Page 6 of 31 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 610

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

  1. #101

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No, I am comparing your willingness to attack abstract concepts , such as ideologies or theoretical groups. with Nazis (or Bolsheviks, if you prefer) rather than respond to actual harm like normal people. If White people in the US were truly, truly suffering, I would be much more sympathetic to violent rhetoric to solve it. But that's not even remotely happening in the real world, instead you can only attack your perception of ideologies: "If the Left wins, they will round up all white people and sterilize them! I know they will!" or whatever. That way, you can only measure your vitriolic rhetoric with theoretical people in your mind.

    Nazis never suffered from oppression by Jews, they just blamed past failings on them and said that the Jews would destroy the German race if they could, and that was enough for them to do some horrific things. They never needed to actually suffer that oppression in order to get that angry. Likewise, you seem to be super pro violence-as-a-solution despite never suffering oppression from these groups that allegedly want to do so.
    The Jews were not enacting policies wherever they could that discriminated against ethnic Germans. The woke crowd does. Universities: a huge amount discriminate against whites AND Asians in admissions. Looking forward to see how the Harvard lawsuit ends, because if SJWs get trounced there it'll be the Pandora's box of lawsuits.

    Let's also look at censorship: we don't go one week where a conservative commentator is harassed or outright suppressed without breaking any rule. And I know you'll give me the argument ''private company, their choice''. So we make our own. Then what happens? Online payment services also do it, ''their company, their choice''. So we make our own again. So your activists will eventually go to Internet Service Providers and ask them to block access to conservative media and you'll also say ''their company, their choice''.

    So, what do we have in the end? We have to build our on parallel services, because activists on your side harass us. This starts from education and academia but then goes onto internet, payment... everything. In short, the only path forward for us is to make our own society where noone on your side is allowed, because as soon as we allow anyone from your side in, the demands from censorship start.

    The real question is... why should we even do it? Why should we build another society, because your side is destroying ours and pushing us aside? Our ancestors build this society anyway, and your side uses it as evidence that's inherently oppressive, patriarchal and white supremacist. How about... we fight? It's our society as much as it's yours. The difference is, we like it, we don't want to tear it apart to make room for a glorious dystopia. And it's not like you'd let us split societies anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I am sure you would. Putin doesn't suffer political opponents, that's for sure.

    Have you ever read much on Fascism? I think you would really like. Honestly, I don't even mean this in a disparaging way, I think you would find a lot to like in Fascism. Hyper nationalism, unilateral authoritarian action, might-is-right, State action on ethnic interests; they have a lot going for them.
    Cult leader: Obama the Saviour or Greta Thunberg
    External enemy: Russia Russia
    Mob rule: SJWs
    Censorship and indoctrination: tech and academia
    Ethnic enemy: straight white males instead of Jews

    I see fascism.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No, the State would not allow just open extremists on extremists violence happening in the street. Widespread conflict would not occur unless the legitimacy of the State were up to question (which could happen) in which case you could get an actual civil war. At that point, it is not "activists fighting activists", but political factions in a power struggle for the government. The "toughness" of individual soldiers matters for little at this point compared to access to material, resources, and competent military command.

    A study that claims Liberals are weak pansies compared to Conservatives or whatever. Not data from a study you interpret as indicating that is the case, an actual study that asserts as much itself.
    You mean the Times one?

    The funny thing is that there's also counter evidence:
    https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-ev...study-suggests
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; June 14, 2019 at 05:33 AM.

  2. #102

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The Jews were not enacting policies wherever they could that discriminated against ethnic Germans. The woke crowd does. Universities: a huge amount discriminate against whites AND Asians in admissions. Looking forward to see how the Harvard lawsuit ends, because if SJWs get trounced there it'll be the Pandora's box of lawsuits.
    That's your example of horrific oppression of white people in the US? Affirmative action in universities? That justifies violent uprising? Do you have any evidence that this is causing significant suffering for White Americans?
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Let's also look at censorship: we don't go one week where a conservative commentator is harassed or outright suppressed without breaking any rule. And I know you'll give me the argument ''private company, their choice''. So we make our own. Then what happens? Online payment services also do it, ''their company, their choice''. So we make our own again. So your activists will eventually go to Internet Service Providers and ask them to block access to conservative media and you'll also say ''their company, their choice''.
    Any complaints with "censorship on social media" (lol) have nothing to do with the government, nor does it have anything to do with the oppression of white people or even really conservatives. Conservatives like not having regulations, I guess they should have thought that through more?

