Open borders

[Little lunch]

It can only be verified by the left because the right believe something else.
Two different opinions does not mean one is a hoax.
And I don't care much for the right's opinions, but it's not all bullshit.
I find myself feeling uneasy when the enemy is using facts and statistics and our side are using opinions from a sociology professor.
I could be a little biased in that respect as I've been to uni a few different times and worked in a uni refectory for a few years.
Professors are some of the biggest wankers I've ever met, half of them couldn't change a tyre on a car, most have never even worked in their fields, but yet people trust them to shape public standards.
But back to left and right, I don't trust either side, at least not enough to try and restrict other people's movement across the internet through bullying tactics.
The bullying is my beef.
I quite like it that you gave out some information and I'll be looking into it more.
Usually it seems to be more like, 'I know something that you don't know, but because you're obviously a Nazi, I'm not even going to bother to explain it to you.'
Not to me, yet, but others.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, verified by the left. Sorry, I didn’t read any further. Continue with your regularly scheduled hand wringing.

---

The value of berbrier, as I mentioned, was his lit reviews ( summarizing others opinions) his approachable writing style, and his place in time. The alt right isn’t new. They’d been trying to get their current message to stick for awhile. Now it has.

If you want more contemporary sources try sociology journals. It’s pretty big right now, what with the global rise of white nationalism.

Between the Middle East, Central America, and climate change...this was almost invariably going to be -the- time when it surged. It all works perfectly into their long-standing narratives.

[Little lunch]

The short version of all of this, is that at the end of the day....a person either agrees with white supremacist rhetoric or they don’t.  All this “it’s propaganda” “conspiracy theories” “ bullying” “the left lies”......

Nah, that’s hand wringing.  That’s a person trying to do their own negotiating over the reality of their acceptance or agreement with white supremacist rhetoric.

Actually, for me, it's not about whether white supremacist rhetoric is true or not.
I'm sure some of it is.
The propaganda started with you, you said that first.
The left lies, I was surprised at how much, but it's true.
I could start a thread on it, but then I would become the next Drich. Or Rob.
I was probably thinking about him when I said conspiracy theory.
The bullying aspect is personal for me.
I don't let it happen, not here, not on the street, not anywhere.
That started the day I beat my father up, after years of relentless bullying and beatings.
It's not something I picked up from the Rubin Report, who I just discovered the other day after Amorok called me a Dave Rubin clone.

So I'm talking about yours and other's tactics and I think you may be hand wringing.
If you guys stopped calling people names, stopped insisting that you know them better than themselves and stopped branding people on the basis of a few words and politely explain what you are on about, I would have no problem.

Am I the only one here who thinks this way?
I think others do, but they're too scared of being ostracized.

[Belacqua]

Actually, for me, it's not about whether white supremacist rhetoric is true or not.
I'm sure some of it is.

Which parts exactly?

[The Grand Nudger]

There’s this death spiral argument where a person tries to prove that they aren’t nazis by trying to prove that the nazi thing they said was true.

I call it - I’m not one of them, they’re just right!

It has a cousin, the enemy is using facts. Well no, if by the enemy you mean white supremacists, the only dog I have in this race.

You can discuss the issue for pages, drop a mountain of links and evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t work. In my experience. It doesn’t work because they know they said it, and believe it, and they know they’re not nazis. They’ll complain about being bullied, being a minority viewpoint, getting suppressed.

Buncha fuckin triggered snowflakes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[Little lunch]

Actually, for me, it's not about whether white supremacist rhetoric is true or not.
I'm sure some of it is.

Which parts exactly?

When I say, 'I'm sure some of it is', that means I don't know.
And why should I have to know 'exactly' in order to perceive that the way the message is being delivered, if not wrong, is at least extremely anti-social.
What I don't understand is that if you feel passionate about a cause, why not persuade people instead of branding them?
Could it be that people don't listen when they are charged with Nazism straight off the bat?

---

There’s this death spiral argument where a person tries to prove that they aren’t nazis by trying to prove that the nazi thing they said was true.

