Utopia Talk / Politics / Alt-right, cuckold & hate sites like UP

williamthebastard Member	Sun Aug 21 12:59:04 "But trolling has become the main tool of the alt-right, an Internet-grown reactionary movement that works for men’s rights and against immigration and may have used the computer from Weird Science to fabricate Donald Trump. The alt-right’s favorite insult is to call men who don’t hate feminism “cucks,” as in “cuckold.” Republicans who don’t like Trump are “cuckservatives.” Men who don’t see how feminists are secretly controlling them haven’t “taken the red pill,” a reference to the truth-revealing drug in The Matrix. They derisively call their adversaries “social-justice warriors” and believe that liberal interest groups purposely exploit their weakness to gain pity, which allows them to control the levers of power. Trolling is the alt-right’s version of political activism, and its ranks view any attempt to take it away as a denial of democracy." An anonymous poll of the writers at TIME found that 80% had avoided discussing a particular topic because they feared the online response. The alt-right argues that if you can’t handle opprobrium, you should just turn off your computer. But that’s arguing against self-expression, something antithetical to the original values of the Internet. http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/ "The alt-right has no official ideology, but various sources have associated it with white nationalism,[6][7] white supremacism,[2][5][8] antisemitism,[2][5][9] right-wing populism,[6][10] nativism,[11] and the neoreactionary movement.[8][12] The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump,[2][3][4] The alt-right has been said to be a largely online movement with internet memes widely used to advance or express its beliefs, often on websites such as 4chan Although some conservatives have welcomed the alt-right, others on the mainstream right and left have criticized it as racist or hateful,[5][25] particularly given the its overt hostility to mainstream conservatism and the Republican Party.[1] David A. French, writing for National Review, called alt-right proponents "wanna-be fascists" and bemoaned their entry into the national political conversation.[26] In National Review, Ian Tuttle wrote, "The Alt-Right has evangelized over the last several months primarily via a racist and antisemitic online presence. Cathy Young, writing in Newsday, called the alt-right "a nest of anti-Semitism" inhabited by "white supremacists" who regularly use "repulsive bigotry". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right
williamthebastard Member	Sun Aug 21 13:01:41 About time we began separating this new hateful breed from traditional conservatism which it has nothing in common with.
Pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 13:09:01 Your tears are delicious.
Pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 13:15:07 Also there is no alt-right movement. The idea there is is Jewish trickery. 'alt-right', in so much as it can be used as a label, merely denotes right leaning individuals who refuse to adhere to cuckservatism. In general they're dissatisfied with everything they see unfolding around them and with the status quo, which is to say Jewish control over 'democracy' and media. Faggots like you try to label and confine these individuals according to Jewish standards of what a political movement 'is' in an attempt to derail the individualist and fluid nature of 'alt-right' discourse. This is done out of fear of a 'movement' of tens of millions who refuse to obey Jewish authority and the NWO, recognizing that it (the 'alt-right') is capable of a more compelling and legitimate dialog then anything the kike controlled establishment and faggots leftists can present to politically undecided persons.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 13:26:44 Pillz: So, reading your arguments for there not being an alt-right argument, I'm having a hard time seeing how you are not agreeing with it existing.
Rugian Member	Sun Aug 21 13:34:20 "Alt-right" is a slanderous misnomer, cooked up by leftwing SJWs in an attempt to tie what they consider to be "trolls" to conservatism in general. The reality is that said "trolls" belong to a wide spectrum of political beliefs, with a large amount (according to some sources, the majority) being Obama or Sanders voters. It makes sense if you bother to bypass the SJW talking points and look at what these people are arguing for, which is not so much a specific political ideology as it is a general reaction against contemporary orthodox speech and the various censorship tools used by both state and non-state actors against anyone who dares to come out against said orthodoxy. Until you understand that, you will have no better an understanding of them than the rabid Jezebel writer who automatically assumes that anyone who disagrees with her is a basement-dwelling MRA who wants to return womens' rights to the 1600s.
Rugian Member	Sun Aug 21 13:37:47 The very fact that you consider UP to be a "hate site" indicates that you truly don't understand who you are talking with on here, on even a most basic and fundamental level. Furthermore, by labeling UP as a hate site, you open the door to discussing whether this place should be censored and/or closed down on hate speech grounds, thereby demonstrating your willingness to silence anyone who has an opinion different from you. You are the very reason why "alt-right" is popular.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 13:40:04 From a European perspective, perhaps it is. Without a doubt a site such as this would by shut down in a shit hole like Germany, its posters arrested, if it gained attention.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 13:46:33 "The suspects, identified as men between 22 and 58, are alleged to have posted anti-migrant messages, anti-Semitic messages and songs with banned lyrics, among other things." Banned lyrics. ROFL. http://www...own-on-far-right-hate-postings
Hood Member	Sun Aug 21 13:54:29 Germany is about as rabid on anti-semitic anything as pillz is for jewish weiner.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 13:55:08 Ooh the alt-righties don't like their political views coming under scrutiny.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 14:06:28 Because there is no 'scrutiny', only persecution. And that is because people like you, ie: members of the Jew-run establishment, are fearful of any actual discourse. Observe for example the handling of coverage of the migrant crisis. All criticism of migration or refugees is labelled 'racist' and 'hate speech' and 'nationalist' and dismissed out of hand, regardless of the fact that these criticisms are all more well reasoned and proofed then any pro-refugee or pro-migration stances you or others have put forward here or elsewhere. You will be hard pressed to find two people you label as 'alt-right' who agree on a wide spectrum of topics. Oh boy, they don't like the jews! Better assign a label to the whole lot of them and simultaneously disparage any and all political views they hold as individuals! All of attention the 'alt-right' is receiving and all these attempts to create a neat little box that you can categorize as 'alt-right' are desperate attempts by the establishment to contain a growing and youth-driven awareness to just how much the current system & politicians favour the rich and the ultra-liberal progresses. It scares you (and should) that the vast majority of the so-called 'alt-right' are in fact just right-leaning and right-wing people under 30 who despise your agenda and want to watch you burn for it. Whether they agree with each other or not, they agree on that much.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 14:07:37 *ultra-liberal progressivism.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Aug 21 14:09:17
Aeros Member	Sun Aug 21 14:13:16 How exactly is UP a hate site?