    Try again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    So, what do we have in the end? We have to build our on parallel services, because activists on your side harass us. This starts from education and academia but then goes onto internet, payment... everything. In short, the only path forward for us is to make our own society where noone on your side is allowed, because as soon as we allow anyone from your side in, the demands from censorship start.
    You're not even in America, I don't care about your political goings on. And are you really THAT thin skinned and snowflake-like? Affirmative action exist and that you think twitter has a left-wing bias, THAT warrants violent uprisings? You didn't mention a single piece legislation or government action! PRIVATE citizen action is enough to trigger you to "civil war! burn it down!", holy . "Oppression" my ass, you are just hypersensitive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The real question is... why should we even do it? Why should we build another society, because your side is destroying ours and pushing us aside? Our ancestors build this society anyway, and your side uses it as evidence that's inherently oppressive, patriarchal and white supremacist. How about... we fight? It's our society as much as it's yours. The difference is, we like it, we don't want to tear it apart to make room for a glorious dystopia. And it's not like you'd let us split societies anyway.
    I agree the Jews, I mean Libtards, are out to get you. They aren't going to stop until you are all dead. You better "liquidate" them before it happens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Cult leader: Obama the Saviour or Greta Thunberg
    External enemy: Russia Russia
    Mob rule: SJWs
    Censorship and indoctrination: tech and academia
    Ethnic enemy: straight white males instead of Jews

    I see fascism.
    What is this? Like, I don't entirely know what I am looking at. It is like you had a spasm while throwing a red herring. Obama didn't really pull off a whole lot authoritarian action (nothing coming close to using the military to build a wall on the border, which I assume you support) nor was unusually cult like compared to Presidents in generals, very much including Trump who has you so enthralled you are will to give him a pass on obstructing justice.

    Real Censorship and Indoctrination are actions of the State enforced by some level of sanctioned violence. You can't really do it if the State isn't enforcing it, because that is just private associations. The State isn't enforcing it, bruh.

    And you know there are millions of White Liberal men in the US, right? Do you think the SS had millions of Jewish recruits?

    You are totally missing the point, though, Fascism is: Ultra nationalism (are you implying Leftists are ultra nationalists?), unilaterally authoritarian (you want Trump to ignore Congress and the Judicial branch and brand people as dissidents and enemies of the state, right?), economic national self-sufficiency rather than global trading (makes annexation easier for the future), Ethnic focus and policy (Ethnicity is really important for a unified nation, right?), and even "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism" (get them Libtards!).

    Aren't these all things you want?
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    You mean the Times one?

    The funny thing is that there's also counter evidence:
    https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-ev...study-suggests
    It speaks volumes that you linked the article written by a media rep rather than the study itself. Here is the actual abstract:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Social bargaining models predict that men should calibrate their egalitarian attitudes to their formidability and/or attractiveness. A simple social bargaining model predicts a direct negative association between formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism, whereas a more complex model predicts an association moderated by wealth. Our study tested both models with 171 men, using two sociopolitical egalitarianism measures: social dominance orientation and support for redistribution. Predictors included bodily formidability and attractiveness and four facial measures (attractiveness, dominance, masculinity, and width-to-height ratio). We also controlled for time spent lifting weights, and experimentally manipulated self-perceived formidability in an attempt to influence egalitarianism. Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.


    You are smothering data with your own desired interpretation of reality, a cartoon reality where people are caricatures instead of people.
    Last edited by The spartan; June 14, 2019 at 04:09 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  3. #103

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

    I recall Obama using military to suppress countries that ed with petrodollar, which is much worse then using military for the purpose it should have - which is defending the border. Not to mention escalating one of the wars started by his neocon predecessor. I also recall liberal establishment having a temper tantrum over Trump's decision to pull troops out of Middle East. So modern liberalism is just as militaristic, at least it is more warhawkish then right-wing.
    Censorship doesn't have to come directly from the state - just look at media oligopolies colluding to suppress independent media. Also whole-heartedly supported by liberal left, while defenders of free speech are branded as "extremists", much like opposition to fascist dictatorships in the past century.
    If Jews were majority of population in Third Reich, I'm sure that Goebbels would have propaganda of self-hate and ethnic masochism for them too.
    Overall, fascism isn't defined by nationalism or self-sufficient economy, just extreme form of authoritarianism, combined with a boogeyman used in propaganda to scare public into obedience (Russian threat, alt-right threat and other mostly fictional entities that liberal media loves scaring public with). Movements that define themselves as liberal are pretty much the closest to conventional definition of fascism that we have today.

