The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Heathen Hammer]

That's not an explanation. That's a claim. A claim to try to justify domestic terrorism. So again, what is the context of Sargon justifying domestic terrorism?

Where did he justify it? All he did is give his take on why it happens. Its like if I say "there are car accidents because of poor traffic laws". I'm not saying that car accidents are justified, I'm explaining why they happen. Now you can argue with Sargon's take on whether these are the reasons for domestic terrorism, but saying that he is justifying it is intellectual dishonest.

[Basil II the B.S]

Comparing the millions of the dead of the Chinese famines with a promotional video about toxic masculinity looks like the quintessence of fragile sensitivity and persecution complex to me. As well as a bit insulting to the victims of Maoism. That being said, I'm still not sure how the rant about 5-years old dead Lenin ordering Holodomor is even remotely relevant to my questions, which you keep avoiding (twice and counting). They're pretty simple, so let me repeat them: How do you justify the interpretation of Alex Jones' colleague about the allegedly severe consequences of the Gillette ad, when every other credible source, including your own, disputes this narrative, which is also contradicted by hard data?

Stalin. My bad. Lenin simply ordered the genocide of the Romanov family. Much better guy.


No. My sources do not dispute the narrative. We have a CEO defending his company when hard data evidence failure. The excuses he gives are.... indeed excuses. The facts are: an ad that got negative reaction and bad sales.

Are you able to distinguish between hard facts and narrative? Narratives aren't facts. They are noise.

Nor blabbing about Alex Jones dismisses anything. The guy is hilarious to begin with. The fact that your side actually went out to take him out and that was the beginning of a long series of online purges speaks volume of what happens when the very same is in power, which goes back to what I was saying in my previous post. Now, imagine the woke crowd in charge not just of Twitter, Facebook and Google but of the US government. There's simply no way we can let that happen. Nuclear war is a much better option. We are all going to get killed anyway.

[Knight of Heaven]

I think his point is that what matters most for the consumer is the price, not the moral message of the ad. Gillette tried to pander to potential customers by endorsing a part of their beliefs

I get the competition argument. But somehow in this case im not sure the price argument applies. Not only is too coincidental as timing goes, but for years i used Gillette, despite its price. It was mostly the availability and quality ( bic is horrible), also hard to find any other brand easily where i come from to be honest. Other option is maybe Wilkinson and the prices are mostly in the same range.

As part of the Gillette beliefs? I dont think Gillette has any beliefs, it goes to what is hot in the moment. That add is nothing more then empty virtual signaling, in the hopes to get better sales.
I know this because Gillette is actually a horrible corporation. Caught in a scandal of child labor. Also had The word Gillette written in women bottoms in another add campaign...

but seeing how deeply an innocuous video triggered a certain demographic of our society, I'm seriously considering the prospect of giving a symbolic support to Gillette.

I dont think it was innocuous as you are stating, and i do think the demographic was much more broad then you are implying. You cant single out this add, without the context of the current larger culture war. Which is much more divisive and larger then you are stating. Its effects are seen even among moderates and the average person. So no i dont this is just from the usual alt right guys. And if so, that demographic is then much larger then previously thought.

[Heathen Hammer]

Stalin. My bad. Lenin simply ordered the genocide of the Romanov family. Much better guy.

In addition to Romanovs, he had thousands murdered via Red terror and millions more perished in famines long before Stalin was in power, so you weren't really wrong.

[Infidel144]

Yeah, Lenin was a mass murdering wubbing commie wub. He has a place with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot and the other socialist pieces of wub.

[Love Mountain]

Where did he justify it? All he did is give his take on why it happens. Its like if I say "there are car accidents because of poor traffic laws". I'm not saying that car accidents are justified, I'm explaining why they happen. Now you can argue with Sargon's take on whether these are the reasons for domestic terrorism, but saying that he is justifying it is intellectual dishonest.

He justified by making a claim of why it happens. The insinuation is that domestic terrorism happens because the perpetrators are "left with no other choice". It's not intellectually dishonest to claim Sargon justified domestic terrorism. It's actually quite accurate. There's nothing rational or intellectual about Sargon. His videos are full of inaccuracies and faulty logic.