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Aug 21 14:13:33 I hate
Aeros Member	Sun Aug 21 14:13:56 I mean yeah, I hate cauliflower. I suppose that counts.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 14:15:34 A fair number of posts on UP qualify has hate speech in the EU and Canada, I'd imagine. Anything with a racist or derogatory name, anything advocating genocide, anything that singles out one group in a negative way.
CrownRoyal Member	Sun Aug 21 14:18:17 Me describing sex with pillz mom is love though, not hate. And passion, we have tons of passion
Paramount Member	Sun Aug 21 14:28:59 "How exactly is UP a hate site?" Dude... Hot Rod's hate of liberals is well known.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:01:36 "Only persecution" says anonymous internet troll that engages nearly entirely in hate speech, advocates overt racism. Poor icle Canadian nazi.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:04:28 We must remember who the true victim here is. The internet loner failure - rejected by a society that cruley and unfairly judges them on their beliefs and conduct.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 15:12:48 Well, yes - when armed SJWs kick in doors, confiscate property, and drag citizens to a kangaroo court because of online conversations - those citizens are the only victims in said situation.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:21:01 "We must remember who the true victim here is. The internet loner failure - rejected by a society that cruley and unfairly judges them on their beliefs and conduct. " The victim is anybody who is silenced for their speech - including the millions of people you associate with the 'alt-right'. What room does a UK civil servant have to speak about hate speech, btw? You have dozens of schools that train children to become jihadists and only just, after 30 years of 'hate speech', arrested and convicted a jihadist cleric who has been recruiting off the streets of London. But oh no, better try and ridicule the guy on the internet who calls Muslims what they are - savages who need to be put down.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 15:26:08 "Muh Muslim doctors"
Daemon Member	Sun Aug 21 15:28:12 "Without a doubt a site such as this would by shut down in a shit hole like Germany, its posters arrested, if it gained attention." I'm only visiting this site with a tor browser and from an illegal internet cafe. The start page of my official browser at home is this: http://www.angela-merkel.de/pers%C3%B6nlich.html
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:29:29 Honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I assume you're not.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:29:54 Forwyn: Yes. That happens literally all the time. Way more than racist assaults. Pillz: "The victim is anybody who is silenced for their speech" "arrested and convicted a jihadist cleric" Pillz supports Anjem Choudry! United in the one thing they agree on - the right to preach hate, racism and misogynyeny and persecute, unfettered by social justice warriors (aka civilised society). I always said that if it wasn't for skin color you lot would be members of ISIS, thanks for coming out of the closet.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:32:08 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse#Findings Calling for these people to be executed is hate speech, right seb?
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 15:33:03 A German man was arrested in his home without incident Tuesday morning, authorities said. The man, whose name was not released but is said to have posted under the name "Daemon", did not perpetrate any of the hate speech the website is known for, but contributed to conversations and failed to report the speech to authorities. His trial has been fast-tracked into the dissident system, and is expected to face a Merkel Squad by the end of the week.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 15:34:29 "Yes. That happens literally all the time. Way more than racist assaults." Racist assaults are prosecuted. The gangs breaking into peoples' homes for online speech are government sanctioned. Don't conflate the two.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:36:33 Way to twist my words, seb. Inciting people to attack the state and kill its citizens in an attempt to supplant the dominant faction of society =! calls to defend society from said threat. I'm not telling Joe, Bob, and Cletus to go out and kill Muslims or to deface Mosques. I'm saying that we as a society should steel ourselves against our enemies of 1400 years and eliminate the threat once and for all. I think it's time that the native peoples of the Middle-East be given back their lands without the constant threat of kidnappings or suicide bombings in their churches every Christmas. "I always said that if it wasn't for skin color you lot would be members of ISIS, thanks for coming out of the closet. " Why bring race into it, seb? There are ~15 million people in the Middle-East who are not Muslims. If I were brown, I'd still hate Muslims.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:41:44 How many times at Eid do Christians blow up mosques seb? How many attacks against muslims have been carried out by christians in Lebanon? In Egypt? In Syria? In Iraq? In France? Where are the evil white men recruiting sucide bombers for those missions? Tell us about how 'hate speech' calling for the end of Islam is the same as those things.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:42:04 Pillz: Depends what you mean by "these people" doesn't it. Can you be a bit more specific? Forwyn: Online Speech isn't different from offline speech, and it's not "free speech" if it's incitement or harassment. Pillz: I'm not twisting your words. You very clearly said that the victims of hate speech laws are those persecuted and silenced for their speech. Anjem Choudry was arrested for just that. Are you saying this was wrong?