  4. #104

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That's your example of horrific oppression of white people in the US? Affirmative action in universities? That justifies violent uprising? Do you have any evidence that this is causing significant suffering for White Americans?
    So, we need to wait violence before we can start complaining? Or we need to wait when it's too late? I read your media, I read what your academia says, it's enough to know where it's going. I want my side to be prepared for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You're not even in America, I don't care about your political goings on. And are you really THAT thin skinned and snowflake-like? Affirmative action exist and that you think twitter has a left-wing bias, THAT warrants violent uprisings? You didn't mention a single piece legislation or government action! PRIVATE citizen action is enough to trigger you to "civil war! burn it down!", holy . "Oppression" my ass, you are just hypersensitive.
    Imagine Lenin telling to the Kulaks ''geee we just wanted to make society equal, stop being hypersensitive''. As for the rest, the ''center-left'' in Italy is represented by the same cosmopolitan, urban, liberal crapheads you can find elsewhere. You have the same echo chamber of extremism, with the same ideas. The only difference, they got a totally deserved kick in the teeth before they could do further damage. However, given that the mentality of religious fanaticism is the same, ''we know better, we are the experts, everyone else is misguided by fake news from Russia''; whatever happens in the US will be copied in Italy. Actually I expect an attempted coup by the end of the year, I might go offline if that happens. So be happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    What is this? Like, I don't entirely know what I am looking at. It is like you had a spasm while throwing a red herring. Obama didn't really pull off a whole lot authoritarian action (nothing coming close to using the military to build a wall on the border, which I assume you support) nor was unusually cult like compared to Presidents in generals, very much including Trump who has you so enthralled you are will to give him a pass on obstructing justice.

    Real Censorship and Indoctrination are actions of the State enforced by some level of sanctioned violence. You can't really do it if the State isn't enforcing it, because that is just private associations. The State isn't enforcing it, bruh.

    And you know there are millions of White Liberal men in the US, right? Do you think the SS had millions of Jewish recruits?

    You are totally missing the point, though, Fascism is: Ultra nationalism (are you implying Leftists are ultra nationalists?), unilaterally authoritarian (you want Trump to ignore Congress and the Judicial branch and brand people as dissidents and enemies of the state, right?), economic national self-sufficiency rather than global trading (makes annexation easier for the future), Ethnic focus and policy (Ethnicity is really important for a unified nation, right?), and even "Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism" (get them Libtards!).

    Aren't these all things you want?
    People are tribal, I don't make the rules. Even Woke Liberals are tribal, though they base their identity on hatred of their own ethnic group and public demonstration of theoretical preference for other groups. In practice, that finds little application. When White Liberals move, they specifically avoid Asian areas, because Asian students are too competitive for their kids. So it's all a facade.

    White liberals who engage in white bashing are simply people with inherited economic privilege that also demand the moral privilege of the oppressed (by them).This is why my bashing is relentless. They know they are the problem, but they also demand to be hailed as morally virtuous, and they do so by engaging in public manifestations of verbal flagellations of their own ethnic group.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    It speaks volumes that you linked the article written by a media rep rather than the study itself. Here is the actual abstract:


    You are smothering data with your own desired interpretation of reality, a cartoon reality where people are caricatures instead of people.
    Wait... the official site of Brunel University London is... what exactly? Are you accusing them of misrepresenting the research of their own department?
    And the irony here is that nothing changes at all.
    ''male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.''
    ................ ?
    Academic language aside, it translates to ''beta males tend to be left wing''. That's hardly surprising anyway. Women pick by status. If you can improve your status by yourself, then you don't need redistribution.