So again, what did we take out of context HH? Tell me the full explanation and context, and how did we warp the meaning of what he said?

[Love Mountain]

You're being disingenuous. Around 2015/16 the term alt-right was used to describe disaffected young would-be conservatives who were opposed to social justice activism but saw no resistance to it through mainstream political channels. When the movement started getting traction and public attention, the liberal press sought to, and was successful in, smearing the term by repeatedly highlighting its association with the white nationalist Richard Spencer. Prior to that time, the majority of the people describing themselves as "alt-right" did not consider themselves to be, and were not, white supremacists.

Many white supremacists do not consider themselves to be white supremacists. The "liberal press", cute nebulous term, successfully pointed out the association between white supremacists (and similar groups) and the "anti-establishment" movement. Nor was this "movement" confined to the "young". It had people of all ages. You're painting a generous picture of the alt-right that does not correspond to the reality.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Classic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob6boWEtaGQ

1:43

And now we play the game of... why are you posting only the old ones and not the new ones that disavow the former? Or in short, why are you trying to frame someone for something he's not? And you even call him a coward? You are slandering someone, knowing that he has long distanced himself from such people and simply because you don't like him. How can we call your argument?

I know.
Filthy liberal lies.

I called him a coward because he deleted his tweets and because he seems to have only dropped the label as soon as he feared it would be associated with guys like Richard Spencer. From this tweet (https://twitter.com/sa_da_tay/status/833730208360394752) we can tell he'd already deleted any tweets in which he proclaimed his allegiance to the movement by February 23rd, 2017, only some three months after his first declaration that he wasn't alt-right in mid-November 2016. As we can tell from the archives I posted, he was claiming he was in the Alt-Right as late as late August 2016. He was still talking about them positively and defending the movement as late as November 11th, 2016 and the tweets in which he proclaimed his allegiance to the alt-right were apparently still available on November 23rd, 2016, a full week after first disavowing being part of them (https://twitter.com/SirGoldenrod/sta...54015771381762). His rebranding as "new right" had apparently already begun by early November 2016 however, as indicated by an interview on November 7th (although he would not make the distinction formal until November 22nd, after the Spencer video dropped - ):https://thetab.com/uk/sheffield/2016...h-watson-18264.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How would you define the Alt-Right? Would you classify yourself in that category?


IÂ’m not really Alt-Right. A lot of them are incredibly obsessed with Jews controlling the world and I could never allow myself to become that obsessed with anything since I get bored of subjects rather easily. That brand of the Alt-Right behave like right-wing social justice warriors, but thereÂ’s also another camp who are just sick of being let down by traditional conservatives who have only succeeded in losing almost every argument to the left over the last 30 years. I identify with those guys.

Note that he doesn't say the idea of "Jews controlling the world" is wrong or inaccurate, but that he thinks the "real alt-right" is too obsessed with the supposed issue. He certainly doesn't seem to have seen any issues with the movement prior to that (https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...84590489456640). On November 16th he declines an interview with VICE about the alt-right, adding a few minutes later that he's "not even alt-right" and just makes YouTube videos, although he had stated earlier the reason he didn't want to be interviewed was that he feared misleading editing. On November 20th/21st, the video of Richard Spencer and his followers shouting "Hail Trump" goes live (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ch-npi/508379/), which seemingly triggers the change. Watson makes a formal distinction between the "New Right" and the "Alt-Right" on November 22nd, at least several of his followers don't seem to like it (https://archive.fo/GxIS3) This negative response by his audience might explain his following action: on November 26 2016 he releases a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEeMYVVeBc) with Mike Cernovich about the Spencer video. In it Watson and Cernovich both distance themselves from the outright Nazis, but his argument against the Spencerists is once again not so much that Nazism is bad, but that throwing Nazi salutes is "bad optics" (8:05-8:55; 11:57-12:15). He and Cernovich claim that the Spencer video is a deliberate ploy by the mainstream media to discredit the alt-right and people like himself and Stefan Molyneux, by associating them with obvious neo-Nazis. Watson even seems to suggest that he and Cernovich ought to have been declared the real "kings of the alt-right" (21:29-21:45) for their associated activities the months prior. Although Watson and Cernovich claim that Spencer is a nobody in their video, Watson himself admits to being aware that he was the one who coined the term "alt-right". (4:26-4:46) Nevertheless, they present him and the people at Spencer's conference as fringe extremists, apparently hoping to maintain some form of control of the alt-right label and to distance it from outright neo-Nazism. Watson's audience at the time seems once again not to have been too fond of that approach, or at least seems to have set off a very vocal minority of them: the like-dislike ratio of the video is way worse than that his other videos around the same time (although, admittedly, still in the positive) and the top comments on the video include gems like these: (https://imgur.com/a/nxm35Kf) It seems a first split in what had up to then been an at least nominally united movement happened around that time, between those openly talking about "the Jewish Question" and those unwilling to do so (see https://www.businessinsider.nl/alt-r...onal=true&r=US for an exponent some weeks later, as well as https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...121-story.html), a split Watson hadn't seen coming beforehand (https://publish.twitter.com/?query=h...2&widget=Tweet).