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:43:19 Pillz: "How many times at Eid do Christians blow up mosques seb?" http://tim...nrest/articleshow/46610528.cms
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:43:55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_massacre
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:44:39 http://www...ortviolence/stories/salvi3.htm
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:45:22 http://www...uilty-alleged-plot-kil/314465/
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 15:45:32 etc. etc.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:46:21 These people: Muslims who are trying to destroy western civilization "I'm not twisting your words. You very clearly said that the victims of hate speech laws are those persecuted and silenced for their speech. " You are twisting my words by assuming I apply the same standard to shitskin terrorists as I do to regular people. That is wrong. Muslims are not people. They aren't a society. Or a civilization. They're a blight, a cancer. A mistake we didn't correct when we had the chance after WWI.
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:47:35 I ask for mosques, you give me abortion clinics and a civil war. Try harder seb. I can post a bombing in Egypt every Easter, Christmas and New Years for the last 25 years.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 15:52:17 "Online Speech isn't different from offline speech," Luckily, the telescreens haven't started recording dinner conversations, then. "incitement or harassment." - continues to become more broad with each passing year. No doubt several of those accused were participating in private conversations in private boards or groups.
Hood Member	Sun Aug 21 15:53:19 "Why bring race into it, seb? There are ~15 million people in the Middle-East who are not Muslims. If I were brown, I'd still hate Muslims." Perhaps because you hold a general hatred for anyone non-white?
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 15:55:05 Except that I don't. Niggers & Muslims are my only gripe. Unless thinking Mexicans belong south of Texas is considered hatred now?
Hood Member	Sun Aug 21 15:58:24 "Luckily, the telescreens haven't started recording dinner conversations, then." http://ars...msung-smart-tvs-are-deceptive/ Don't buy a smart TV. Or any TV from vizio or samsung.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 21 16:18:36 Pillz: "Muslims who are trying to destroy western civilization" Which Muslims that are trying to destroy western Civilisation. Can you be more specific? Do you mean "All Muslims, because they are all trying to destroy our civilisation"? "I ask for mosques, you give me abortion clinics and a civil war." You asked where the Christians terrorists are destroying mosques, I give a link, you say "oh, it's a civil war" - even though you cite Libya which is, of course, a civil war. I give you an example of christian terrorists in the US attacking Abortion clinics - you imply it's only terrorism if it's persecuted against Muslims... and you wonder why its really hard to take you seriously. Forwyn: I guess you have failed fundamentally to understand the medium if you think a private dinner conversation and twitter are the same thing. Pillz: "You are twisting my words by assuming I apply the same standard to shitskin terrorists as I do to regular people." Well if your argument boils down to "I just hate the fucking Muslims" - stop trying to pretend you have logical, rational, fact based reasons! Then we can agree: you are a complete failure of a human being and from any rational perspective, the only difference between you and your average ISIS member is that they are far more likely to actually act on their hatred; which says nothing about them and everything about you.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 17:07:29 Indeed, no doubt you think a troll twitter account with 12 followers is the same as the favorite cuck analogy of a man screaming on a street corner. It is not.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 17:14:27 "the only difference between you and your average ISIS member is that they are far more likely to actually act on their hatred" Well, and the former fights to enslave the world, while the latter would be fighting to be left alone.
Hood Member	Sun Aug 21 17:14:53 "the only difference between you and your average ISIS member is that they are far more likely to actually act on their hatred; which says nothing about them and everything about you." That he has actual self control and can distinguish right from wrong despite aforementioned hatred? Or were you going for the illogical "they're real men and you're an afraid little pussy" argument?
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 17:48:29 "Do you mean "All Muslims, because they are all trying to destroy our civilisation"? " Correct. "You asked where the Christians terrorists are destroying mosques, I give a link, you say "oh, it's a civil war" - even though you cite Libya which is, of course, a civil war. I give you an example of christian terrorists in the US attacking Abortion clinics - you imply it's only terrorism if it's persecuted against Muslims... " The word Libya hasn't been uttered in this thread until you brought it up. I said Christians are attacked in Lebanon - nowadays. Not during their civil war, which is what you linked to. I didn't say anything regarding the abortion clinic - and why should I? This is about Muslims and why they've no place in Western Society, or on the face of this Earth at large. If a Christian wants to blow up an abortion clinic, that is terrorism and he/she/they should be dealt with accordingly. But you do not have dozens of abortion clinics being bombed each year, or doctors being murdered. Do you do have dozens of Muslims bombing Christians however, or attacking them, or attacking each other. Because they're savages following a religion fit for animals. "Well if your argument boils down to "I just hate the fucking Muslims" - stop trying to pretend you have logical, rational, fact based reasons!" It is well established that you think all attacks perpetrated by Muslims are in fact the fault of White Christians, so why bother reasoning with you further? I will post an attack, demonstrating the reason I hate Muslims, and you will say 'raaaaaaaayciiis' "Then we can agree: you are a complete failure of a human being and from any rational perspective, the only difference between you and your average ISIS member is that they are far more likely to actually act on their hatred; which says nothing about them and everything about you. " No. I hate Muslims because they attack us for our way of life, quite literally. Because they hate the foundations of our civilization and what it has developed into. Because they ascribe to a religion that tells them to conquer us and kill us or treat us like second class citizens. This is a 1400 year old trend that you a blind to, like you're blind to the fact that your government is quicker to prosecute a man for his dogs Nazi salute then it is to prosecute Adam Choudry for recruiting people to carry out terrorist attacks. Which is why I brought up Choudry in the first place: You, and the system you represent, are abhorrent. Protecting and fascinating men like Choudry and the Birmingham groomers and school infiltrators with a system of 'tolerance' while attacking average people for 'hatred'. Choudry SHOULD have been arrested decades ago for the shit he was spewing about hating Britain and the West and calling on young men to take action against Western nations. But he wasn't because the UK was too busy attacking old men and college students for 'right wing hate speech' that could 'radicalize muslims by alienating them'. To be perfectly frank, you're a bigger threat to us all then Choudry ever was because you're so fucking insistent on defending him and his ilk right up until you can't anymore.