  5. #105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    So, we need to wait violence before we can start complaining? Or we need to wait when it's too late? I read your media, I read what your academia says, it's enough to know where it's going. I want my side to be prepared for it.
    Who said anything about complaining? People are allowed to complain whenever. That isn't what you are advocating. You are calling for violent uprising, overthrow, and targeting of political opponents. Based on "violence" that you just admitted doesn't currently exit. You think it is going to exist, based on your personal understanding of concepts you don't study, much in the same way Nazis thought that the Jews were gearing up to destroy them with international conspiracies. You are arguing for preemptive, violent action on based on topics you will only view through the most partisan lens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Imagine Lenin telling to the Kulaks ''geee we just wanted to make society equal, stop being hypersensitive''. As for the rest, the ''center-left'' in Italy is represented by the same cosmopolitan, urban, liberal crapheads you can find elsewhere. You have the same echo chamber of extremism, with the same ideas. The only difference, they got a totally deserved kick in the teeth before they could do further damage. However, given that the mentality of religious fanaticism is the same, ''we know better, we are the experts, everyone else is misguided by fake news from Russia''; whatever happens in the US will be copied in Italy. Actually I expect an attempted coup by the end of the year, I might go offline if that happens. So be happy.
    Except Lenin and Bolsheviks were actually committing legislation and State sanctioned violence against the Kulaks. Things you admitted you can't demonstrate the Left in the United States have done. The Kulaks can show you on paper how they were being hurt by the Bolsheviks, you have no such analogy here. You are basically saying you are justified in committing/advocating for political violence whenever you personally feel threatened, regardless if you can demonstrate you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    People are tribal, I don't make the rules. Even Woke Liberals are tribal, though they base their identity on hatred of their own ethnic group and public demonstration of theoretical preference for other groups. In practice, that finds little application. When White Liberals move, they specifically avoid Asian areas, because Asian students are too competitive for their kids. So it's all a facade.

    White liberals who engage in white bashing are simply people with inherited economic privilege that also demand the moral privilege of the oppressed (by them).This is why my bashing is relentless. They know they are the problem, but they also demand to be hailed as morally virtuous, and they do so by engaging in public manifestations of verbal flagellations of their own ethnic group.
    You are really squirming around the question. We already know what Fascism is, not everyone is a Fascist. The principles:
    1) Ultra Nationalism; I am going to assume you concede that Leftists aren't ultra nationalists
    2) Unilateral Authoritarian action; you want that wall built regardless of what Congress says, correct?
    3) An Autarky where you don't have to rely on global trade
    4) State Ethnic policy and motivations (unite the ethnic German people and so forth)

    You like this stuff, right? You seem to argue for it constantly. They even hate Lefties, just like you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Wait... the official site of Brunel University London is... what exactly? Are you accusing them of misrepresenting the research of their own department?
    And the irony here is that nothing changes at all.
    ''male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.''
    ................ ?
    No, I am accusing a media rep for trying to sexify the findings of a study. Don't forget:
    Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.
    More over, they don't speak towards anything about physical aptitude, just physical perception. This would be like saying there was no way North Vietnam could have constructed and repaired the Ho Chi Minh trail or fight effectively throughout the Vietnam war because there average body size was much less than Americans or French. Their size or appearance don't exactly speak to their physical aptitude and ability for physical labor or combat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Academic language aside, it translates to ''beta males tend to be left wing''. That's hardly surprising anyway. Women pick by status. If you can improve your status by yourself, then you don't need redistribution.
    "Beta males" aren't even a thing Sociology, it's only a concept in Ethology. And wherever it does exist in Ethology, it is always tied to harem type breeding strategies, like Elephant Seals and . That's not how human relationships work in this day and age.

    But you are so close, man. You are getting to that "Ubermensch/Untermensch" ideology. C'mon, man, Fascism is waiting for you. It is offering everything you want. What's putting you off, brand association? Forget that, popular opinion doesn't change if an ideology is correct or not. Fascist could very well be on to something
    Last edited by The spartan; June 14, 2019 at 06:23 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  6. #106

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Who said anything about complaining? People are allowed to complain whenever. That isn't what you are advocating. You are calling for violent uprising, overthrow, and targeting of political opponents. Based on "violence" that you just admitted doesn't currently exit. You think it is going to exist, based on your personal understanding of concepts you don't study, much in the same way Nazis thought that the Jews were gearing up to destroy them with international conspiracies. You are arguing for preemptive, violent action on based on topics you will only view through the most partisan lens.
    There are endless historical precedents of what extremists of your side do once in complete control. They are in power in many institutions in the West, both government and private and guess what? They are repeating the same pattern as the past. I only want my side to be ready for that. I'm not really advocating any violence. Political confrontantion in the US are actually often started by Antifa.
    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Except Lenin and Bolsheviks were actually committing legislation and State sanctioned violence against the Kulaks. Things you admitted you can't demonstrate the Left in the United States have done. The Kulaks can show you on paper how they were being hurt by the Bolsheviks, you have no such analogy here. You are basically saying you are justified in committing/advocating for political violence whenever you personally feel threatened, regardless if you can demonstrate you are.