The negative feedback may well have convinced him that he could not continue to both tie himself to the "alt-right"-label and denounce the open neo-Nazism now attached to the term. Watson hence seems to have done a fairly swift about-face around this time to distance himself from the less publicly palatable parts of the movement he'd had associated himself with up until then. His claims on Twitter in the months that follow are basically that he left the alt-right after the Spencer video broke, that the movement had changed afterwards and that he can't be alt-right because Spencer and the real alt-right hate him. Sometime before February 23rd 2017 he deleted any previous tweets proclaiming support for the alt-right. Nevertheless, he still seems to be at least taking parts of his stories and comedy from neo-nazi sites like the Daily Stormer and taking out the references to Jews (for which they legitimately hate him xD - https://dailystormer.name/paul-josep...ore-than-cock/ - Funnily enough the author claim he and several others suck because they tried to make the alt-right more marketable by leaving out "certain facts" the "real" alt-right supposedly presented, likely related to how Jews are supposedly the real issue), something which they accused him of all the way back in 2015 (https://dailystormer.name/however-ma...-the-bulldogs/). For an example not from the words of a Nazi: see Watson's plagiarizing (https://www.infowars.com/leftist-fre...-to-be-banned/) of this article by a neo-Nazi blog (https://web.archive.org/web/20190213...ned-in-france/), instead of from the supposed source (https://web.archive.org/web/20190112...eterosexualite), as expounded upon here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beA1A9BVYi8. Had the Spencer controversy not broken, Watson may well have continued to tie himself to the label, so long as he could mildly disavow any overt antisemitism it had attracted by that point without actively alienating any potential white supremacists. The Spencer affair made that impossible, so he chose the money and burned his bridges (a characterization that would seem to fit those given by interviewees here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/alex-j...crown?ref=home, not to mention that he sells (or used to sell) ing "Brain Force" pills - https://twitter.com/ChrisCaesar/stat...46199011786752)


As for whether Watson really didn't know Spencer until after the Trump election as he claims in your video, well... oops.


https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...52629374038016 (see retweet of Spencer's endorsement of Watson's video by Watson - https://imgur.com/a/tsddpRz). It should be noted that Spencer was a real nobody in February 2015, only having about 1800 followers (https://web.archive.org/web/20150202...ichardBSpencer). Watson retweeting him directly was fairly unlikely if they didn't have any shared circles and as far as I can tell the tweet wasn't retweeted by anyone Watson follows...


Spencer seems to have wanted to get into contact with Watson at later times as well, as first as a potential guest at Infowars, later to complain about Watson not doing alt-right right:
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...90497885147136
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...18047864750081
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...42260652888064
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...93174773190656


To be fair, apart from the earlier retweet in 2015, they seem not to have been in contact much (that is, assuming Watson hasn't deleted his tweets, as he did regarding his alt-right allegiance; we may never know alas) and what visible is mostly driven by Spencer, who confirmed he was a viewer of Watson's show in the tweet that led to their public falling-out: https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/sta...83955613532160. But Watson claims in your video that he didn't even hear of Spencer until weeks after the Trump election (i.e. November 8th, 2016), which seems like a rather unlikely given the evidence above. Even if they never interacted that much, at least one example of direct online interaction and a history of deleting prior tweets make me sincerely doubt that statement.