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Sun Aug 21 18:13:00 'The alt-right’s favorite insult is to call men who don’t hate feminism “cucks,” as in “cuckold.” ' Normally I don't care much about this sort of thing. I would like to point out that there are different brands of feminism. There is nothing wrong with not hating the ones who just want to be equal. The feminista's on the other hand should be put in the stockade naked, with garbage pail of condoms beside her and her vag sown shut. Anyone is then entitled to rape her in the ass at will. The sentence lasts until they die.
Y2A Member	Sun Aug 21 19:20:36 WHITE POWER 2.0
Cthulhu Tentacle Rapist	Sun Aug 21 22:07:09 Did the Austrian messiah return to us so soon Y2A?!?
pillz Member	Sun Aug 21 22:12:09 Y2A is one of those 'the border crossed us' retards.
Renzo Marquez Member	Sun Aug 21 22:27:21 Y2A is a typical affirmative action baby. He's smarter than the average spic which caused him to believe he is actually smart. When forced to compete with more qualified honkeys who did not receive the affirmative action bonuses, he can't because he isn't smart enough. This led to him blaming whitey and institutional discrimination.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 21 23:44:31 That latter pillz monologue was a brutal, savage cuck bombing. Will SJWs ever recover?
a bro Member	Sun Aug 21 23:56:38 We were just on the wrong side of the wall when it went up! We are just like you but with tacos and funny hats! Comprende?
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Aug 22 02:47:15 @OP wikipage.. [Rugian]: "'Alt-right' is a slanderous misnomer, cooked up by leftwing SJWs in an attempt to tie what they consider to be "trolls" to conservatism in general. The reality is that said "trolls" belong to a wide spectrum of political beliefs, with a large amount (according to some sources, the majority) being Obama or Sanders voters." Have to agree with Rugian on this. It's dismissive to think that political memes and SJW mockery has been limited to a neat and identifiable "right" or "left" binary. Internet logic has been against those easy markers, and the Time author doesn't seem to realize it or avoids facing it. .. [Time Article; Joel Stein]: "the Internet’s personality has changed. Once it was a geek with lofty ideals about the free flow of information." Except it never was "lofty". As early as 1998-1999 "The Net" TV Series established in pop culture that the internet was never limited to "lofty" ideals (in a particular episode the main character talks to a friend about how the internet is both wasteland and paradise at once; everything; not just some idealist's den of self-congratulation). And with "lofty" it seems the author fell into a trap with one of the underground man's own corrupt words, "the beautiful and lofty" being shows of a consciousness that has convinced itself of absolute goodness, nostalgia, and progress by self-deceit and abandonment of critical insight. The internet was not supposed to be some good or bad thing; it was at best a challenge to the hold that corrupt "moralities" had on consciousness. And 'naturally' Joel Stein talks about how the "disinhibition effect ... [strips] away the mores society spent millennia building" — his phrasing suggesting that those mores were inherently good simply because they were the product of "millennia" (so a traditionalist fallacy). Even telling someone who cries for help on a message board "kill yourself" is not necessarily some callous and detestable response — it can be an ideological challenge to weak thought. .. [Joel Stein]: "Liberals do indeed troll–sex-advice columnist Dan Savage used his followers to make Googling former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s last name a blunt lesson in the hygienic challenges of anal sex" I guess this short bit was his "balance" paragraph where he admits that political trolling isn't just limited to this "alt-right" designator. If he cast wider he'd recognize that Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver also act as trolls, they just happen to follow his favored methods of doing so. .. [Joel Stein]: "The alt-right argues that if you can’t handle opprobrium, you should just turn off your computer. But that’s arguing against self-expression, something antithetical to the original values of the Internet." "Original values of the Internet" was again a "lofty" fallacy. And actually "turn off your computer" would not be against self-expression. Higher political discourse demands a willingness to compete ideologically, and if people cannot compete then they can self-select into alternate [, potentially less challenging] communities. Opprobrium demands more politically conscious actors — and not just as some derogatory phrasing of "thick skin". And "self-expression" has no guarantee of acceptance. I would even say that seeking "acceptance" would itself be a sign of critical resignation and bad faith. No surprise then that Stein's internal poll revealed that "80% [of Time writers] had avoided discussing a particular topic because they feared the online response" — that's 80% of writers who fear their own inability to accept the political burden of their ideologies. .. [Stein]: "But maybe, in the information age, sound is as destructive as fury." Words can hurt my feelings :'( At least until psychological conditioning catches up with grade school living. "This town deserves a better class of criminal" ;)
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 04:46:27 Loving the irony of alt right types and the campaign to save the male enraged about being negatively labeled just because they all use entirely objective and not-at-all prejudiced labels like SJW, Cuckservative etc. So fragile. We must not forget these, the true victims here, the real losers in society. Their pitiful cries for help in the face of their tragic loss of status imposed by equality.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 04:47:12 Forwyn: I can't tell if you are being sarcastic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 22 07:37:16 On the other side of this spectrum you have all people who think that anyone who criticizes feminism or immigration policy is a nazi. People like the author of this thread and paramount comes to mind. It is more interesting and far more productive to discuss specific issues/values etc. than to dick around with poorly defined groups/terms like SJW and Alt-right.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 07:55:07 Nim: There's truth in that. But i find it hard to come up with valid criticisms of feminism that don't either redefine feminism to mean something it doesn't or really boil down to obnoxious behaviour by individuals. Conversely there is definitely a definable group unified by reactionary opposition to equality movements that use a common set of memes. "Alt-right" might not be correct contextualisation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 22 08:00:55 >>So fragile. We must not forget these, the true victims here, the real losers in society. Their pitiful cries for help in the face of their tragic loss of status imposed by equality.<< You think that the male worker ant, had "status" to lose? Really? Men as a group have always filled the bottom rungs of society. It is part of the evolutionary process, men in part due to testosterone, take more risks. So naturally you find more at the top and bottom, the problem is that for every 1 winner that are many many more losers. You should not play these games, seb.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 22 08:07:49 >>that don't either redefine feminism to mean something it doesn't or really boil down<< Redefine? There already are many definitions of feminism and I not very keen on playing the "no true scotsman" fallacy. You do point to the difficulty of these labels, they are not mine to define. As soon as they are out there they are changing. But no, the ideas I take issue with are by no means confined to the fringes of feminism.