    You are really squirming around the question. We already know what Fascism is, not everyone is a Fascist. The principles:
    1) Ultra Nationalism; I am going to assume you concede that Leftists aren't ultra nationalists
    2) Unilateral Authoritarian action; you want that wall built regardless of what Congress says, correct?
    3) An Autarky where you don't have to rely on global trade
    4) State Ethnic policy and motivations (unite the ethnic German people and so forth)

    You like this stuff, right? You seem to argue for it constantly. They even hate Lefties, just like you.
    Since when I'm advocating any of that? Not even my girlfriend is from my ethnic group.


    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    No, I am accusing a media rep for trying to sexify the findings of a study. Don't forget:

    More over, they don't speak towards anything about physical aptitude, just physical perception. This would be like saying there was no way North Vietnam could have constructed and repaired the Ho Chi Minh trail or fight effectively throughout the Vietnam war because there average body size was much less than Americans or French. Their size or appearance don't exactly speak to their physical aptitude and ability for physical labor or combat.

    "Beta males" aren't even a thing Sociology, it's only a concept in Ethology. And wherever it does exist in Ethology, it is always tied to harem type breeding strategies, like Elephant Seals and . That's not how human relationships work in this day and age.

    But you are so close, man. You are getting to that "Ubermensch/Untermensch" ideology. C'mon, man, Fascism is waiting for you. It is offering everything you want. What's putting you off, brand association? Forget that, popular opinion doesn't change if an ideology is correct or not. Fascist could very well be on to something
    Boring.

  7. #107

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

    I've got a complaint, relevant along the same lines as the situation in San Francisco.

    This is a documentary by a local Seattle TV station. A hyperbolic title for an hour long documentary, still the situation is bad. Six minutes in you'll get a sense of it, 15-20 minutes in you'll have a good idea of the overall situation, and what the problems are:

    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  8. #108

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

    Min: 32-33 is the future of every single urban conglomerate so long that White Liberals are in power. You can see it in other places as well, Paris is like that, Milan is starting to have the same issues.

  9. #109

    Default The Great LIBERAL LIE of the ''Gender Pay Gap''

    Alright, we get a chance to discuss another byproduct of the nonsense produced by the academic fields known as Grievance Studies, completely fraudolent disciplines, combination of Neo-Marxism and post-modernism, where the conclusion of the study is decided a priori, straight white men are bad.

    In this case, it's ''the patriarchy'' allegedly preventing women's career advancement. You've heard it plenty ''women make 80 cent per one dollar that men make''. It's on most LYING LIBERAL MEDIA on regular basis. Eg, Vox goes as far as claiming it's ''49''.

    It is not.

    This is a nice 7 minute video that tells you everything you need to know. Note that both people in the video are actors.


    tl;dw:
    -Liberal claim: women are paid less for than same work than men.
    False: it's illegal since the 60s or 70s depending on whether you are in the US or UK.
    -Liberal claim: women are paid (insert percentage) of what men earn for the same job.
    False: reality is that women make on average OVER THE COURSE OF THEIR LIFETIME less than men, which is obviously not the same. The reasons include: type of work, company, level, part time vs full time, relocation, willingness to travel, overtime, parental leave.
    Eg: by taking into account level, company and function, the ''gap'' already shrinks to single digits, respectively 0.8%, 2.7% and 3% in the UK, France and Germany respectively. That's just 3 variables out of a long list.
    https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...-the-same-work
    Once you include overtime, part time etc. and the remaining variables, it goes down to zero.
    Truth: men are overrepresented in higher positions.
    Why? That's because those require 20 years to get, and 20 years ago men were also overrepresented in the work force. This is particularly true for instance for CEOs, whose average age is 54, meaning people who started working 30 years ago at least, often when there was no paternity leave.


    Yet if you are a liberal politician and don't talk about ''the gender gap'', your electorate shuns you.
    Eg, one of the LIBERAL RETARDS running for the Democratic primaries, Kamala Harris:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/u...r-pay-gap.html

    But also one of the most incompetent British Prime Ministers ever, calling it ''burning injustice''.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...er-theresa-may

    So, why are the liberal media, the academia and the politicians intentionally misrepresenting data to claim there's an issue when there's not? Well, you know my answer in that case: They are ing evil, they are blinded by hatred and want to destroy society to rebuild a communist paradise. No need to dwell on that too much.

