Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "ContraPoints"
channel.
-
105
-
74
-
53
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
45
-
38
-
36
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
The identities of those involved in the trial were not public knowledge, Lennon broadcast them to the world. The Jury are permitted to know the details of a case (shocking, I know). You cannot win this argument. These are black-and-white facts.
Other media outlets were waiting until after the trial was over before releasing the information, that is allowed because you cannot retroactively affect the case once it is over. No other outlets leaked names beforehand, as they were not public knowledge. You are lying again.
I still don't know the identities of anybody involved with the case, it was not reported until after the case was over, in accordance with the law. So you are factually incorrect again.
Regardless, the alternative is letting a criminal break the law with impunity, do you think that's how a country with laws should operate? Just let famous people get away with things because they have influence?
People are hardly suppressed by "pc culture" (A term you cannot define). If we were, I wouldn't have to endure constant whining about brown people existing in the media and from politicians.
Only one media outlet claimed Hillary would win with 95% confidence, and provided they did the maths, they get to say whatever they like about her chances. But that has nothing to do with PC culture.
The Brexit vote was extremely close, it's not odd that people would assume either side was going to win. Regardless, the media is almost wholly owned by right-wing interests. I can only think of perhaps one or two newspapers that print anything left-of-centre. Don't pretend you're the one not being represented.
I have already corrected you on the overton window, there has not been a left-wing government in 40 years. Stop being wrong.
You seem to think that because you get called a racist a lot, it cannot possibly be true. But guess what it looks like when you ignore all the data that indicates immigration is positive? Yeah exactly.
People do not "hide their true feelings" about immigration. Anti-immigrant rhetoric is plastered over every single tabloid, every single week. Over 33% of Question Time episodes feature UKIP members, despite the fact that they haven't won a single seat. The Tories are even deporting people seemingly at random. Stop lying, anti-immigrant rhetoric is mainstream and always has been. Nobody is hiding anything. Stop lying.
There is nothing inherently left or right wing about LGBT, marriage or human rights.
Bernie Sanders is maybe the only elected socialist in US history, stop panicking.#
You cannot point to things like welfare or immigration and say that any nation with these two things is leftist, that is totally asinine. What next, any nation with an army is left-wing, simply because it's state funded? Even right-wing parties agree that state healthcare is better than simply letting the population die horribly from preventable diseases.
The irony here is that you keep whining about being called racist, and yet you think it's inherently left-wing to allow foreigners into your country. But that's something you could only believe if you WERE a racist. Pure conservatism would allow people the freedom to move as they pleased, after all, that is the basis of commerce. But that cannot be what you are, so what are you? Exactly. Stop lying.
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Your counter seems to be "any problem can be blamed on the state, we're clearly not capitalist enough", and it's really not the clever get-out you think it is. What you just did is essentially make the "REAL communism has never been tried!" argument, but for capitalism. Yeah cool, your 'real' definition is a paradox and cannot exist, therefore you can freely hide from any criticism by pretending it doesn't apply to you. But that's utterly transparent, nobody is fooled here.
In regards to this "temporary efficiency", explain why the USA cannot get high-quality internet provision after decades? You'd think the lazy, inefficient and expensive ISP's would be pushed aside by keener, more competitive companies, but the reality is that they are ALL lazy, inefficient and expensive. It's more profitable for them to be so. Going to blame this on the state again?
Healthcare is literally the right to exist, the idea that human beings have an inherent dignity and their lives are worth protecting. If you're not willing to admit that much, then you have lost this argument, and your humanity. There is no way for you to argue your point without agreeing that this basic fact has some weight to it.
As for education, it is no longer possible to have even a simple job without one. Your ideal society could not function without the provision of education. There would have to be some way of making the working class suitable to do their jobs. They wouldn't be able to pay for it themselves, and businesses would have to leave for other countries.
This is now the third time I have corrected you on the state of the NHS, people are only dying because of capitalists that want to rid the nation of socialised healthcare.
Listen to yourself, "no motivation to improve"? Huh? You realise that companies literally pay people to improve organisations, right? This is true in both public and private sectors. How is getting paid NOT a motivation?
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Nothing is perfect or can be implemented correctly. You're talking about some theoretical, ideal version of capitalism, and you're the ONLY one using this definition. The rest of us are out here using the real definition, the one that corresponds to something that exists.
Also pretty weird that you'd argue against the natural progression away from capitalism by saying "It hasn't already happened yet so its bad" Like...what?
Also resorting to flat-out lies..is a concession. You're admitting that you have nothing here. "Immense benefits to everyone involved", like the people starving to death because they cannot afford to live in a society where extortion is the norm? Where most people in poverty have jobs and SHOULD be able to afford to live? What IS their benefit?
Speaking of monopolies, you're aware that free-trade societies move towards monopolies regardless if governments get involved or not right? Did Microsoft achieve dominance with state assistance? No, they just bought the competition. Notice how 50 years ago there were so many more companies than there are now? Half a dozen boardrooms now own 100% of the media produced in your country. Monopolies aren't great, but capitalism creates them too.
How come paying taxes is violence, yet jacking up the prices to cull the poor isn't? They're both legal, they both happen...so why is only the one you don't like violence?