hood Member	Mon Aug 22 08:14:24 "But i find it hard to come up with valid criticisms of feminism that don't either redefine feminism to mean something it doesn't or really boil down to obnoxious behaviour by individuals." You must not look very hard. It is pretty common to see any supporter of feminism slinging accusations of sexism around at any nonsupportive comment of a woman.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 22 08:27:57 I would say that you, seb, have a far too narrow definition of what feminism means. Up until someone explained it all to me, I too was a feminist. That was 15 years ago however. It is very similar to the discussion about Islam and who is and isn't a true Muslim. I am very liberal, if you say you are a feminist/Muslim I see no reason to second guess you and since I am not a believer in your cause I also do not care who is a "true" anything. Once you identify with a group that large and by your own free will take the label of idea oriented movement, well you also inherit all the luggage.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 08:56:27 Seb ignores my entire post and goes back to filing paper work against nazi saluting dogs. Predictable.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 08:57:20 And now he says it is impossible to criticise feminism, too seb, have you ever formed to thoughts on your own before?
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 08:57:36 Was it even your idea for your wife to have black children?
jergul large member	Mon Aug 22 08:57:42 Guilt by association BS. Nothing is defined by its fringe elements.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 08:57:51 I bet she didn't even ask you, seb
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 22 09:04:31 Jergul can't read.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 09:05:50 seb is starting to show a pattern of illiteracy
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 09:55:36 Nim: People measure their status by who is below them. Tell the worker ant he can't look down on women and "ethics", and it destroys their status. Hence the strangled cries of the likes of the usuals on this board.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 10:03:10 I feel like you receive all your talking points from a leaflet
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 10:12:54 Nim: "But no, the ideas I take issue with are by no means confined to the fringes of feminism." If you believe the no-true-scotsman argument, you probably can't talk about Feminism period, and we are back to behaviours of individuals. "Up until someone explained it all to me, I too was a feminist. That was 15 years ago however." Weeeelll, no - so you have first wave, second wave, third wave, radical, militant etc. I don't think I have a narrow definition, but there is the intent and the tactics. e.g. believing in racial equality but not supporting e.g Malcom X means of achieving it are two distinct things. The common ground of all Feminism is to achieve the personal, economic, political and social rights for woman equal to those of men. I think that is pretty hard to disagree with, even if you can have some blistering arguments within Feminism and without about what constitutes equal rights and how to achieve it. Pillz: Oh, your post is long and far too much fun to dash of a quick phone based quip. I shall wait until I have a keyboard to tackle your particular brand of idiocy. Patience.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 10:13:20 Leaflets tend to have higher production values and editing than 4chan or wherever you get your talking points from.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 10:13:50 'Patience' is probably what your wife says to you when you ask if you can clean her up yet
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 10:15:46 I anticipate more 'British wit' and comments that have nothing to do with what I've said. But not really. You've never before responded to a post of similar length. This is when you run away to get destroyed in another thread about immigration.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 10:32:42 Pillz: "Do you mean "All Muslims, because they are all trying to destroy our civilisation"? " Correct. Right, so in answer to your first question: "Calling for [all muslims, because they are all trying to destroy our civilisation] to be executed is hate speech, right seb?" Yes, yes absolutely that is hate speech mate. You are calling for genocide. "I said Christians are attacked in Lebanon - nowadays. Not during their civil war, which is what you linked to." Fine, Libya snafu - missremebered what you had said. But that's beside the point. Why does the timing make a difference? You are calling for a long protracted war to defeat your enemies. The fundamentalists believe they are fighting such a war having been for centuries at the receiving end of the same shit from us. You whole argument is about the *intrinsic* "evilness" of anyone who is Muslim, and to highlight this you ask for examples of behaviour by Christians. I cite such - but this you argue is not evidence of intrinsic evilness, but in fact contextual, timebound behaviour that has changed. "I didn't say anything regarding the abortion clinic - and why should I?" I see. So it's only Christian Terorrism if it's targeted as Muslims? That's an interesting perspective. "This is about Muslims and why they've no place in Western Society, or on the face of this Earth at large. " You made this about Christians, not me, but I'm really not clear why Christian terrorism doesn't lead you to the same genocidal view. "If a Christian wants to blow up an abortion clinic, that is terrorism and he/she/they should be dealt with accordingly." But only as an individual. Not Christianity as a whole. Hence, yeah, massive double standards. Stop trying to pretend there is any kind of objectivity behind your xenophobia. "I will post an attack, demonstrating the reason I hate Muslims, and you will say 'raaaaaaaayciiis'" Can you explain to me why you spell racist "raaaaaaayciis"? "No. I hate Muslims because they attack us for our way of life" And I have pointed out that it is very few Muslims that do that, and those that do would inevitably characterise it in terms of our history of attacking them and so on and so forth. Basically, I think your supposed rationale stacks up just about as well as theres - spurious twadle on top of a fundamentally uncivilised hatred you harbour for the foreign. "Because they hate the foundations of our civilization" *YOU* hate the foundations of our civilization- individual liberty, individual rights, and equality before the law. You have way more in common with them than with me. "Because they ascribe to a religion that tells them