    Nonetheless, if anyone has any alternative explanation, I'd like to hear that. More sources disproving this bs also welcome. Or does any liberal on this site want to defend this rubbish? Feel free.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; June 15, 2019 at 02:50 PM.

  10. #110
    Muizer's Avatar member 3519
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    8,782

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

    Ouch, didn't watch till the end, did you?
    "Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -

  11. #111

    Default Re: The Great LIBERAL LIE of the ''Gender Pay Gap''

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    So, why are... politicians intentionally misrepresenting data to claim there's an issue when there's not?
    I'll take a stab at that one:

    "People will do anything for those who encourage their dreams, justify their failures, allay their fears, confirm their suspicions and help them throw rocks at their enemies."

    ~Blair Warren, The One Sentence Persuasion Course
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #112

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

    You mean the counselling program?

    This was up 4 days ago, but got deleted as soon as patriotic media picked it up:



    This is the website:
    https://racebaitr.com/about/

    ''Blackness, queerness, feminism'' Rarely enough this are not white liberals but mostly black.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; June 15, 2019 at 04:32 PM.

  13. #113

    Default Re: The Great LIBERAL LIE of the ''Gender Pay Gap''

    Well that's going to be hard to top.

  14. #114

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    There are endless historical precedents of what extremists of your side do once in complete control. They are in power in many institutions in the West, both government and private and guess what? They are repeating the same pattern as the past. I only want my side to be ready for that. I'm not really advocating any violence.
    You have said Trump should declare Americans enemies of the State (without them having attacked the State) because you disagree with them politically. BS, you aren't advocating violence, you just want it to be State sanctioned violence. I.E. Oppression. Though, given your rather intense rhetoric and frequent reedits to get rid of your impulsive vitriolic insults (Liberal retards), this is undoubtedly you being "on good behavior". If they State let you get away with it, I think you would violently target non-binary individuals, hipsters, or anyone else that would trigger your anger at "libtards". I have no idea what you are talking about with historical precedents; the US has never been at risk of becoming extremely left-wing authoritarian. We have never been close to the Soviet Union or China in terms of policy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Political confrontantion in the US are actually often started by Antifa.
    Nope. Let's see what happened this year: looks like a shooting at a synagogue by a guy that believed in White Genocide Theory on the 27th of April. Don't know how Antifa started that one. An arsonist tried to start a fire in a Mosque on March 24th but it was fortunately put out with only minor damage and no injuries. The arsonist was nice enough to graffiti a reference to the Christchurch mosque shooter before he left. But hey, I bet it was Antifa.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Since when I'm advocating any of that? Not even my girlfriend is from my ethnic group.
    So? Ethnic based policy can be determined by specific ethnicity people want to exclude. Have you never appealed to keeping certain ethnic groups out of regions to preserve a more unified ethnicity? I am pretty sure you have. The SS had volunteer divisions from all around Europe that were not ethnically German, they were just willing to fight the Jewish run Bolsheviks. But that is just one piece of the whole package; you seem to be incredibly nationalistic and disapproving of international communities, you like anti-democratic authoritative action by strong men, prefer a closed self-sufficient economy. I don't see the issue here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Boring.
    That's the cutest "I give up" I have ever read. I only semi joking here, though. I much prefer engaging with out-and-out Fascists that people who are likely fascist and just dance around the label because of the bad branding associated with it. The ideology did not die off with the Nazi party, plenty of people still value the same principles the Nazis did. It isn't as popular with governments anymore as closed economies and hyper nationalism run counter to the larger Globalization of the world economy, but people still pine for the purpose and motivation Fascism can give them. It is by no means limited to "white people" either, Japan was incredibly Fascist during the War and places in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have had issues with Ethnic based, hyper nationalistic policies.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  15. #115

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    You have said Trump should declare Americans enemies of the State (without them having attacked the State) because you disagree with them politically. BS, you aren't advocating violence, you just want it to be State sanctioned violence. I.E. Oppression. Though, given your rather intense rhetoric and frequent reedits to get rid of your impulsive vitriolic insults (Liberal retards), this is undoubtedly you being "on good behavior". If they State let you get away with it, I think you would violently target non-binary individuals, hipsters, or anyone else that would trigger your anger at "libtards". I have no idea what you are talking about with historical precedents; the US has never been at risk of becoming extremely left-wing authoritarian. We have never been close to the Soviet Union or China in terms of policy.
    The US has at least 3 areas that are dominated by extreme leftists, media, academia and tech. It's not even a risk anymore. It's a fact.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/char...n-2014-11?IR=T