As for the NHS, no you really don't know what I'm on about. I made that clear at the start. Incase you didn't know, the ruling party do not believe in socialised healthcare. So when put in charge of it, they proceeded to sell off and dismantle the institution, all while making themselves significant amounts of money in the process. And then you come along and say "oh it's because socialised medicine is bad", despite the frequent rebuttals I offered.
13
-
If you think Hong Kong and early USA are "good" examples, there is a high probability you are a sociopath. In Hong Kong TODAY, people are sleeping in tiny cages because they cannot afford rent. The early days of the USA is maybe the worst example you could have chosen, with absolutely zero rights for workers, they were overworked, underpaid and lived lives of absolute misery. Sure there was profit, but like I said if that's your measure than you might simply not have the mental faculties to understand what I'm talking about.
What you're talking about IS impossible to achieve. Want to know what happened to the early USA? The state evolved and got bigger. You're basically telling tadpoles "No guys, just stay as you are! There's millions of tadpoles in the world after all". That's why this IS capitalism, this is where that path leads. This isn't a flaw of implementation, this is necessarily the result of little to no state control, and freedom of enterprise. There are no other ways this could have ended up.
If you're going to deny that Microsoft was a monopoly, then I'm just going to ignore that paragraph. It's not up for debate. Their market share was one of the highest ever, the entire industry was geared to providing for one company.
In regard to taxes, it's fair to say that use of coercion is violence. However your attempt at a counterargument is to simply deny that violence you're ok with is happening. But you know that it is happening, you simply don't care. My sociopath theory is actually looking like it could be the truth. Your response to the fact that people are having to choose between rent and medical care is "Oh, but companies aren't trying to kill you! They're just out to make money!" Like..you think that's a justification? People are dying in the streets because of this.
At this point you need to stop contradicting me concerning the whys and hows of a country you know nothing about, a health organisation you have done zero reading on run by a government you haven't even heard of. You're clearly not interested in actual facts, and I am certainly not interested in your hypotheticals.
13
-
13
-
12
-
Oh, you actually wanted to know about my level of wealth and standard of living? It's not just a rhetorical question? Why? If I said I was actually dirt poor, would that alone change your mind? Of course not, you already knew poor people exist. And if I said I was middle-class, would you take that as some kind of point scored on your behalf? By the sounds of it yes, you seem to actually believe that my being comfortable means that it doesn't matter that millions of people in my country are not. And that's so absolutely bizarre I don't think it deserves a serious answer. So we won't be distracted by that red herring.
"Poverty will always exist" Does that justify making it worse? Just because a few thousand people are poor, does that make it okay to let 300000 become poor? No, you're not even making an argument here. I'm telling you that poverty is getting worse and your response is "poor people exist, yes". You realise how close that is to a concession, yeah?
I actually haven't advocated murder or theft at all, you made that up. You just decided to tell a lie, as if I wouldn't notice. Am I really going to get a moral lecture from a liar? Because I don't really feel like listening.
You're going on and on about "true capitalism", as if it could ever be brought about. Those 'cronies' you talk about don't want it to exist, and they can pay lots of money to make sure it never exists. So what are you gonna do? Kill them?
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
If coercion exists in a capitalistic society, then it is necessarily part of the capitalistic system. It's not like we're able to opt out.
And I don't think you understand, the government is intentionally sabotaging the NHS. It was previously of a very high quality and had been for decades. You might argue that if healthcare was always private they wouldn't be able to, and you'd be correct, but by the same token it's capitalism that incentivises this campaign in the first place.
You're still dead wrong about private over public by the way, the old social housing schemes in the UK were far superior to any private equivilent you'll find today for similar money, and I've already provided other examples. Depending on what sector you work in, you would not believe some of the bizarre and inefficient mechanisms employed by private companies. You might ask "Well, why would a private company stand to lose profit like that?" and the answer is the same for public organisations: People simply not caring, or getting paid anyway. Industries I've worked in used to be infamously inefficient, because the profit margins were wide enough that nobody thought it was worth taking care of.
11
-
11
-
11
-
By resorting to lying, you might as well just type "Yeah you're right sorry man", because that's all I can interpret from this delusional post.
Lennon was not reporting on things that were public knowledge. The identities of the people going into that trial were secret for a reason. They did not check this prior to filming, nor could they reasonably guarantee that they could keep it that way. You are lying.
This is not a left-leaning country, and it never has been. You cannot blame the left alone for PC culture. You cannot even demonstrate that it's as bad as you say it is. Notice how all the whinging about PC culture is coming from far-right publications? What, you think that's a coincidence? They're liars.
"They" didn't take immigration too far. But some newspapers said that they did. Not our fault you're stupid enough to have believed them.
But if the masses wanted to stop immigration, why didn't they vote for parties that would stop immigration? This is a democracy, why do your needs hijack the needs of the majority? Vote BNP if you care so much about it. Until then, it's not your call to make.
If you think a non-existent "left" is to blame for extremism, you're wrong. Nobody wakes up and says "Wow, those people are pretty left-wing, guess I better join a neo-nazi gang!". That's ridiculous.
You're lying again, left-wing politicians all over denounce riots, violence and intimidation. You're making this up, you are a liar.
You keep banging on about the failure of the left, how old are you? There's hasn't been a left in decades. You've never seen the left in action. This, ALL of this, is the product of the right-wing.
You demand we give conspiracy theorists and people who call for genocide some kind of platform, as if there's some kind of compromise that can be made here. There isn't, that's like asking me to choose a hand to be amputated. The answer is "Neither".