to conquer us and kill us or treat us like second class citizens." A principle you yourself have advocated in this thread. "your government is quicker to prosecute a man for his dogs Nazi salute then it is to prosecute Adam Choudry for recruiting people to carry out terrorist attacks." ha, you say that, but ignore the fact that Choudry was far more careful than the Nazi dog guy, and the only reason the NAZI dog guy is being prosecuted is because of laws explicitly brought in to prosecute Choudry, and that you yourself have described the prosecution of people like Choudry as persecuting victims by silencing them. You are one confused mofo. "the Birmingham groomers and school infiltrators with a system of 'tolerance' while attacking average people for 'hatred'. " And what none of you "alt-right"types ever bring up is the parallel investigation into white celebrities running abuse of vulnerable children from the 70's through to the late 90's; also enabled by the police looking away. The Police have consistently downplayed the seriousness of this type of crime "tarts, up for it, stupid little girls" - and instead create a false narrative of political correctness. Or is it that white celebrities abusing girls is fine? "Choudry SHOULD have been arrested decades ago for the shit he was spewing about hating Britain and the West and calling on young men to take action against Western nations." Hold on, you have described such laws as persecution. Do you believe in freedom of speech or not? "But he wasn't because the UK was too busy attacking old men and college students for 'right wing hate speech' that could 'radicalize muslims by alienating them'. " Hate speech as a crime didn't exist until relatively recently, as was specifically brought in to target Islamic radicalism. Again, false narratives to justify your concocted victimhood. "you're so fucking insistent on defending him and his ilk right up until you can't anymore." The only person to defend Choudry has been you in this thread, and I have consistently advocated these laws for precisely this reason, when chumps like you have been lamenting it because it also criminalises hate speech against women, against gays etc. What you want is a law that criminalises hate speech only if the person doing it is muslim. And then you start waffling on about how much you respect the founding principles of our society, like equality before the law! Ha. Idiot.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 10:33:20 Pillz: Yes, I'm known for not responding or producing long posts. Pay fucking attention.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 10:33:55 (I'm fairly sure you have moaned about long posts many times before, but to be honest, you are fairly low on my radar for engaging - you are too easy)
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Aug 22 10:35:03 I once requested that Seb limits himself to one post per day, I was getting tired. Remember the Osbourne/Cameron austerity threads?
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 10:56:27 "Why does the timing make a difference? You are calling for a long protracted war to defeat your enemies. The fundamentalists believe they are fighting such a war having been for centuries at the receiving end of the same shit from us. " Timing makes plenty of difference. Of course during a civil war there will be atrocities perpetrated by both sides. The difference is that Muslims continue to commit such atrocities against Christians and against other Muslims even during times of 'peace'. And what the fuck have Muslims been on the receiving end of by Christians or the West for centuries? There have been no significant wars between Christians and Muslims outside of Lebanon and the Balkans (70s-90s) since the 1600s, seb, when the Ottomans stopped trying to invade Europe and destroy Western civilization. Sure a few governments were overthrown here and there, primarily at the behest of the British, but there was no systematic persecution or attack on Muslims and their institutions by whites/christians/the west. So why then have Muslims spent the last several decades attacking western countries, and other muslims, and christians? In India, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Egypt... the list goes on. "You whole argument is about the *intrinsic* "evilness" of anyone who is Muslim, and to highlight this you ask for examples of behaviour by Christians. I cite such - but this you argue is not evidence of intrinsic evilness, but in fact contextual, timebound behaviour that has changed. " I'm not seeing how anybody can equate acts during civil war to 10 'random' attacks by Muslims in the last 2 years in Europe. Or how a few hooligans defacing a mosque is the same as yearly Christmas & easter bombings in Egypt. Or what the fuck abortion clinics have to do with anything in this discussion. Last time I checked they are not being targeted on a regular basis. I like how a definite pattern of targeted violence by muslims is 'mental illness' and 'the result of intolerance', but you're going to blame all Christians for McVeigh. Also worth noting I have never defended Christians specifically. "Yes, yes absolutely that is hate speech mate. You are calling for genocide. " Missed this - will address now. I can tolerate the existence of 'muslims', but only with the use of quotations to describe them as such. Here is a video by Hezbollah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQDmvJtH0iw That is not Islamic. It can't be ascribed to 'true' Muslims. That video, bearing the Hezbollah logo, and depicting a promise by their leader, is 100% heresy according to all tenants of the Islamic faith. But there it is. Hezbollah, supporting the right of Christians to exist and worship, and -fighting for that right-. But I guarantee you that given the choice, you will profess support for any number of terrorist groups in Syria before you speak nice things about Hezbollah. Because you, and your government, support Islamic hate speech. God knows why, but you obviously do. "But only as an individual. Not Christianity as a whole. Hence, yeah, massive double standards. Stop trying to pretend there is any kind of objectivity behind your xenophobia. " Quantity counts for a lot seb. There are hundreds of terrorist attacks by muslims every year. How many by christians? "*YOU* hate the foundations of our civilization- individual liberty, individual rights, and equality before the law. You have way more in common with them than with me. " Enemy combatants don't get equality before the law. And that is what Muslims are, until they commit heresys against their faith in support of Christians and the West. I have always said that muslims who denounce Islam can be spared. I know you don't extend equality before the law to former nazis, so why do you extend it to muslims? "ha, you say that, but ignore the fact that Choudry was far more careful than the Nazi dog guy, and the only reason the NAZI dog guy is being prosecuted is because of laws explicitly brought in to prosecute Choudry, and that you yourself have described the prosecution of people like Choudry as persecuting victims by silencing them. " only in your twisted little mind does a dog doing the nazi salute compare to Choudry. Equality before the law indeed, roflmao. "And what none of you "alt-right"types ever bring up is the parallel investigation into white celebrities running abuse of vulnerable children from the 70's through to the late 90's; also enabled by the police looking away. The Police have consistently downplayed the seriousness of this type of crime "tarts, up for it, stupid little girls" - and instead create a false narrative of political correctness. Or is it that white celebrities abusing girls is fine? " I've never defended those practices by police and I've never defended the people who abused children. That is strictly something your bureaucracy did. I've never heard ANYBODY defend it before, on UP or anywhere else. They're criminals, and they should be prosecuted as such. And it definitely speaks to an illness within certain political rungs of British society that it went on for so long. But I don't think British celebrities, who are definitely not your average individual, represent Christiandom, or Western society, or even British society. Average folk represent those things. Which brings us back to muslims - it isn't Saudi Princes and popular clerics blowing themselves up. It is average people - young men, women, fathers, etc. The poor and the mundane carry out these attacks. "Hold on, you have described such laws as persecution. Do you believe in freedom of speech or not? " Not for enemies of the state. I am pretty sure calling for the destruction of British society and it's replacement with sharia muslim bullshit qualifies him as an enemy of the state. "Hate speech as a crime didn't exist until relatively recently, as was specifically brought in to target Islamic radicalism. Again, false narratives to justify your concocted victimhood. " I like how laws designed to combat Islamism are being used to target people who hate Islamism. In your mind, these statements are equal: -"Go and bomb the French, because they are heretics, in the name of Allah kill them all Ahmed" -"Nuke Mecca" "The only person to defend Choudry has been you in this thread, and I have consistently advocated these laws for precisely this reason, when chumps like you have been lamenting it because it also criminalises hate speech against women, against gays etc. " I haven't defended Choudry. I've defended people who were targeted by those laws who are not Choudry, and are not preaching what Choudry is preaching. Call it a double standard, because it is, but don't tell me I am defending Choudry you hack. "What you want is a law that criminalises hate speech only if the person doing it is muslim. " Correct. "And then you start waffling on about how much you respect the founding principles of our society, like equality before the law! Ha. Idiot. " Our society was not founded on the belief that our enemies should be able to live amongst us to organize themselves and attack us.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 11:54:57 Kinda ignoring the invasion and colonisations of north Africa, central Asia, and then the overthrow of the Ottoman empire and caliphate, all done by European imperial countries citing their Christian mission, accompanied with missionaries. Ah yes. They should know that was window dressing.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 12:00:33 I.e. you believe the core foundational values of the West is a govt that can lock up or kill any specific individual it declares an enemy? Just like in habeus corpus, magna carta, bill of rights.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 12:01:30 "Kinda ignoring the invasion and colonisations of north Africa, central Asia, and then the overthrow of the Ottoman empire and caliphate, all done by European imperial countries citing their Christian mission, accompanied with missionaries. " Yes, it is well known that Christian missionaries swept North Africa and the Middle-East and converted hordes of Muslims by force, rofl. And what overthrow of the Ottomans? The Ottomans collapsed after a failed war effort and their domains were divided amongst the winners (French, British). I want you to show me what horrible things the Arab muslims had to suffer during the whole, what, 80 years of European 'colonial' rule of Ottoman lands. What a fucking hack
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 12:02:23 "I like how laws designed to combat Islamism are being used to target people who hate Islamism." You don't hate Islamism. You hate Muslims. Big difference.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 12:03:13 Pillz: Remind me again how France came to be in north Africa? How Britain came to own Egypt?
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 12:03:20 "I.e. you believe the core foundational values of the West is a govt that can lock up or kill any specific individual it declares an enemy? " Their religion specifically tells them to conquer us with violence, and to treat the survivors as second class citizens. This is what they profess to believe in. They worship this faith. And they want to bring those laws to our countries. And they preach that Islam must replace what we have built. They declared themselves our enemies.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 12:05:20 "Remind me again how France came to be in north Africa? How Britain came to own Egypt? " Why don't you explain how the it was their 'Christian mission' and detail all the atrocities they inflicted upon the Muslims, seb. Come on. And then, why not explain how that has any barring on today, and why it even matters in the face of 1400 years of Muslims murdering and oppressing Christians..... Tell us how you justify the Muslim Brotherhood's murders of Christians, or why you are such a staunch supporter of Jihad in syria. Is it because of be big bad British colonialists we should to tolerant of indiscriminate violence by Muslims?
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 22 12:05:24 How long did the followers of a pedophile ravage Iberia? 700 years? How long did North African Muslims terrorize the seas, justifying it to Ambassadors as a religious endeavor? How long did the Ottoman empire goad European nations into wars for territorial gains? But the really important question: how many Westerners still hold imperialist values vs. Muslims who support a Caliphate?