    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Nope. Let's see what happened this year: looks like a shooting at a synagogue by a guy that believed in White Genocide Theory on the 27th of April. Don't know how Antifa started that one. An arsonist tried to start a fire in a Mosque on March 24th but it was fortunately put out with only minor damage and no injuries. The arsonist was nice enough to graffiti a reference to the Christchurch mosque shooter before he left. But hey, I bet it was Antifa.
    The FBI says that Antifa are the most common instigators of violence.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...nce-fbi-242235
    As for white nationalism, both Kaufmann (Whiteshift) and Haidt (Coddling of the American Mind) post plenty of evidence that its rise is consequence of leftwing campus activism and white bashing rethoric.


    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    So? Ethnic based policy can be determined by specific ethnicity people want to exclude. Have you never appealed to keeping certain ethnic groups out of regions to preserve a more unified ethnicity? I am pretty sure you have. The SS had volunteer divisions from all around Europe that were not ethnically German, they were just willing to fight the Jewish run Bolsheviks. But that is just one piece of the whole package; you seem to be incredibly nationalistic and disapproving of international communities, you like anti-democratic authoritative action by strong men, prefer a closed self-sufficient economy. I don't see the issue here.
    Are you seriously denying the right of self-determination and self-preservation of ethnic groups? Seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    That's the cutest "I give up" I have ever read. I only semi joking here, though. I much prefer engaging with out-and-out Fascists that people who are likely fascist and just dance around the label because of the bad branding associated with it. The ideology did not die off with the Nazi party, plenty of people still value the same principles the Nazis did. It isn't as popular with governments anymore as closed economies and hyper nationalism run counter to the larger Globalization of the world economy, but people still pine for the purpose and motivation Fascism can give them. It is by no means limited to "white people" either, Japan was incredibly Fascist during the War and places in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America have had issues with Ethnic based, hyper nationalistic policies.
    Actually, the above mentioned denial of the right of self-preservation reinvigorated my interest. The rants about blah blah white nationalism are retarded. And boring. But when you deny that anyone guilty of whiteness is allowed to preserve their ethnic group, well then it becomes interesting. So, let me be clear: according to you, if ''whites'' want to preserve themselves, they are Nazis?

  16. #116

    Default Re: Discussion and Debate Community Thread

    I honestly wonder: in the unlikely event that Trump goes to war against Russia, will we see liberal retards still screeching ''collusion collusion''?

  17. #117

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The US has at least 3 areas that are dominated by extreme leftists, media, academia and tech. It's not even a risk anymore. It's a fact.
    Oh good, so you have plenty of examples of legislation from these areas that horribly oppress white males? Are they second class citizens there, yet?


    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The FBI says that Antifa are the most common instigators of violence.
    Where did the FBI say that? I don't see that in the article.

    Not that that matters as I dismissed the idea of left wing or antifa violence, you

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    As for white nationalism, both Kaufmann (Whiteshift) and Haidt (Coddling of the American Mind) post plenty of evidence that its rise is consequence of leftwing campus activism and white bashing rethoric.
    What evidence of what claims? You could totally be misrepresenting these professors claims, I wouldn't put it past you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Are you seriously denying the right of self-determination and self-preservation of ethnic groups? Seriously?
    What? Ethnic based policy has been on the decline for centuries because of how ridiculous and disadvantageous to society they are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Actually, the above mentioned denial of the right of self-preservation reinvigorated my interest. The rants about blah blah white nationalism are retarded. And boring. But when you deny that anyone guilty of whiteness is allowed to preserve their ethnic group, well then it becomes interesting. So, let me be clear: according to you, if ''whites'' want to preserve themselves, they are Nazis?
    If someone's understanding of humans is primarily divided among ethnic groups, then they are already on track for having a Fascist-like ideology. For example: me, as a white guy, don't give a about "whiteness". I don't have really any amount of kindred feeling with someone just because they are "white". What "whiteness" is also seems to change too much to be useful, as far as any ethnic based ideology is ever useful. You are Italian, right? Assuming you are ethnically Italian as well, you would not have been considered "white" in the US 100 years. Today, Italians often are counted as "white". Much like how North Africans have been added to "white" on the US census forms relatively recently.