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
IQ cannot be measured. Want to know how I know? Because I know what the Q stands for.
This is irrelevant though, the fact remains that inequality would still exist even if there were no trait differences, because capitalism requires them to exist.
Poverty still existed in places where the market was free, there's absolutely nothing preventing anybody from going through the same motions we have in today's capitalist societies. If a few particuarly skilled people get rich and purchase the means of production of something everybody needs, and puts the prices up because they can, everybody else gets poorer.
By the way, suggesting that coercion is consent is completely disgusting, and you do not get to talk to me about morality because of this.
(Here's an edit for a question I missed)
For the deaths attributed to capitalism, see events like the opium wars, the exploitation of newly-discovered countries for profit, going to war against Iran four times just to sell oil, the genocide and removal of native populations, and we might as well throw climate change in there too while we're at it.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
-Correct, you didn't say shut up. I'm paraphrasing, but you clearly believe that people shouldn't be saying the things Contra is saying. So, yeah. Nice one, you pointed out that my quote was not a real quote. As if that was somehow in question? Hey, here's an idea, how about you stop embarrassing yourself with bizarre comparisons, and I'll quit pointing them out?
Nothing I said implies a "for us or against us" mentality, you made that up. Congrats, most of your post is attacking a position I never took. Did I say deranged? Institutionalised might be a better word.
"No invention required", no, you definitely made up an anecdote where you compared Contra to somebody that ignores the plight of the needy, despite having no evidence to support that this is a fair character judgement. The fact that wounded soldiers overcome their losses is so completely seperate to the topic at hand, it's legitimately concerning that you're even coming back to double down on it. Like...if what you just wrote seems reasonable in your head, you have serious issues. Get help.
Seriously, your response to "that's not a fair call to make" is "NooOooo you idiot liberal, I've REALLY met vets that improved themselves!!"? Are you drinking right now?
10
-
10
-
Pretty weird how you brag about having a 'coherent world view' when you contradict yourself. You oppose all violence and coercion, yet you're happy to have laws and jails and mental asylums? What are laws, if not simply "things you want"?
Words like overworked and underpaid are not arbitrary, they can be objective.
The employees at Amazon who reguarly collapse at work are being overworked, you have no rebuttal for that claim.
People the world over are working as much as they can, yet they still can't make rent. That's being underpaid. This is objective, you have no comeback for this. You can bleat "find another job" like it's some kind of mantra to protect you from reality, but it rings hollow. Even you understand why you're wrong, you're just pretending. And it's obvious. When the alternative is death, it's not a free choice. It is coercion. You have failed to even attempt to argue against this point.
Calling the USA at any point in history "socialist" is a lie, you know you're lying so I don't need to bother writing a rebuttal for that.
Denying Microsoft had a monopoly is a sign you've never actually looked up what the word "monopoly" means, consider at least researching the next subject you want to embarrass yourself about.
Interesting you'd make an anology about 100 people in the jungle, because what capitalism has brought is: One person that owns all the trees, while the others have no homes because they can't own any trees. Sure, that one guy might have wormed his way into his position by consensus, but that doesn't mean the other 99 aren't dying of exposure. It doesn't mean they were not tricked. You seem to think that because that one guy never personally killed anybody, everybody else should die before he loses so much as a twig. Unsustainable, indefensible. Fucking weird too, considering you're one of the 99 dying guys. Like, you're batting for a team that will never sign you. Why?
The last paragraph really is the end, the sad thing is that I've hardly done any actual arguing here, you're the one discrediting yourself. You clearly have never attempted to enter a career, and you have no sympathy for those that do. You're a child with little or no work experience, and so I think you're just done, dude. You're trying to lecture adults about something you've never seen. Like...stop.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
I mean, I was trying to be nice by dropping a hint about the 'Q' in 'IQ', but it looks like I'll have to be explicit:
The stands for Quotient. It's not a measurment of anything, by definition. It's logically impossible.
Capitalism can pull people out of poverty, yes, but it also maintains poverty and plunges people into poverty.
You think I'm whining about relative inequality, but I'm actually complaining that people who have fulltime jobs cannot afford a home, food and fuel all at once. And these people are growing in number.
Like, what more are you going to ask of them? They are following all the rules, working hard, sometimes too hard, and they cannot afford to live.
While capitalism does not necessarily require coercion, you cannot deny that exploitation and coercion go hand-in-hand with capitalism. I can't think of a single contract I was 100% happy to sign, but I signed them all because the alternative would be to have no electricity, no job, no education and nowhere to live. The alternative is death.
>private businesses cannot go to war
What do you think PMC stands for?
9
-
Citing Peterson is essentially a concession, so we'll drop that for now. Suffice it to say you're not equpped for that discussion. And as I said above it is irrelevant to the point that you have conveniently stopped talking about.
You keep blaming poor people for being poor, why is that? They're not the ones who decide how much they should earn. You keep trying to suggest that they're violent, or addicts, or unable to make smart descisions about where to spend their money. Anything except the actual cause. Weird how you also blame government intervention, but you just can't help yourself from characterising those in poverty as necessarily bad people. You're revealing more about your true beliefs than you realise. Maybe you don't even know these are your beliefs yet.
'Poverty is relative' is irrelevant, a little less filler please.
Not only does UK welfare fail to provide enough money for people, the UK welfare system is designed to punish the poor and make it difficult to stay in receipt of their payments. The UK government has already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on fighting legal battles against people who had every right to claim welfare, yet were denied it for spurious or false reasons. I bring this up because it is the pro-capitalists who are responsible for this. People who claim to believe that capitalism will uplift the poor. Well, we can see it getting worse, not better.
Claiming capitalists all want peace and consent is a bold lie, especially since the system necessarily eliminates the least profitable means of production. Being moral is less profitable, so a company that pushes the boundries makes more money. Given enough time, it becomes the new standard practice. You can't just say "Well that's not capitalism", any more than you can say that a fruit is not part of a tree.
Again you blame the victims of exploitation for being exploited. Interesting that you decry people for being selfish and self-centred for complaining about contracts, but what are they actually complaining about? That's right, contracts that were written by selfish, self-centred bosses. You cannot have this both ways. Either accept that exploitation is built into the system, or take back what you said about those who point it out.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I'm sorry, but there are no alternate ways to interpret what you are telling me.
You don't want side-switchers to simply accept the easiest and most publicly acceptable parts of your ideaology, you want them to be on your level. You want them to jump to the top of the ladder where you are.
But once upon a time, you too were on the bottom rung of the ladder, and you climbed up. That is how it always is, and how it has to be. So when you say "I don't want 'em". You're saying that the process you personally used is no longer acceptable, and that people on that route should not be welcomed.
Ironically you're only going to hurt people like you with this strategy, and while you're free to martyr yourself however you like, consider how much safer other women would be if even the slightest part of your side became mainstream. It might not be all the women, but are you honestly going to turn down what is potentially life-saving, just because it won't save 100% of lives? Do you apply this maxim to medicines and surgery too?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Interesting argument - so trans teens don't have the maturity to commit to decisions with permanent consequences...so what if a trans teen decides to NOT transition? Isn't that equally permanent?
Come to think of it, what about cis teens who want the same type of healthcare? Young cis men get mascectomies sometimes - should that practice end? Interested to hear what your opinion on that is.
Additionally, some points you brought up are incorrect:
It's been a long time since Rowling was 'benign' or 'factual'. The terf position is incorrect from a scientific perspective - read some advanced biology for details. Also, Rowling has gone way off the deep end, and has publicly claimed we cannot assume trans people to be innocent before guilty. (This is one of the less offensive things she's said)
" If you weren't shameless hypocrites, you'd probably be attacking Islam for its views on 'LGBTQ' issues. For now, though, you have a cease-fire agreement, because you see Muslims as another victimized minority, shivering beneath the same Intersectionalist umbrella"
Interesting you'd choose to frame it this way while a majority-muslim population are facing genocide. Should we NOT see them as victims?
Regardless: Islam isn't a person. Who are we meant to 'attack' exactly? The inventors of Islam are long dead. There are also LGBTQ Muslims, don't they deserve support?
Not as interested in hearing what you have to say on those corrections - these aren't really 'opinions' - you're just wrong.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Howto2015 "From what I understand, most people simply believe that if you feel you're trans, you should go through the proper counseling to make sure this is what's best for you"
Well if this is true, then most people are wrong. How would you feel if you needed to go to counselling to 'prove' you are what you know you are?
"A lot of people don't want to have to wait though, and jjst want to be able to take on this new identity"
The GIC waiting times are literally years long, and they're getting longer. Not only that, but they actually expect you to socially transition before you 'qualify' for any kind of surgery.
"Trans women deserve rights, and to be treated equally, but we need to make sure biological women are still protected too."
Here's the thing about that:
If you oppose self-ID, then you necessarily believe that trans men should be using women's spaces.
So if you're against self-ID, you're arguing for the exact thing you're saying you want to protect 'biological women' from. You're saying that men should be using women's locker rooms etc. Don't you think that's going to make women uncomfortable?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not quite, even if you could wave a magic wand and peacefully depopulate Gaza, that still qualifies as genocide. Shapiro does not believe these people should exist as a nation. He thinks that is to be prevented. What kind of world are we living in when that seems reasonable to you?
You know what conflicts were worse? The Iran-Iraq war, or the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, or the Korean war, or the US invasion of Afganistan (I could go on)
Yet despite how bad these conflicts were, nobody, NOBODY said "hey well maybe if we just fucking exterminate the weaker nation it'll all be over and we can relax yeah?"
Shapiro did though. He said that. Doesn't matter if he was 19 or not. I did some stupid things when I was 19, but arguing for genocide was never one of them. And it's not like he's matured since then, he still hates arabs. He makes that clear. Again, he's not your ally. You can't trust an American conservative to distinguish between ethnicities, don't be so certain he wouldn't hate you too, just because technically you're not arabic.
2
-
I'm paraphasing, but he wrote an article supporting the utter destruction of the state of Palestine. That's what extermination is. That's what he was arguing for. He said it isn't genocide, but he is wrong in this regard. If there was a way you could spin this to mean anything other than depopulation/genocide, you'd have done it by now. Are you going to keep whining "but it's not bad when he says it!" or admit that he called for the removal of an entire nation?
Hatred of people based on ethnicity is evil, regardless of why. Always. No exceptions. Your uncle is also evil. "He'd never act on his hatred" I can believe, but I also believe that he'd have made as little obstruction to Hitler as possible.
There is evidence supporting his racism actually, you just haven't seen it. Interesting how you keep claiming that Shapiro could never have possibly said the things he has said, right before I prove you wrong. Look into some of the batshit things he's written on twitter, his attempt of justifying his beliefs is "arabs like to bomb stuff", which you cannot deny IS racism.
There's a bunch of other reasons to hate him, I could go into it but I daresay you can only handle one thing at a time, perhaps you're not ready to hear that he also hates gay people trans people, or that he's a climate change denier.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm amused you consider this relatively dispassionate argument to be "smug", I guess that says more about you than it does me though.
So you're willing to admit that there was an effort made to maintain segration in housing, but you don't think the same effort would have been made in other aspects of society? Like..the workplace for example? Yeah that's no longer legal, but the fact remains that you just made the "racism is over because we banned it" argument. With a straight face, as far as I can tell.
Second point, the US Sentencing Commission really isn't obligated to devote a page or two to everything you deem relevant. As it stands, the study does infact take into account criminal histories. They just didn't use the term "repeat". You'd know this if you actually read it, but you didn't read it. You hit the find button and searched for 'repeat'. Well, at least you clicked the link, so you've exceeded by expectations in that regard. Grasping at straws? That would be a step up for you, if you think you had a point in the first place.
Heather Heyer could have died from brain injury, blood loss, a heart attack, that doesn't matter. I really don't care about the grisly details. What I care about is that somebody intentionally killed her. Her death would not be considered manslaughter. There was one suspect arrested, and he has been charged with first-degree murder. That's not the same as manslaughter.
Oh what's that? The trial is later on this year? Yeah um, about that..
Fields was initially charged with a lesser crime, but after videos not released to the public were played in court, there was apparently enough evidence to upgrade his charges.
Was there a gun? I guess we'll see. If you're trying to make a getaway though, driving into a crowd seems a little counterproductive. I dunno but if it was me I'd like..use the road or something. And if I hit a bunch of people on accident, I'd probably get out and run, not reverse into the crowd again. I'm just saying it doesn't look like a guy in fear of his life.
Now call me smug if you wish, but I think that if at least three cameras caught the attack, and they STILL think it's murder...safe bet he's guilty my dude. Human liberties? Yah uh, I'm not actually a lawyer or a judge or a police officer. I can judge how I like. Let Fields prove me wrong if he can. (He can't)
This last part is actually kind of funny, I'm not suggesting that Spencer had this guy round for dinner often or anything. I'm saying that they all marched under the same banner. You know, 'friend'. I'll let you off on that one though, maybe you thought I meant it literally.
2
-
Ah, see here's what I'd refer to as a 'personal problem'. I'm confident that my assertions (based on facts) are correct. You think that's smug. Maybe I'm just a little more daring in life.
I mean, you really don't have to look hard to find bigoty. Even if you try to ignore it, you can't. I know this isn't gonna make me look any less smug but..we both know I'm right here.
People do want to stay close to home, yes that's true. But would you like to hear what happens in other countries? Yeah, people move across the city, or another street even. Baltimore is rigid in its segregation, even moving around the corner doesn't seem to be a thing. I've lived in cities and..that's not what normally happens. No really, you can take that one from me.
Hey, I'm glad you conceded! Yeah, sexism is rife in America too. Another topic but might as well say it now.
You're free to withhold judgement until after the trial, that's your call. I'm not waiting that long though, there's no risk to me, it's not like I put money on it.
The crowd that was hit wasn't violent though, I could be wrong but..wasn't this some way apart from the actual tension?
Weird how despite being open to so many people, only far-right lunatics showed up to the rally huh? Weird how they all screamed about jews and carried torches too. You'd think with how reviled fascists are, actual fascist groups would have assumed they should stay away. But no, oddly they felt welcomed. Spencer certainly has had ample oppurtunity to correct any smug assumptions we might have made about that.
Speaking of, as an ethnostatist Spencer is definitely an advocate for violence. We can rule out any peaceful transition as impossible. Violence is the only means to his end, and yet he continues to support it? I guess violence isn't so bad in his eyes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spiritbongtarotdivination5272 If it's not anyone talking about anything, then...that's a massive yikes. That proves you really do not give a shit about the issue at hand, you're just out for blood.
Anybody that you work with could have said anything about, for example, gay people or sex workers. Until you can be sure they didn't, there's going to have to be a question mark over that particular issue for that particular person. Are those issues somehow unimportant? If not, they should be treated the same way.
Would you accept ignorance as a defense? If we just didn't know about things said in the past, is it alright? If not, you're necessarily going to have to accept the ramifications of your demands.
There's also a kind of irony in how frequently you invoke Orwellian concepts, while also expecting everybody to simply accept what you say uncritically. But sure, I'm just groupthinking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First off, employees are actually disincentivised to put in more work for more profit, since it adds exactly nothing to their salary if they put in the extra work. Most people get paid by the hour or are salaried, in other words their pay is fixed (except for overtime). There are jobs that pay people on a "per unit" basis, but these jobs always pay the least amount.
You can argue that an employee who works hard stands to be promoted and get a raise, but this is only true a minority of the time. Making your collegues into your competitors is not remotely incentivising, it creates a toxic work environment.
It's also worth pointing out here that the higher one climbs the ladder, the less scrutiny they are under. The people at the bottom will get fired for breaking a $20 object, while the people near the top can waste tens of thousands of dollars of company money on bullshit and not even get called out. So what usually happens is that the hardest workers are at the very bottom, yet they get paid the least.
Let's talk about "poverty stricken hellholes" for a second though:
The nations currently most wedded to capitalism are the nations where poverty is skyrocketing, where people who HAVE jobs cannot afford to live, because the upper and ruling classes refuse to stop extorting them. It's these "capitalists" that are getting rich, knowing that thousands of people will die for their profit margin. So what was it you were saying about "pretending to care"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The major corrections are in direct response to claims you made, so you're lying right now when you say they have nothing to do with it.
-You're arguing semantics (which is never a good look) and you're getting them wrong. In English, multiples can become singular. Let's not argue over that bullshit though, you know what I meant. Christianity was diverse and varied across Europe.
The fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about is..concerning, to say the least. Suffice it to say I'm no longer interested in your opinion of history, if you're actually ignorant to the countless wars and violence brought about by sectarianism following the reformation of Europe. I am still willing to share what I know, though.
Speaking of which, I can't help but wonder if you learned history from your grandfather's history book. A "nation" of people is not defined by how many towns they have. Perhaps consult the dictionary?
The British did not simply drop their prisoners off on Australia, it was a colony under British rule.
Colonialism did not improve every nation it touched. India went from being one of the major world economies to one of the weakest under British rule. Ireland was lucky to have survived at all.
I never claimed slavery and genocide were western inventions, I only said that these were used to propagate western culture, not its innate superiority.
The British also used their own guns, money and soldiers to attack China, why? Not to stop slavery, but to force China into allowing slaves to be sold. Look up what the Opium wars were. Since I know you won't really do that, I'll explain one important fact: The UK did this after making slavery illegal. Their only problem was that other people were profiting from slavery, not that slavery existed. So they banned slavery and introduced 'indentured servants' (slaves).
The idea that 'the west' invented the concept of law and nobody else figured it out until imperialists forced it upon them is batshit crazy. Civilisations existed all over the world.
Also worth noting that poverty is increasing in Western nations, directly because of capitalism. Not a surprise, considering poverty is a necessary component of capitalist doctrine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are unable to point out any lie I have told, I will stop asking now, and simply conclude that you are conceding I was not lying.
The reason I believe that the mainstream right are pro-genocide is..because they were presented with an ongoing genocide, and instead of standing up for the people being unfairly exterminated, they decided to instead sell weapons and bombs to those doing all the killing. Now those people are dying faster, because conservatives prefer genocide over not-genocide. This is happening, right now. As you read this.
Leftists have never put leftists into deathcamps for being leftists. That has never happened. The context of this little bitch-fit of yours makes it obvious that this was my intended meaning. English is your first language, so you do not have the luxury of being able to accuse me of not clarifying.
No, what you are doing is pretending not to know about how the Nazis opposed all socialist/communist idealology, and how political dissidents were rounded up and slaughtered. You knew that this was what I was referring to, but you're pretending that you didn't. This is because you think that by misinterpreting my words, my point becomes invalid. but its the opposite. You are discrediting yourself by putting off the inevitable.
You seem to be under the impression that making a two claims sequentially is "goalpost shifting". It's not. You stand corrected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, to quickly summarise it: Left-wing men are frequently compared with women and given effeminate or juvenile nicknames, suggesting that their political stance arises from the fact that they are not "real men". A "beta" male refers to the (flawed) concept of Alpha Male, but instead of being strong and masculine, a 'beta' is weak and unconfident. It's an insult/slur.
You definitely have seen people get mad at women for existing and speaking, you linked to an example of it in this video. You may not have recognised it as such though. But consider the following: Two different celebrities/politicians/scientists can both attract widespread criticism for being outspoken on an emotive issue. But if one of those people is a woman, they'll get death threats. Guaranteed.
You say your views are open to change if you see some evidence, perhaps take a look into the men like Elliot Rodger and other guys like him, who became terrorists because they hated women? Consider the statistics on domestic violence and ask yourself how misogyny can possibly be divorced from attacking a partner? It's no longer abstract, we can now predict what will happen, because it's happened before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@reviewtechUSSR1 "race is a feeling"
So what you're saying is that all those Poles, Roma, Jews etc were murdered for just feeling different?
That's actually worse, you just made yourself look worse. I 'feel different', I have my own language, my own culture my own lifestyle that is seperate from the mainstream. Apparently that's all that justifies my execution, ethnicity won't save me.
I don't want fascists to die, I just know that your deaths are often necessary to protect the lives of innocent people. The majority of extremist murders in the USA are now carried out by fascists. There's always a peaceful way out of fascism, but sometimes we need to step in and put one down, just like we do with any ISIS radical.
If you guys just stopped murdering people, that wouldn't be necessary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
But Germans are genetically dissimilar from Irish people, and mixing the two necessarily means that one of them will cease to be, according to your logic. Is that alright with you? Are you okay with your homeland being repopulated with Germans?
See, this is the problem with you white nationalists. You don't give a shit about anybody. You DON'T care about Ireland, you only care about the colour of the skin of people living there. Language, culture, genetics, none of it matters to you. You only have interest in the superficial element.
Also the total number is not going down. It's increasing. Wait, didn't I just say it was increasing? I actually have to repeat myself?
Anyway, are there ethnic countries with large or majority white populations? Yes actually. Canada and the USA, and most of South America were colonised by white Europeans and today their descendants make up a significant or majority of their populations.
You can meet South Africans and Ukrainians all over Europe, you don't know what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're standing on a sinking Titanic, and saying "This ship isn't sinking, because right now it's above water".
It's unsustainable. The fact that people can work 50 hours a week and still not afford food is unsustainable. The fact that a single industry can exert control over most of the industrialised world, causing millions of deaths for the sake of their profit margins, is unsustainable. The relentless consolidation of wealth and power is definitely not sustainable. We're already at the point where a tiny minority of people have over half of the money that currently exists on the planet.
No, you can't just "get a loan". Most small businesses fail anyway. (That's the consolidation of wealth and power in effect, by the way. Big companies don't want small companies to exist. So they don't let them)
You can't just go into the woods, because you'll die.
In my scenario it's not their money though. Think of it this way:
I do work at my company, and for every hour I work, our clients pay my company $100. I only get $20 an hour, and the company keeps the rest. I'm doing the work, but I'm not getting the money. You say that's fair, because the company legally owns it all.
Well fair enough, but what's the difference to a socialist nation where the state legally owns it all? The company makes money and pays some of it to the state, just like how I make money and let my boss keep it. If a company doesn't like it, they can go live in the woods.
They're not forced, they can freely choose to not be a company, or to leave for another nation. What's the difference?
1
-
Some of them can "survive", but they are one accident or illness away from total bankruptcy. It's immoral to force people to live like this. Some of them are on food stamps, literally unable to pay for nutrition they need to stay healthy. Poverty causes crime and all sorts of social issues, it's immoral.
Compare this with more advanced nations, where nobody has to choose between rent, food and medicine. Where crime is lower, and quality of life is higher.
Don't think I didn't notice you skipped the point I made about capitalism killing millions of people for profit, by the way.
I just told you that large businesses make it impossible for small businesses to survive, and your response is "good, they deserve to fail"? I thought you said I should be able to start a business, now you're saying that should fail for even trying? Well what is it?
You've already made the "go to Venezuela" argument, when you said to just go live in the woods if I don't like it. So if you think what I said was stupid, that's how you sounded to me.
1
-
Legally it would not be theft. Legally, the state would have ownership, and allow companies to take their share. What I'm saying is no different to what you're saying. It is exactly the same. The only difference is where the money ends up.
Wait, you literally just acknowledged that it's fine for people to get paid minimum wage so long as they survive, even if they're in poverty, and you're blaming 90% of these people for being poor? But they're not the ones who choose how much they get paid! They're just doing what you said that should be doing!
No, don't tell me they can just find another job, capitalism necessarily requires an underpaid working class. In order for rich people to stay rich, they have to avoid paying poorer people as much as they pay themselves. You're no longer making sense, and this is what I mean by unsustainability. Even if one guy gets a better job, that means 20 other guys have to not get that job and stay in poverty. In other words, poverty will always exist even if everybody starts working 10 times as hard tomorrow.
Also, I just told you that big businesses work to prevent small businesses from existing. That hardly makes small businesses incompetent, they could be doing their job just fine. Again, unsustainable.
You're also acknowledging that small businesses fail because of larger businesses, then in the next line you say that smaller businesses can take over from larger ones? Well which is it? It cannot be both.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't even need to get into that stuff, the alt-right adore conspiracy theories of all types.
However, since you don't yet realise how out of your league you are:
1) No. You cannot wholly blame the revolution on Jews. You realise just how big it was? Come on, revolutions happen.
2) All lobby groups put the interests of the US on a lower priority. Tobacco companies choose money over Americans getting to live until old age, the NRA choose money over Americans geting to live until graduation. Who is responsible? Americans, for building a country where laws and policy are just another commodity to be traded. Can't pin that on Jews I'm afraid.
3) White ethnocentric organisations worked to destroy Jews first so...what do you expect? For you it's about getting to organise politically. For them it's about getting to stay alive. I wish the ADL the best of luck.
4) Culture of Critique flies in the face of everything we know about human psychology. All groups have a bias against outside groups, nobody disputes this. So when a majority group treats a minority poorly, we understand that this is just an ugly facet of humanity, the desire to assert supremacy at the expense of people we do not identify with. Yet somehow for this one minority, it's actually all their fault and has nothing to do with our innate tendency for bias? Hmm, no. That's actually not correct.
5) Wrong again, US intervention in the Middle East predates modern Israel. You know how many times the USA invaded Iran before Israel was founded? The UK too, don't act like this was all at the behest of 'The Jews' again. Both the USA, UK and other western empires have a centuries-long history of invading other, less advanced nations, stripping them of their wealth and forcing the population into labour. Israel provides significant assistance in this endeavor, and it is wrong to do so, but don't pretend like they started it, or that the USA doesn't benefit.
1
-
Sorry but this isn't some debate or argument you get to participate in. This is a lecture, where I point out how badly wrong you are about everything.
1) Lenin wasn't even Jewish, your inability to even be racist accurately is crippling you even further.
2) Why would a government in control of the most powerful military force in the world be afraid of the local militia? It's not, and will never be. Oh yeah and "Cruz was a nazi so it's ok" is not the counter-argument you think is it. Wrong again.
3) You're apparently unaware that "jews" and "whites" are not ethnicities, and seem to think they are singular races. Suffice it to say I'm not even reading most of this post, it's fiction. But oddly enough you declare Europeans to be the most compassionate 'race', despite Europe being responsible for the most genocides on the planet.
4) Oh I know what the book is about, I just know it to be a crock of shit. If you read anything other than nazi propaganda you'd have arrived at my conclusion too. See, my worldview is only stronger when I explore new ideas, because I am actually correct. You on the other hand reject all knowledge from outside your bubble, because it is not compatible with your cult.
5) So buying something is not beneficial? You don't even know what you're saying anymore. Regardless, you aren't actually contradicting me, so I'll take it as a concession.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Okay let me make things a little clearer:
First off, that "if" you mentioned isn't possible. It cannot under any circumstances happen. There is no way you can do those things without violence.
Remember that even before the Jewish population of Germany were rounded up, people were attacking and robbing them, knowing full well that they wouldn't be around much longer. Even if you really made the effort, it would happen.
Taylor knows this. Everybody who seriously thinks about it does. He just doesn't care. He'll pretend he doesn't support the violence, but in reality he's working towards a violent end. If he didn't believe it was going to end that way, maybe he'd get a pass, but giving him the benefit of the doubt is a serious stretch to make given that we can already know what happens when minority groups are depopulated.
Antifa are not murdering people, they are not slaughtering innocent children, and they are not assassinating politicians. The far right are. Do not compare them again.
Berkeley was worse? A riot was worse than an actual, literal terrorist attack? You realise you're just making yourself look worse here, right?
1
-
I acknowledge that neither you nor Taylor is advocating for these things, but I am trying to tell you that those things are a necessary consequence of depopulating certain ethnicities from the USA. And that anybody with half a brain understands this. This means that Taylor KNOWS its going to happen, yet he pushes his bullshit anyway. He thinks he's morally in the clear because he's not the one actually advocating for violence, but he's not.
I'll make an example: A train driver who accidentally hits somebody on the tracks is blameless. A train driver who gets a call from his friend that says 'I'm lying down on the tracks' is absolutely not blameless, even if he doesn't touch a single button on the console.
Also if you're actually Ashkenazi, you're definitely not advocating in your own interests. We all know that this side of politics has a bit of a meme going on with Jewish people in general, and even if you're not directly supporting the antisemites, those guys are still going to feel empowered. Synagogues have already reported an increase in intimidating behaviour, we've already seen murders happen.
I'm not sure where you're going with the hospital thing, isn't it the police department who disclose murders? I'm honestly not certain but I figure that if people died at the riot (or because of the riot) then the police would have definitely made a big stink of it.
The attack at Charlottesville definitely isn't known because the family made it known, the media were all over it as soon as it happened. Before a death had been confirmed, it was on headlines. The distinction between Berkeley and Charlottesville as far as I can see, is that one was a riot caused by friction between two parties (albeit with some participants intentionally causing that friction) and the other was a premeditated attack, carried out without discrimination. If we consider gang fights terrorism, then suddenly every shootout in LA is a terrorist attack. I don't think that's especially helpful.
For what it's worth, the terrorist at Charlottesville was only charged with murder, not terrorism. It's likely any arrested antifa at a riot wouldn't have been charged with terrorism either, but there does appear to be a slight political bias at play here.
If you truly think that the alt-right hasn't assassinated any politicians, then where do you think Thomas Mair sits on the political scale? Just mainstream right?
(Also 'race realists' are the alt-right. There's a reason they don't exist on the left, and that's because the whole gig is just a a covert way for fascists to express themselves in a less offensive way. You might not even realise this, which puts you more at risk)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This video would make more sense if you knew what dogwhistling was. To sum it up, fascists know that saying what they truly feel would be deeply unpopular, so they code their ideals in harmless-sounding language. "White power" becomes "white pride" for example. The same concept (white supremacy) but wearing a different wig. So do not interpret the recognition of a dogwhistle as an attack on the concept it hides behind.
"Western Culture" is one of these dogwhistles. It sounds inoffensive, but they are hiding a deeper meaning in there. Want to know how we can tell? Because there has never been a singular western people, or singular western culture. Europe is diverse as fuck, my dude, dozens of little nations all just chilling out with their own languages, traditions, customs and yes, ethnicities. Any actual westerner who is proud of their heritage will say something like "I am a proud Estonian" or "I enjoy my Portuguese identity".
You call Contra delusional, except...the nazis are literally out here, self-identifying as nazis. Saying nazi things like "get rid of all the foreigners" or "jews will not replace us". And they participate in nazi pasttimes, such as terrorism, murder and intimidation. So they clearly exist on some level, therefore we cannot be delusional in recognising this.
In regards to your (frankly laughable) defense of the US police, mistrust of the force isn't due to under-policing. It's because America is such a racist country it's not even safe to simply BE black around the police. I could start rattling off cases where unarmed, unaggressive, innocent black people were beaten up and or shot by the police, but I'd seriously be here all day.
The fact that criminal activity kills more people isn't remotely relevant to this point, because we all understand and accept that gangs are bad and the criminals should be convicted. It almost never happens to the police though, even in open-and-shut cases where the officers involved were clearly in the wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1