TL;DR: the only real reason he left the alt-right was that Spencer associated the label with open white supremacy and neo-Nazism, something Watson decided he couldn't have attached to his name if he was going to continue to build his audience. He may have burned part of his previous audience doing so, but overall the move doesn't seem to have affected his positions that much. I stand by my "slander".

[Basil II the B.S]

I called him a coward because he deleted his tweets and because he seems to have only dropped the label as soon as he feared it would be associated with guys like Richard Spencer. From this tweet (https://twitter.com/sa_da_tay/status/833730208360394752) we can tell he'd already deleted any tweets in which he proclaimed his allegiance to the movement by February 23rd, 2017, only some three months after his first declaration that he wasn't alt-right in mid-November 2016. As we can tell from the archives I posted, he was claiming he was in the Alt-Right as late as late August 2016. He was still talking about them positively and defending the movement as late as November 11th, 2016 and the tweets in which he proclaimed his allegiance to the alt-right were apparently still available on November 23rd, 2016, a full week after first disavowing being part of them (https://twitter.com/SirGoldenrod/sta...54015771381762). His rebranding as "new right" had apparently already begun by early November 2016 however, as indicated by an interview on November 7th (although he would not make the distinction formal until November 22nd, after the Spencer video dropped - ):https://thetab.com/uk/sheffield/2016...h-watson-18264.

Yes. He liked the term when he thought it was about funny internet memes and giggles. As soon as he found out a white nationalist was using it for his movement, he left. So, why exactly are you trying to frame him for something he has repeatedly distanced himself for?

There's also nothing wrong with the quote you posted. It is fundamentally true that conservatives have lost every argument on cultural issues in the past 30 years and this is why society is going down the drain.

Note that he doesn't say the idea of "Jews controlling the world" is wrong or inaccurate, but that he thinks the "real alt-right" is too obsessed with the supposed issue. He certainly doesn't seem to have seen any issues with the movement prior to that (https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...84590489456640). On November 16th he declines an interview with VICE about the alt-right, adding a few minutes later that he's "not even alt-right" and just makes YouTube videos, although he had stated earlier the reason he didn't want to be interviewed was that he feared misleading editing. On November 20th/21st, the video of Richard Spencer and his followers shouting "Hail Trump" goes live (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ch-npi/508379/), which seemingly triggers the change. Watson makes a formal distinction between the "New Right" and the "Alt-Right" on November 22nd, at least several of his followers don't seem to like it (https://archive.fo/GxIS3) This negative response by his audience might explain his following action: on November 26 2016 he releases a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEeMYVVeBc) with Mike Cernovich about the Spencer video. In it Watson and Cernovich both distance themselves from the outright Nazis, but his argument against the Spencerists is once again not so much that Nazism is bad, but that throwing Nazi salutes is "bad optics" (8:05-8:55; 11:57-12:15). He and Cernovich claim that the Spencer video is a deliberate ploy by the mainstream media to discredit the alt-right and people like himself and Stefan Molyneux, by associating them with obvious neo-Nazis. Watson even seems to suggest that he and Cernovich ought to have been declared the real "kings of the alt-right" (21:29-21:45) for their associated activities the months prior. Although Watson and Cernovich claim that Spencer is a nobody in their video, Watson himself admits to being aware that he was the one who coined the term "alt-right". (4:26-4:46) Nevertheless, they present him and the people at Spencer's conference as fringe extremists, apparently hoping to maintain some form of control of the alt-right label and to distance it from outright neo-Nazism. Watson's audience at the time seems once again not to have been too fond of that approach, or at least seems to have set off a very vocal minority of them: the like-dislike ratio of the video is way worse than that his other videos around the same time (although, admittedly, still in the positive) and the top comments on the video include gems like these: (https://imgur.com/a/nxm35Kf) It seems a first split in what had up to then been an at least nominally united movement happened around that time, between those openly talking about "the Jewish Question" and those unwilling to do so (see https://www.businessinsider.nl/alt-r...onal=true&r=US for an exponent some weeks later, as well as https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...121-story.html), a split Watson hadn't seen coming beforehand (https://publish.twitter.com/?query=h...2&widget=Tweet).


