2020 Election

6

Sorry but as I’ve said before I don’t know if you are a racist but I do know that you are a bigot.

In that you seem to have irrational intolerance’s toward those that you have differing views to your own and toward groups you dislike.

Irrational because you have never been able to defend them in any rational way.

I’ve actually been threatened with physical harm on these forums for my left wing views, and in the real world I’ve been punched in the face by a right winger at an anti-racist march and know of several left wing friends that have been beaten up by right wingers.

Where have you been threatened?

And again I repeat - I don’t know if you are a racist but I do know that you are a bigot, I post in reaction to what I see and you could refute what I’ve posted if you could but you don’t because, to repeat again, you don’t seem able to defend your views.

Basically you seem to be playing the victim card in the hope you will not get any comeback for posting your divisive hatred.

“On here” you don’t hate people here but you do hate people –I mean you are the person that posted – ‘I'd never fuck a feminist. Bestiality is illegal where I'm from’ - which even as a ‘joke’ seems to reveal a deep well of hatred toward those whose views you don’t like.

I don’t hate you personally but I think what you do is spread often hateful propaganda that you can’t defend from criticism.

To repeat - I don’t know if you are a racist but I do know that you are a bigot.

But while you seem unable to defend your views form valid criticisms those whose views you dislike and dispute always seem able to defend theirs from your criticisms.

Maybe you should find some views that you can defend?

LOL what you are getting is not a ‘rise’ but either mockery or frustration at you constantly posting anti-left wing propaganda you can’t defend and that we all know you will run away from when challenged.

 

Panic

Thing is that 6 has claimed people are anti-white racist for supporting Black Lives Matter, which he implies is a racist organisation that I think is stretching the definition of ‘racism’.

What is you stance on that?

But wanting a border wall doesn’t make you a racist it makes you seem ill-informed on the subject.

Now saying you want a wall because you think the brown people coming across the border are all rapists and murdering criminals or that such brown people are a threat to the racial purity of white America, now that would be racist.

There is no ‘new definition’ it can be defined.

Again that is not racist - but I would point out that it does seem to indicate that you think in terms of race if you are implying that the Swedes or Icelanders would be white.

My own views on a possible border wall do not involve brown or white people they are mainly economic it is a waste of money that could be better spent on other things (including border safety).

So it isn’t fluid it can be discussed and evaluated.

So you are arguing that any immigration is bad?

What are you on about?

[edit] Are you saying that you don’t think climate change is happening?

Again what the fuck are you on about?

Sorry but this really makes you come comes across as a whining and griping snowflake.

Can you cite where on these forums this has happened to you?

WHAT?

You really must be trying to actively find such conversations. I don’t think I’ve ever had such a conversation on these forums or in the real world.

I mean what were you saying to bring this subject up?

LOL you mean the very thing you are doing?

 

Panic

Honestly is this how you see the world, you fear been pulled up for the slightest thing, but the thing is that this isn’t politics in the normal sense of things, you seem to be riling, whining and griping about social changes and then trying to connect that to your political stance.

It’s seems to me to be a con game, a misdirection in the hope of muddying the waters

You don’t want to discuss your political views because you know you can’t defend them. So you misdirect by trying to claim your political stance makes you vulnerable to attacks on social grounds that are unfounded, so claiming that been against immigration makes you a racist, the only problem is that it doesn’t if it isn't based on racism (see above).

But yes some political stances can have a racial aspect in certain contexts.

A lot of right wing ideas are based on Social Darwinist thinking (advantaging the already advantaged) that can have an impact on the disadvantaged and when a large part of the disadvantaged make up certain ethnic groups this can lay the ideas open to a charge of been to some degree racist the advocates of which need to be able to address, in more persuasive terms than just saying ‘don’t call me a racist’.

 

American politics are so fucked

 

Again, this 1-liner is how you take cheap shots at trying to insinuate that I could be a racist. Indoctrination to your disciples via repetition.

I'm actually not one who goes to many political events and gatherings to encounter much conflict in person.

On these forums, I've posted things that've riled certain people wanting to "kill" me; I don't take those seriously though. But as I've said, portraying someone as a racist (or even worse a white supremacist) can have life destroying consequences if enough people believed it. The worst for me: I've been cyber-stalked and humiliated by a certain person 10 years ago who unfriended me because we had political differences and he took it to greater levels.

It was a joke. Not a dick. Don't take it so hard.

 

Almost a triple entendre!

 

He's far from the only one acknowledging how you put things can easily come from a bigoted mindset and/or discriminating opinion. In fact, sometimes it really looks like that. We can only go by eachothers writings on here, so if you really hate this...

Btw: we do have the right to be bigoted or have a discriminary/nating (sp?) opinion of course. But you don't seem to own up to having them. You just scream they're calling me racist in all instances. But Balbus worded it good and pretty much the only one who's calling you a racist for every possible bigoted or discriminating comment is unfocusedanakin (of whose fallacies you make thankfully use by projecting it on more people)

 

I could name a few other users on here who parrot those ad-hominems at me. The guy you mentioned is the most aggressive though.

I know what you’re getting at. I don’t hate Muslims and I don’t discriminate against them. Heck, just this week I worked overtime to try to get a project done for a Muslim client to try and get a product made for him in time for Ramadan. He’s a tough customer but he keeps me employed. I just don’t like the far right wing political ideology and extreme religious traditionalism of Islam, and I’m not afraid to criticize its flaws. And as long as leftists in the Cult of Balbus keep treating like it’s one of their sacred cows, I’m gonna remain critical of it.