    The only time I can ever see ethnic based ideology or policy is ever actually helpful is when you are part of an ethnic group being targeted in a genocide; Jews in WW2, Tutsi in the Rwandan civil war, and so on. In the US, some people have began putting forth the idea that Miscegenation in a nation is equivalent to genocide, but that is absolute insanity. The idea that specific ethnic groups "deserve" to have domain of a region is really toxic. Nations have domain over territory, we don't typically like the idea of a specific ethnic heritages (really, a bloodline) being the ones to wield political power.

    This is the issue Israel is having with the territory they occupy now: they have a lot of Arabs in this territory they would like to annex, but they would officially put the Arab families as subjects of Israel. Which would make them citizens. Which would allow them to vote. Israel doesn't really have a way to annex the territory and just deny citizenship to the Arabs because the international community would flip out on them, so they are stuck leaving them as territories and shipping in ethnic Jews to cement the claims to the land.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  18. #118

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

    Let's see what I get here:

    1) You deny that conservatives are discriminated against by tech, media and academia.
    That alone derails any possibility of intellectually honest discussion.
    2) You willingfully ignore the fact that the FBI has labeled Antifa and I quote ''primary instigators of violence'' at public demonstrations as per source.
    Strike 2
    3)'' Ethnic based policy is ridiculous and disadvantegous and in decline''. What? Your side's diversity policies are what exactly if not ''ethnic based policy''? And you know what? They are actually really bad for society. Because ethnic diversity is bad for social cohesion, it destroys it. What's also funny is that research is obviously done always by your side, and the results are pretty clear. Diversity is negatively correlated with social cohesion. The more you increase it, the more it lowers trust, solidarity etc.
    There's so much overwhelming evidence that's not even up to debate anymore. The debate is normally how to prevent the precious diverse society from imploding.
    https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...cial-cohesion/
    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/...munities/7614/
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/juaf.12015
    https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-...#axzz24HMFQrIc
    https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-...3/1211/2332107
    https://www.forskning.se/2017/05/18/...ark-i-sverige/
    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...urnalCode=psxa
    So, please, tell me, what exactly is ridiculous?

    I see two ridiculous things: -your denial that ''whites'' are allowed to preserve their ethnic identity and - your advocacy for ethnic policies that are actually very bad for society. This isn't a retarded liberal university where you get an A+ for screeching ''white people are inherenctly guilty of all crimes, diversity is our strength''. In the real world, people are tribal, they stick to their own kind and diversity is a weakness. Is that clear enough?
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; June 15, 2019 at 06:01 PM.

  19. #119

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

    So is this where you are taking the conversation? You are just going to ignore the words I say and set up a strawman version of me to punch? Ok. I mean, you have been intellectual dishonest on frequent occasions (like saying Mueller's report clearing Trump of Obstruction of Justice) so I guess that derailed any possibility for intellectual discourse before we even started. I have no idea what red herring FBI quote you've never shown about antifa you want to use to excuse Right Wing violence, presumably because you approve. You haven't shown any legislation from Liberals that is causing systemic oppression of White people here, they are doing fine relative to the rest of the population in most fields. I don't think "whites" are actually a thing, a lot of ethnic makeup is arbitrarily defined rather than concrete (i.e. Italians and North Africans now being considered "White"), let alone whatever "preserving their ethnic identity" means. They can already celebrate their own cultural music, recreation, or other media. Liberals aren't preventing football or baseball games from happening. How is White culture being taken away or suppressed by Liberals? Wtf is "White culture" anyways? Does that include or exclude Italians?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #120
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,011

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

    I see two ridiculous things: -your denial that ''whites'' are allowed to preserve their ethnic identity
    Umm sorry there basil 5 years in SE Idaho have proved to me one thing I have no ethnic identity with the lilly whites of Idaho just because I have the same skin color and passport*. Not with the LDS and not the uneducated biased old boy locals who often admit they have never actually left the state or flown on a plane and are so intellectually incurious its painful to try and talk with them. Nope sorry the sooner their culture gets replaced I'm happy. I mean I would cool with any asylum seekers if means I get a decent restaurant serving good central American food. I'd sponsor and fund a Syrian refugee if I had the money if they could run a Falafe food cart. Oh god oh god no brown people making real food instead of just fast food...

    * again most don't because this place rises to Lovecraft levels of inbreeding and insularity so maybe just the same technical citizenship
    Last edited by conon394; June 15, 2019 at 09:43 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •