FA+
Shop
11458
Views
Views
358
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 3425 x 2590
File Size 6.07 MB
Report this content
More from Dreamkeepers
Listed in Folders
So this happened: https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/photos/a.594779487326617.1073741828.423006854503882/743666632437901/?type=3&theater
We don't always snag endorsements from celebrities. But when we do, we turn them into furries.
We don't always snag endorsements from celebrities. But when we do, we turn them into furries.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 3425 x 2590px
File Size 6.07 MB
Listed in Folders
considering how many dickwads on the left actively spew vehement vitriol, abject hatred, and misandry... he can't be that bad.
I dislike trump only slightly less than I dislike hillery. but without FACTS I'm not going to condemn a delicious trollop like that for no reason
not based on Your word alone... and after seeing the Nazi comment you made (godwins law) I'm not sure I Would take your word for it.
I had more than a few relatives fighting against the fucking hitlerites, nazis, and fucking communist fucktards. so Nazi's piss me the fuck off.
I dislike trump only slightly less than I dislike hillery. but without FACTS I'm not going to condemn a delicious trollop like that for no reason
not based on Your word alone... and after seeing the Nazi comment you made (godwins law) I'm not sure I Would take your word for it.
I had more than a few relatives fighting against the fucking hitlerites, nazis, and fucking communist fucktards. so Nazi's piss me the fuck off.
Here's his 5000-world article defending the Alt-Right: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/.....the-alt-right/
Here's an article about the history of the Alt-Right by one of it's founders: http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normi.....the-alt-right/
Excerpts from the latter article:"Of particular importance to me was the book “Rules for Radicals” by the Jew Saul Alinsky, given that he codified the strategy used by the Jews to tear down the entire ancient body of European traditions and social norms and replace it with something the Jews felt more comfortable with.
Given the all-encompassing nature of the current ruling system, our only real advantage is that we are outsiders. When the Jewish bandit-king David killed Goliath, he did so with a dirty trick, which bypassed the established rules, thus winning a battle he could never have won fairly. The Jews did the same thing in the 60’s. We are doing it now."
"As such, the only way to end these problems is to strike the root and remove the Jews from our societies."
Here's an article about the history of the Alt-Right by one of it's founders: http://www.dailystormer.com/a-normi.....the-alt-right/
Excerpts from the latter article:"Of particular importance to me was the book “Rules for Radicals” by the Jew Saul Alinsky, given that he codified the strategy used by the Jews to tear down the entire ancient body of European traditions and social norms and replace it with something the Jews felt more comfortable with.
Given the all-encompassing nature of the current ruling system, our only real advantage is that we are outsiders. When the Jewish bandit-king David killed Goliath, he did so with a dirty trick, which bypassed the established rules, thus winning a battle he could never have won fairly. The Jews did the same thing in the 60’s. We are doing it now."
"As such, the only way to end these problems is to strike the root and remove the Jews from our societies."
That's not remotely what that means. Ad-hominem is declaring your opponent's arguments wrong because of an irrelevant detail that makes them look bad. Pointing out that a fascist is a fascist is not ad-hominem. Maybe you would understand logical fallacies better if you didn't spend all your time trying making self-attributed quotes.
P.S. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkOAqrRWEAUb2Ei.jpg
P.S. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkOAqrRWEAUb2Ei.jpg
That's not precisely accurate. The ad-hominem fallacy is the attempt to invalidate a person's argument by attacking the individual directly, particularly his or her character, instead of the argument itself. It is the attempt to defeat an argument by discrediting the person making it.
He's lying to you.
Milo is a free-speech and western values advocate.
Unfortunately he says things that hurt liberal's feefees so folks Geary get all triggered when he says things people don't want to hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgl53EXInPc
Milo is a free-speech and western values advocate.
Unfortunately he says things that hurt liberal's feefees so folks Geary get all triggered when he says things people don't want to hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgl53EXInPc
damn, that's quite the workload... if you ever get free time, you should watch this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiA0P9iELAA
it's a good place to start if you want to learn more about milo. He also has a college tour called The Dangerous Faggot, and there are videos from the tour on youtube
it's a good place to start if you want to learn more about milo. He also has a college tour called The Dangerous Faggot, and there are videos from the tour on youtube
I know you have to be spoonfed everything, but everything quoted in the article is very visibly cited, so I'm not sure what more you want. Does it have to wear a cheap tux and hold a glass of scotch for three hours without taking a single sip while meandering aimlessly to be up to your speed?