 

But you stir the pot of hatred against Muslims by posting one-sided messages against them and defending people like Lauren Southern, Milo Yianoppoulos , Tommy Robinson, etc. I've never considered you to be a racist. I think you use Islamophobia, anti-femminism, and hostility toward Black Lives Matter as tools to exploit for propaganda purposes. As for Cult of Balbus, I agree with his assessments, but my views of you are independent assessments. The admission that your criticism of Muslims hinges on the perception that your critics don't like your Islamaphobic views suggests that the real reasons for your hostility toward Islam are rooted in juvenile spite.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure if you think the Balbus cult thing makes you look clever or funny but it does neither. It's just a bunch of different people who happen to be on the same page in their criticism on the alt right and your main talking points and how you go at them.
Same with portraying muslims or islam as a holy cow for those people or Balbus in particular: they keep correcting you there because as Okie (and i earlier) points out you portray things charged and almost always slightly off and distorted, at the expense of the people affiliated with such groups (doesn't end with muslims after all). It gets kind of tiring repeating this to you but I think we will as long you squirm out of it in your refutals trying to trivialize the valid corrections and criticism. And overly focus on being called a racist by mainly one guy.

 

Nobody is trying to shut you up. Certainly not Balbus lol, who repeatedly asks you to adequately defend and explain your opinions and stances.

 

I'm still curious about Bill Weld.
Bill Weld 2020 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

I also find the Cook Report to be interesting. Particularly their take on Massachusetts.
Introducing The Cook Political Report's 2020 Electoral College Ratings

But then, Al Gore didn't carry Tennessee. And went on to build a massive mansion with no solar panels or wind turbines. So I guess it's not too weird for Massachusetts to vote democrat in the big race. Even with a hometown republican running against Trump.

If the Cook Political report is correct, Bill Weld will be Trump's Ross Perot. But that's not a perfect scenario.

What's more likely is an independent will emerge with a message that looks similar to Trump's (without the childish blather and cute nicknames), but is still opposite of the democrats. Such a candidate could be a substantial vote siphon for Trump to contend with in a close race.

I still think all the hard left/socialist/communist/racist/sexist bullshit pouring out of the democrats will be an anchor. They need to appeal to a large number of the general population. Winning over the hard left/socialist/communist/racist/sexist part of the population is not very difficult for democrats. But it's impossible for republicans.

And the cliches need to take a back seat. Stacy Abrams is letting a cliche' cloud her judgement (she's not willing to run for second place) about being a vice presidential candidate. I think she has a great chance at being governor of Georgia. That is IF she can actually prove the voter suppression claims she is making. So far it's all circumstantial, and she knows it.

 

I also think democrats are too focused on the "making history" angle. Forcing it to happen is not the same as letting it happen organically. But in the mad rush to use this as a campaign wedge, they are losing candidates who might have been solid performers.

For example, Stacy Abrams is a 3-for candidate since she will satisfy the "first black" and "first woman" AND "first black woman" as Georgia's governor. What if the organic progression was a black man, a woman (of any race other than black) and then a black woman. That's two additional people who might have had productive, influential political careers.

Instead, they won't be needed. Because one person can make all that history by herself. Seems more like gratification is the objective, as fast as possible. The long game is on the back burner. It's rush rush rush time NOW!!!!!!!

(And no, I don't mean Limbaugh)

 

Homo Hitlers .. They even got a midget rainbow Nazi stripper.. They are coming for you Barbara..

 

Whereas you support the silencing, deplatforming, and barring national entry to those you disagree with. This is much worse.

I’m pretty sure you called me “worse than a racist” at one point but I’ll let slide. I’m critical of feminism and BLM because they see the whole world through the lens of oppressor-and-oppressed. They propagate that cops and white people oppress black people. They propagate the idea that men oppress women. This is social Marxism.

 

I call them the Cult of Balbus because everyone seems to think in lockstep with him, and never questions a damn thing he says no matter how absurd it is. He thinks Silicone Vallley has a right wing libertarian bias because “Atlas Shrugged” sold thousands upon thousands of copies there according to a guardian article. Part of many reasons why it’s hard to take anything he says seriously.

He keeps asking the same questions again and again verbatim even after I’ve already answered them. He just doesn’t like the answers I give him. So I find that my discussions with him are very often a waste of time.

 

I think I've seen the movies. There are three? It's sort of a dystopian future with a weird economy. He may have a point there, because isn't that book sort of a classic on the right?

 

It's clear why you're doing it. But really, it just makes you look stupid and empty handed of more constructive feedback.
And you really make more absurd claims than him. So yeah, you're not fooling anyone with that approach

 

No I don't. I support the right of a private companies to control their property and platforms. Also, I support the First Amendment, and its reasonable exclusions of certain non-protected speech from protection: no fighting words, defamation, incitement,pornography, crying fire in theaters. These reasonable constraints are necessary to protect innocent citizens from the predations of sociopathic trolls, demagogues, and cyberbullies like Alex Jones, Milo, Lauren Southern and their minions who prowl on the internet and roam the world seeking to lead us astray. By accusing the dead kids and bereaved parents at SandyHook of being racist, Jones not only inflicted mental cruelty but also stirred up his nutjob followers to issue death threats. You show such great concern for that when you or yours might be the target, but are oblivious to it when the shoe is on the other foot. I do think that people who are not themselves racists but are willing cynically to arouse racist sentiments in others for their personal political ends are arguably worse than racists. Who does that? Typically politicians like Trump and Nixon to stir up the base, or demagogues like Milo, Lauren, and the Phelps's to grab headlines and attract recruits. Radical feminists, BLM, and Islamic radicals can be effectively criticized by reasoned arguments that don't paint with too broad a brush. That's responsible free speech.