The negative feedback may well have convinced him that he could not continue to both tie himself to the "alt-right"-label and denounce the open neo-Nazism now attached to the term. Watson hence seems to have done a fairly swift about-face around this time to distance himself from the less publicly palatable parts of the movement he'd had associated himself with up until then. His claims on Twitter in the months that follow are basically that he left the alt-right after the Spencer video broke, that the movement had changed afterwards and that he can't be alt-right because Spencer and the real alt-right hate him. Sometime before February 23rd 2017 he deleted any previous tweets proclaiming support for the alt-right. Nevertheless, he still seems to be at least taking parts of his stories and comedy from neo-nazi sites like the Daily Stormer and taking out the references to Jews (for which they legitimately hate him xD - https://dailystormer.name/paul-josep...ore-than-cock/ - Funnily enough the author claim he and several others suck because they tried to make the alt-right more marketable by leaving out "certain facts" the "real" alt-right supposedly presented, likely related to how Jews are supposedly the real issue), something which they accused him of all the way back in 2015 (https://dailystormer.name/however-ma...-the-bulldogs/). For an example not from the words of a Nazi: see Watson's plagiarizing (https://www.infowars.com/leftist-fre...-to-be-banned/) of this article by a neo-Nazi blog (https://web.archive.org/web/20190213...ned-in-france/), instead of from the supposed source (https://web.archive.org/web/20190112...eterosexualite), as expounded upon here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beA1A9BVYi8. Had the Spencer controversy not broken, Watson may well have continued to tie himself to the label, so long as he could mildly disavow any overt antisemitism it had attracted by that point without actively alienating any potential white supremacists. The Spencer affair made that impossible, so he chose the money and burned his bridges (a characterization that would seem to fit those given by interviewees here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/alex-j...crown?ref=home, not to mention that he sells (or used to sell) ing "Brain Force" pills - https://twitter.com/ChrisCaesar/stat...46199011786752)

Can you tell the difference between saying ''too obsessed with Jews'' and just ''obsessed with Jews''?

And Cernovich is married to and has babies with.... a brown woman. Good luck framing that as racist. Nonetheless, why are you misquoting Watson?

As for whether Watson really didn't know Spencer until after the Trump election as he claims in your video, well... oops.

https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...52629374038016 (see retweet of Spencer's endorsement of Watson's video by Watson - https://imgur.com/a/tsddpRz). It should be noted that Spencer was a real nobody in February 2015, only having about 1800 followers (https://web.archive.org/web/20150202...ichardBSpencer). Watson retweeting him directly was fairly unlikely if they didn't have any shared circles and as far as I can tell the tweet wasn't retweeted by anyone Watson follows...

There's a dude that tags Spencer's comments to Watson and it's the only comment. Do you know how Twitter works?
Someone tags you a comment from an unknown guy, you find it interesting, retweet it. And that's still not a like, but that's a whole other argument.

Spencer seems to have wanted to get into contact with Watson at later times as well, as first as a potential guest at Infowars, later to complain about Watson not doing alt-right right:
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...90497885147136
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...18047864750081
https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/...42260652888064
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/sta...93174773190656

So, Spencer tries to get Watson's attention in threads that have.... dozens of replies, Watson doesn't really give him any, and that proves he's guilty? Again, do you even know how Twitter works? Should Watson block from his Twitter someone he didn't even know?

I intereacted with Antifa on Twitter. Am I Antifa?

To be fair, apart from the earlier retweet in 2015, they seem not to have been in contact much (that is, assuming Watson hasn't deleted his tweets, as he did regarding his alt-right allegiance; we may never know alas) and what visible is mostly driven by Spencer, who confirmed he was a viewer of Watson's show in the tweet that led to their public falling-out: https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/sta...83955613532160. But Watson claims in your video that he didn't even hear of Spencer until weeks after the Trump election (i.e. November 8th, 2016), which seems like a rather unlikely given the evidence above. Even if they never interacted that much, at least one example of direct online interaction and a history of deleting prior tweets make me sincerely doubt that statement.