I know you have to be spoonfed everything,
That's typically how civil arguments work.
Party A makes an assertion.
Party B is skeptical.
It is not the responsibility of Party B to try and prove Party A wrong, or to even verify the claims; it is up to Party A to prove to Party B that they're right.
If the onus were on me to verify the truth of your claims, the potential exists that the evidence does not exist, or is poorly collected and archived. The net result of that is that my time is wasted, and yours is not. That makes me the fool, and you the lying trickster.
but everything quoted in the article is very visibly cited, so I'm not sure what more you want. Does it have to wear a cheap tux and hold a glass of scotch for three hours without taking a single sip while meandering aimlessly to be up to your speed?
How drole.
I would compare every "claim" the article is citing against the years I've been following him, both actively and passively, since 2014. I remember his rise to prominence. I remember his fall from grace. I've purchased and read his first book. I've listened to his lectures on University campuses prior to The President's election. He's certainly had quite a fall years ago, but Jordan Peterson took his place with less of a trickster archetype and more of a wise counselor. Fact of the matter is, Milo scared people. Milo represented the tip of the spear that is the backlash against the culture of Political Correctness. GamerGate was instrumental in that. He was a figurehead that refused to capitulate to the lunacy of the radicals in the left that have infiltrated academia, media, silicon valley, entertainment, and politics. That made him a threat to the culture, because the culture demands quiet obedience and reacts swiftly and viscerally to any resistance. He inspired a lot of people, and through that inspiration, he made the establishment afraid.
To this day, he continues to scare some people. The upcoming MFF is a prime example of this. He scares people so much that they want to react with violence towards him and anyone who supports him. And that's the great irony; Milo himself is not a threat, nor does he bring a threat with him wherever he goes. In fact, it's the opposite. Where he goes, it is his opponents that threaten to get violent. It was his opponents that rioted at Berkeley. It was his opponents that made a bomb threat against the one and only conference staged to address a debate on what GamerGate is and how the press is lying to the people about it. It was antifa thugs who disturbed the peace and got violent in Boston during the straight pride parade where he was the parade marshal. And it is now leftist furries who are threatening to get violent at MFF when he attends.
Finally, calling Milo a nazi is absurd because:
A) He is of Jewish descent, although he was raised as a Catholic and practices such.
B) He's homosexual, and
C) Married to a black man.
One really does not need any more explanation than that, just those three points. If one continues to assert that Milo is a nazi even after those three established facts are on the table, one is a certifiable idiot.
That's typically how civil arguments work.
Party A makes an assertion.
Party B is skeptical.
It is not the responsibility of Party B to try and prove Party A wrong, or to even verify the claims; it is up to Party A to prove to Party B that they're right.
If the onus were on me to verify the truth of your claims, the potential exists that the evidence does not exist, or is poorly collected and archived. The net result of that is that my time is wasted, and yours is not. That makes me the fool, and you the lying trickster.
but everything quoted in the article is very visibly cited, so I'm not sure what more you want. Does it have to wear a cheap tux and hold a glass of scotch for three hours without taking a single sip while meandering aimlessly to be up to your speed?
How drole.
I would compare every "claim" the article is citing against the years I've been following him, both actively and passively, since 2014. I remember his rise to prominence. I remember his fall from grace. I've purchased and read his first book. I've listened to his lectures on University campuses prior to The President's election. He's certainly had quite a fall years ago, but Jordan Peterson took his place with less of a trickster archetype and more of a wise counselor. Fact of the matter is, Milo scared people. Milo represented the tip of the spear that is the backlash against the culture of Political Correctness. GamerGate was instrumental in that. He was a figurehead that refused to capitulate to the lunacy of the radicals in the left that have infiltrated academia, media, silicon valley, entertainment, and politics. That made him a threat to the culture, because the culture demands quiet obedience and reacts swiftly and viscerally to any resistance. He inspired a lot of people, and through that inspiration, he made the establishment afraid.
To this day, he continues to scare some people. The upcoming MFF is a prime example of this. He scares people so much that they want to react with violence towards him and anyone who supports him. And that's the great irony; Milo himself is not a threat, nor does he bring a threat with him wherever he goes. In fact, it's the opposite. Where he goes, it is his opponents that threaten to get violent. It was his opponents that rioted at Berkeley. It was his opponents that made a bomb threat against the one and only conference staged to address a debate on what GamerGate is and how the press is lying to the people about it. It was antifa thugs who disturbed the peace and got violent in Boston during the straight pride parade where he was the parade marshal. And it is now leftist furries who are threatening to get violent at MFF when he attends.
Finally, calling Milo a nazi is absurd because:
A) He is of Jewish descent, although he was raised as a Catholic and practices such.
B) He's homosexual, and
C) Married to a black man.
One really does not need any more explanation than that, just those three points. If one continues to assert that Milo is a nazi even after those three established facts are on the table, one is a certifiable idiot.
Actually, I'd rather just clear this up rather than there be any confusion. When I posted this, five years ago, I had no idea who Milo was (I don't live in the US and certainly had no idea about anyone other than who the president was). All I'd seen was a picture of a Snow Leopard and a bunch of people attacking the artist and the person. I ended up reading about the person, maybe a week later, after the details turned up in the snow'pard telegram chat - turned out he was a bit of a prick!
The above message is definitely not support for him, it was just ignorance, rather than malice.
The above message is definitely not support for him, it was just ignorance, rather than malice.
Wow, I can't believe how many many people hate Milo, we even have a comment on here calling him a Nazi. I didn't realize so many furries could be so filled with hate. Milo's definitely one of my favorite political news journalists, and seeing him as a furry, has somehow actually made him even more edgy and extreme.
Well, that's one dangerous fa- snow leopard.
Well, that's one dangerous fa- snow leopard.
He wrote an entire article in support of the alt-right, he once changed his name to Wagner, he took pictures of himself wearing an iron cross, and he's a Trump supporter.
And that's not even getting into things like how he believes lesbians don't exist and only need "a good dicking" to be straight women or that transgender people should be institutionalized.
And that's not even getting into things like how he believes lesbians don't exist and only need "a good dicking" to be straight women or that transgender people should be institutionalized.
Because it's based on the idea that nations whose prosperity has been built from stealing and oppressing other nations and cultures can push any non-white person from their borders, regardless of how long they've lived their, how far back their ancestry goes, or, say, whether or not their ancestors were there before white people.
Are white people "native" to somewhere like other races?
Do you believe that historical sins must be atoned for by the ancestors of unrelated people just because they are a part of the same race?
Would the world be "a better place" if white people didn't exist anymore or were mixed away?
Not going to attack you or anything, I'm genuinely curious and always wanted to ask someone with your views why they hold them. ^_^
Do you believe that historical sins must be atoned for by the ancestors of unrelated people just because they are a part of the same race?
Would the world be "a better place" if white people didn't exist anymore or were mixed away?
Not going to attack you or anything, I'm genuinely curious and always wanted to ask someone with your views why they hold them. ^_^
Yeah, they're sorta native to Europe and Russia, but you still see white nationalism in nations like the USA and Australia.
'Historical sins' are irrelevant. Immigration from nations that were exploited throughout colonialism isn't a 'punishment', they're just people seeking a better life in a nation with better infrastructure and standards of living. The fact is that most first-world nations were built on the backs of African and Asian peoples, and you can't suddenly close off your borders just because your empire was dismantled and the people who were exploited seek residence in the country their exploitation built.
The world would be a better place if white people weren't so terrified of the idea of not being in control of absolutely everything, and didn't try to minimize the severity of genocide by referring to voluntary interracial couples and immigration as 'white genocide'.
'Historical sins' are irrelevant. Immigration from nations that were exploited throughout colonialism isn't a 'punishment', they're just people seeking a better life in a nation with better infrastructure and standards of living. The fact is that most first-world nations were built on the backs of African and Asian peoples, and you can't suddenly close off your borders just because your empire was dismantled and the people who were exploited seek residence in the country their exploitation built.
The world would be a better place if white people weren't so terrified of the idea of not being in control of absolutely everything, and didn't try to minimize the severity of genocide by referring to voluntary interracial couples and immigration as 'white genocide'.
Yeah the colonies of Europe.
What about white nationalism in Europe then? Is that okay?
Is it wrong for them to deny other races access to their ancestral homeland?
Do they have to let them in just because they have better infrastructure, so they're expected to share and it's an absolute requirement to let in an unlimited amount of people(whoever wants to come) with no control whatsoever on the borders?