I call it - I’m not one of them, they’re just right!

It has a cousin, the enemy is using facts.  Well no, if by the enemy you mean white supremacists, the only dog I have in this race.

You can discuss the issue for pages, drop a mountain of links and evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t work.  In my experience.  It doesn’t work because they know they said it, and believe it, and they know they’re not nazis.  They’ll complain about being bullied, being a minority viewpoint, getting suppressed.

Buncha fuckin triggered snowflakes.

They are getting bullied, that's why they complain about it.
They might be thinking that you know nothing about them, and knowing nothing about you, they might wonder how you came to be qualified to judge them, as a Nazi.
It makes more sense than that they're trying to cover something up.

There's another element to this.
If a person is accused of something here and they deny it, but are then subjected to a round of abuse from the usual crowd that seems to always come in after, snapping at heels, does this not create an atmosphere of hostility?
Wouldn't other people here become worried that if they say the wrong thing, they'll be next?

I think I've said all I'm going to say on this.
I was hoping for more support from others.
If I'm the only one who feels this way, then I guess it's probably none of my business how y'all conduct yourselves here.

[Fireball]

Which parts exactly?

When I say, 'I'm sure some of it is', that means I don't know.
And why should I have to know 'exactly' in order to perceive that the way the message is being delivered, if not wrong, is at least extremely anti-social.
What I don't understand is that if you feel passionate about a cause, why not persuade people instead of branding them?
Could it be that people don't listen when they are charged with Nazism straight off the bat?

---

There’s this death spiral argument where a person tries to prove that they aren’t nazis by trying to prove that the nazi thing they said was true.

I call it - I’m not one of them, they’re just right!

It has a cousin, the enemy is using facts.  Well no, if by the enemy you mean white supremacists, the only dog I have in this race.

You can discuss the issue for pages, drop a mountain of links and evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t work.  In my experience.  It doesn’t work because they know they said it, and believe it, and they know they’re not nazis.  They’ll complain about being bullied, being a minority viewpoint, getting suppressed.

Buncha fuckin triggered snowflakes.

They are getting bullied, that's why they complain about it.
They might be thinking that you know nothing about them, and knowing nothing about you, they might wonder how you came to be qualified to judge them, as a Nazi.
It makes more sense than that they're trying to cover something up.

There's another element to this.
If a person is accused of something here and they deny it, but are then subjected to a round of abuse from the usual crowd that seems to always come in after, snapping at heels, does this not create an atmosphere of hostility?
Wouldn't other people here become worried that if they say the wrong thing, they'll be next?

I think I've said all I'm going to say on this.
I was hoping for more support from others.
If I'm the only one who feels this way, then I guess it's probably none of my business how y'all conduct yourselves here.

You're not. Internet anonymity lends a lot of people an outlet for their frustrations in real life.

[The Grand Nudger]

The notion that pointing out manifestations of white supremacist rhetoric that have been laundered and mainstreamed is “bullying” or chills speech is a great example of white supremacist rhetoric that has been laundered and normalized....on the left.

Part and parcel of the victimization narrative of contemporary white supremacy, modeled after a social justice movement, and negotiated into reality.

It’s not true, it specifically originated in the white victimization rhetoric, but now it’s a common position for a segment of the left, terrified into acquiescence by the concern trolling right. Hoping to distance themselves from an equally fictional and manufactured “extreme left”. The idea being to position one’s self as a rational and fair person. Exploiting human reciprocity and aversion to stigma.

---

-and just to get in front of the next bit....a world in which people are more disturbed by having their positions identified as such than they are by holding those positions is further demonstration of the effectiveness and ubiquity of white supremacist rhetoric and attitudes.

People are tired of being -called- white supremacists, but they certainly aren’t tired of espousing the positions of white supremacy. There’s plenty of appetite for that, across both aisles.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and here’s a wonderful example of how contemporary white supremacist rhetoric has infected the left, from mother jones- noted bastion of frothing right wing pundits.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2...g-problem/