration.
Typical liberal mindset.
Look, if you're going to do this and create straw men like this… I'm going to say things like:
Typical right-wing Alt-right type mindset, who doesn't understand my points, doesn't ask questions about my points to get that understanding, makes assumptions to support their world view and make themselves feel better and tries to be 'right'...
Would you like me to do that? As I doubt we will get very far if we do...
So, by now, you should have realised I don't say things without the ability to back them up. That should have been your first clue...
Second, you have created a straw man argument... this is fallacious and doesn't make you look very clever. I did not say that Priti Patel was racist because she was against illegal immigration - you did. I said she was a racist.
No, Priti Patel is not a racist because she is against illegal immigration. Priti Patel is a racist because she is a racist. I've spoken with her in private (unfortunately!) when I was amongst a group of people that she trusted and she revealed her racist views to that group. She's not terribly bright, so she wasn't aware that some of us might not hold the same views as her, but were keen on hearing her views. This was whilst she was in Mrs May's government before she was sacked.
Granted this is hearsay - not really evidential! But it does give me my belief that she is a racist.
I would strongly encourage you not to misrepresent something I say in the future. By all means, call out when I say something that I can't back up and support… but I hope, by now, it will be rare.
As to illegal immigration and being against it... personally, this is a silly standpoint. It's illegal for a reason... meaning that all law-makers agree it's something that they are against... else they would just all it... immigration. Patel has no answer for illegal immigration, and indeed is one of the people who caused the UK to leave one of the institutions which was helping it reduce illegal immigration.
-
Let's get this right, you had a private convo with her, which you have no proof of, so you label her a racist.
Ah, so you are a remoaner.
The EU is shite.
-
Let's get this right, you had a private convo with her, which you have no proof of, so you label her a racist.
Ah, so you are a remoaner.
The EU is shite.
Don't change the subject - again - stick to the topic. I know you're being proven wrong - again - but you need to stick with what you've said.
No, it wasn't a private conversation - there were a number of people there - and you're right, I have no proof of it. And yes, I do label her a racist. I have enough direct evidence to support my belief in that. Sadly I can't share it with you to prove it… but I would be happy to stand up in court and recount my tale, where I accused of defamation.