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 12:06:11 "I like how a definite pattern of targeted violence by muslims is 'mental illness' and 'the result of intolerance', but you're going to blame all Christians for McVeigh." No I'm saying you are ignoring systematic violence by others, and blaming all Muslims for a minority. "Also worth noting I have never defended Christians specifically" You specifically brought them up as an example of a religious group that didn't have systematic violence associated with them. Which is hilarious.
pillz Member	Mon Aug 22 12:11:10 "No I'm saying you are ignoring systematic violence by others, and blaming all Muslims for a minority. " You haven't demonstrated systematic violence, retard. You posted 4 examples, and one was a civil war. Congo probably counts as a civil war too. Not that I understand how Congo entered into this discussion about Muslims and the West. But I get it - all Christians are equal, even the illiterate African ones. Maybe I should post an attack by muslims every day. We can start in whatever year you want. I probably need more then 365 days to cover an entire year worth of attacks though. That is systematic. "You specifically brought them up as an example of a religious group that didn't have systematic violence associated with them. Which is hilarious. " Its hilarious you think they do have systematic violence associated with them. Literally hundreds of attacks by muslims every year - against muslims and christians and other groups. How many by Christians seb? Especially in Europe or the Middle-East.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 14:23:16 Forwyn: "Westerners still hold imperialist values vs. Muslims who support a Caliphate" Asymmetric definition - many of those that support "the caliphate" mean they would like Muslim lands to be sovereign and not what they see as dominated by corrupt stooges of the west. Pillz: See, this is what happens if we try to rush, we end up with bitesized nonsense that looses coherence even faster than your normal post. I feel it is important that we dissect your beliefs forenzically so we can see how they fall on their own merit rather than your sloppy presentation. "Their religion specifically tells them to conquer us with violence, and to treat the survivors as second class citizens.." Firstly, you didn't answer the question. Legally, explajn to me how this novel constitutional set up you are advocating, which allows western governments to issue specific statutory instruments or executive orders to persecute specific individuals on the justification that "they are our enemy" is supposed to work, and how it accords with these foundational western values such as, writ of habeus corpus, magna carta, english bill or rights etc. Secondly, the Bible contains similar edicts and nobody is stupid enough to say that every christian believes in all of the bible interpreted in the literal way. Thirdly, many Muslims dispute this interpretation of the Koran anyway. Finally, in living memory the west has actually invaded, conquered, subjugated and treated Muslims like second class citizens - and while doing so justifying this on religious basis so while we can argue whether or not all Muslims believe this or not (I mean, not a very two sided argument) - it is demonstrable that in practice that Western governments have adopted such policies. It sounds to me that you are adopting the dangerously psychotic line or argument of Islamic fundamentalists that all westerners are guilty by association of their governments policies. Like I said, you have way more in common with ISIS and Al-Quaeda than I do, and clearly oppose many foundational tenets of western civilisation. "Why don't you explain how the it was their 'Christian mission' and detail all the atrocities they inflicted upon the Muslims, seb." You might want to look back at the justification for the creation of Lebanon. To give one example. Christianity and the need to civilise the world was often cited as a reason. As for attrocities, lets pick at random, oh, Srebrenica. "Tell us how you justify the Muslim Brotherhood's murders of Christians," I don't. I wonder though how you argue that your desire for genocide, racial/religious persecution laws etc. are in any way not equivalent to their bat-shit beliefs? You seriously come here attempting to argue that somehow your insane ideas are not absolutely identical to theirs other than you seem to think reasonable people i the west should identify with you for little other reason than that you have the same skin colour (we've established you reject the cultural fundamentals of the west). "ou haven't demonstrated systematic violence, retard." Let me be clear, you deny any of those examples of systemic violence are systemic, because they are four individual examples of systemic violence? " and one was a civil war" A religious civil war, whose cause dates back to a French colonial government annexing a chunk of land for Christians over the Muslims inhabitants. I mean we've had a fucking genocide against Muslims in Europe only a couple of decades ago. The Serbian nationalists relied heavily on the orthodox church for legitimacy and cited ancient historical grievances. Arguing there has been no systematic violence against Muslims by Christian groups is untennable. What I want to know is why you think it is different, why you think it is reasonable to judge all Muslims, from Nigeria through to Indonesia - to be equivalently culpable when you yourself argue that Christian violence against Muslims is not systemic because of various historical grievances, local political contexts, civil conflict and lack of uniformity. Go on. Amuse me.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 22 15:22:02 "many of those that support "the caliphate" mean they would like Muslim lands to be sovereign and not what they see as dominated by corrupt stooges of the west." And yet when we have a situation with two groups of rebels - supposed moderates, and hyper-religious jihadis who behead children and declare themselves a caliphate - those Muslims who identify as moderate hold up the supposed moderates as the ideal - the ones being funded by the West, who nonetheless defect with their weapons to the jihadis.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 22 15:30:13 Forwyn: Imagine my surprise that people in a civil war would pick effective enemies of their enemies as allies over maintaining ideological purity to appease western societies that show little interest in doing anything to assist practically. We would never do that. Like how we totally rejected allying with Soviet Russia against Hitler, thus showing how we were all rabid supporters of totalitarianism.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 22 15:46:25 Soviets weren't defecting en masse to the Nazis.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 22 15:48:19 If anything, it just shows that Muslims prefer ideological extremists who greatly restrict rights over secular leaders who make meager attempts to increase rights.
Forwyn Member	Mon Aug 22 15:51:07 If tens of thousands of armed jihadis rose up in the greater Bradford area and seized control of government institutions, Seb would side with them, so long as the UK government was serious enough about putting them down that there was some collateral damage.
	show deleted posts