TL;DR: the only real reason he left the alt-right was that Spencer associated the label with open white supremacy and neo-Nazism, something Watson decided he couldn't have attached to his name if he was going to continue to build his audience. He may have burned part of his previous audience doing so, but overall the move doesn't seem to have affected his positions that much. I stand by my "slander".

Or maybe... he just didn't like those ideas?

The entire argument is based on the fact that Spencer really wanted Watson's attention and when he didn't get it, he called Alex Jones a cuck. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that this is proof that Watson is a white nationalist. No?

[Abdülmecid I]

No. My sources do not dispute the narrative. We have a CEO defending his company when hard data evidence failure. The excuses he gives are.... indeed excuses. The facts are: an ad that got negative reaction and bad sales.

What hard data, exactly? The like/dislike ratio in Youtube? How about the fact that the advertisement was critically acclaimed by women and that no impact on sales was ever documented, as my source already explained. Thrice so far you have avoided responding to them, so hopefully fourth time is the charm. So far, your entire position is solely based on the biased interpretation of a random blogger who believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

I dont think it was innocuous as you are stating, and i do think the demographic was much more broad then you are implying. You cant single out this add, without the context of the current larger culture war. Which is much more divisive and larger then you are stating. Its effects are seen even among moderates and the average person. So no i dont this is just from the usual alt right guys. And if so, that demographic is then much larger then previously thought.

What culture war? Beyond the echo chamber of a fringe minority exlcusively active in social media, pretty much nobody takes the concerns over "White Genocide" and "War on Men" seriously. Why do you assume that the reaction to the advertisement was so propagated? As the data reveals, the video was generally received in a positive manner, without however convincing potential consumers to switch to an unnecessarily expensive product.

[Gaidin]

What hard data, exactly? The like/dislike ratio in Youtube? How about the fact that the advertisement was critically acclaimed by women and that no impact on sales was ever documented, as my source already explained. Thrice so far you have avoided responding to them, so hopefully fourth time is the charm. So far, your entire position is solely based on the biased interpretation of a random blogger who believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

What culture war? Beyond the echo chamber of a fringe minority exlcusively active in social media, pretty much nobody takes the concerns over "White Genocide" and "War on Men" seriously. Why do you assume that the reaction to the advertisement was so propagated? As the data reveals, the video was generally received in a positive manner, without however convincing potential consumers to switch to an unnecessarily expensive product.

I'm reminded of Nike a few months ago.

[Heathen Hammer]

He justified by making a claim of why it happens. The insinuation is that domestic terrorism happens because the perpetrators are "left with no other choice". It's not intellectually dishonest to claim Sargon justified domestic terrorism. It's actually quite accurate. There's nothing rational or intellectual about Sargon. His videos are full of inaccuracies and faulty logic.

So again, what did we take out of context HH? Tell me the full explanation and context, and how did we warp the meaning of what he said?

As I said, he just explained why it happens. He didn't say it should happen, he said why it happens. I don't even know how to explain it in simpler terms. As for the rest of your post, you seem to just jump on the bandwagon because you disagree with his beliefs, which is understandable, but let's not let our personal bias stand in the way of looking at things rationally.

[Basil II the B.S]

What hard data, exactly? The like/dislike ratio in Youtube? How about the fact that the advertisement was critically acclaimed by women and that no impact on sales was ever documented, as my source already explained. Thrice so far you have avoided responding to them, so hopefully fourth time is the charm. So far, your entire position is solely based on the biased interpretation of a random blogger who believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

Lmao the 5-8 bn loss is not hard data? Are you serious?
And I love how you are completely rewriting your own source as well. Mostly discussed by women ... on Twitter. Meaning that the demographic segment is not the whole country, but a specific one: upper middle class, college educated, white, liberal urban, aka the woke crowd, which... unsurprisingly liked it. The woke crowd actually represents at best 8% of the US population and its preference are at odds with the rest of the nation. Pathetic try.

Indeed when it comes to actual sales, the data say: total loss. So let me get this clear Abdulmecid: the opinion of retared liberal women on twitter is more important than actual sales? Apparently, it is.

What culture war? Beyond the echo chamber of a fringe minority exlcusively active in social media, pretty much nobody takes the concerns over "White Genocide" and "War on Men" seriously. Why do you assume that the reaction to the advertisement was so propagated? As the data reveals, the video was generally received in a positive manner, without however convincing potential consumers to switch to an unnecessarily expensive product.

Uhuahauhauhauahuahuahau. You just used a fringe minority active on social media to back your argument and now you dismiss it within the same post? Holy ing liberalism.Twitter is ovewhelmingly liberal audience because it actively bans conservative voices. What world are you talking about?

5 to 8 bn in losses vs positive review by the woke crowd on social media and you think the latter proves it a success?

[Heathen Hammer]

The ad was clearly in regards to company's men products, so "critical acclaim" among non-intended audience is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the company took an even bigger dive in the immediate aftermath. In fact, ti got to the point where Gillette came up with a forced "right-wing" add with some military blonde family. There is something entertaining about watching major corporations crash and burn after virtue signalling. When you go woke, you always go broke.

[Love Mountain]

As I said, he just explained why it happens. He didn't say it should happen, he said why it happens. I don't even know how to explain it in simpler terms. As for the rest of your post, you seem to just jump on the bandwagon because you disagree with his beliefs, which is understandable, but let's not let our personal bias stand in the way of looking at things rationally.

You can't explain it in simpler terms without resorting to you know, the context of what he said. He claimed that right-wing domestic terrorism happens because they have no other choice. That's a fantastical claim that "inadvertently" (we all know he knows the implications) justifies mass shootings. It diverts the responsibility from the shooter to the society. So no.

I also don't bandwagon anything. Sargon's works speaks for itself. He frequently misrepresents (ironic), misreads, or outright misunderstands the things he reads and hears. According to Sargon, mass shootings happen because society takes away all other options from the perpetrators. One does not need a Ph.D. to understand how ridiculous that claim is.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can't explain it in simpler terms without resorting to you know, the context of what he said. He claimed that right-wing domestic terrorism happens because they have no other choice. That's a fantastical claim that "inadvertently" (we all know he knows the implications) justifies mass shootings. It diverts the responsibility from the shooter to the society. So no.

I also don't bandwagon anything. Sargon's works speaks for itself. He frequently misrepresents (ironic), misreads, or outright misunderstands the things he reads and hears. According to Sargon, mass shootings happen because society takes away all other options from the perpetrators. One does not need a Ph.D. to understand how ridiculous that claim is.

No, its an explanation. He simply says why he think it happens. He didn't say its a good thing. He didn't say that it should happen. He just answered the question "why". We get that you dislike his political beliefs, but that doesn't make him justify shootings or anything else like that. You should probably address the actual argument instead of trying to spin the whole thing.

[Love Mountain]

No, its an explanation. He simply says why he think it happens. He didn't say its a good thing. He didn't say that it should happen. He just answered the question "why". We get that you dislike his political beliefs, but that doesn't make him justify shootings or anything else like that.

Except it does. He does not hold the shooters accountable.

You should probably address the actual argument instead of trying to spin the whole thing.

You're more than welcome to post his actual argument that I'm supposedly "spinning".

[Heathen Hammer]

Except it does. He does not hold the shooters accountable.

So if some moron climbs into tiger cage in the zoo and get mauled, and news anchor says "this man was mauled because he climbed into a cage with tigers", does it make the anchor approve of people being mauled by tigers?

[Love Mountain]

So if some moron climbs into tiger cage in the zoo and get mauled, and news anchor says "this man was mauled because he climbed into a cage with tigers", does it make the anchor approve of people being mauled by tigers?

No, but if the news anchor said, "The zoo had no other choice but to allow this tragedy to keep happening", I would certainly think he was justifying the lax security and lack of response of the zookeepers. So again, HH, the full context of Sargon's argument please? What are we misrepresenting?

[Heathen Hammer]

No, but if the news anchor said, "The zoo had no other choice but to allow this tragedy to keep happening", I would certainly think he was justifying the lax security and lack of response of the zookeepers. So again, HH, the full context of Sargon's argument please? What are we misrepresenting?

I don't even know how to explain this to you in simpler to terms. Look up the term "explanation", I guess.