Okay but look at the projections though. With the miscegenation and uncontrolled immigration white populations undeniable plummets, and they already have very low birth rates in the west. Can you at least see, despite hating white nationalism in ANY form(even in Europe if you believe it's INHERENTLY bad) might be a reasonable reaction based on this demonstrable population decline alone?
What about the opinion you hold that whites shouldn't have control over anything? You imply there's something they could be in control of, so what about Europe, where they're native to?
If all white people abroad returned to Europe, would it be fair for all the non-whites to get out of Europe and would that effectively solve the race problem?
What about white nationalism in Europe then? Is that okay?
Is it wrong for them to deny other races access to their ancestral homeland?
Do they have to let them in just because they have better infrastructure, so they're expected to share and it's an absolute requirement to let in an unlimited amount of people(whoever wants to come) with no control whatsoever on the borders?
Okay but look at the projections though. With the miscegenation and uncontrolled immigration white populations undeniable plummets, and they already have very low birth rates in the west. Can you at least see, despite hating white nationalism in ANY form(even in Europe if you believe it's INHERENTLY bad) might be a reasonable reaction based on this demonstrable population decline alone?
What about the opinion you hold that whites shouldn't have control over anything? You imply there's something they could be in control of, so what about Europe, where they're native to?
If all white people abroad returned to Europe, would it be fair for all the non-whites to get out of Europe and would that effectively solve the race problem?
Right, and if it's wrong of white people to colonize other countries why is it now okay for non-whites to colonize those places? Or would you just say it's them "re-claiming" what was theirs? Though if North American belongs to the native americans and mexicans, why is it okay for asians and blacks to move there?
Again, those countries were built on the backs of the people they're now trying to remove.
On a practical standpoint, Europe needs immigration specifically because of that falling birth rate. That is, unless you want Europe to go the way of Japan and suffer massive economic stagnation as the median age rises further and further and the workforce becomes unable to support the retired segments of the population.
On a practical standpoint, Europe needs immigration specifically because of that falling birth rate. That is, unless you want Europe to go the way of Japan and suffer massive economic stagnation as the median age rises further and further and the workforce becomes unable to support the retired segments of the population.
I am less concerned about who did the work and more so with who the land belongs to, who has the claim to it proper.
There are other ways to mend failing birth rates than unbridled third world immigration. What we do for those people we could be doing for ourselves(giving free opportunity for improvement).
Wouldn't it make more sense to incentivize reproduction? A huge reason it's not happening here in the west is the unattainable cost of a home. People don't want to make children who they're renting apartments and shit but that is considered a normal way of life now.
There are other ways to mend failing birth rates than unbridled third world immigration. What we do for those people we could be doing for ourselves(giving free opportunity for improvement).
Wouldn't it make more sense to incentivize reproduction? A huge reason it's not happening here in the west is the unattainable cost of a home. People don't want to make children who they're renting apartments and shit but that is considered a normal way of life now.
That's what incentivizing means though, creating a want. Making it easier so people are up for it.
Sometimes they do, but that's besides the point. You're mostly ignoring mine, like who owns the land in Europe and if it's white people then why do they have to share with immigrants if the native Americans shouldn't have to share with white people(immigrants).
Sometimes they do, but that's besides the point. You're mostly ignoring mine, like who owns the land in Europe and if it's white people then why do they have to share with immigrants if the native Americans shouldn't have to share with white people(immigrants).
Except that creating that want straight up does not work, as we can see from past and current attempts in Eastern Europe and Japan.
They're not being forced to share land they own. Non-white people simply exist in the same area as them. Why are you so afraid of minorities that you think that's a bad thing?
They're not being forced to share land they own. Non-white people simply exist in the same area as them. Why are you so afraid of minorities that you think that's a bad thing?
Why are you calling the majority of the world's population "minorities"? :P
Going back to what I was saying before about the "white genocide" that you brought up, this is something to be concerned about in the least is it not?
How do you secure numbers when you're bringing in endless foreigners who outbreed the native population? Wouldn't it be easier to close the borders and prevent them from entering then?
Also still didn't answer my question about the hypocrisy I pointed out earlier.
Going back to what I was saying before about the "white genocide" that you brought up, this is something to be concerned about in the least is it not?
How do you secure numbers when you're bringing in endless foreigners who outbreed the native population? Wouldn't it be easier to close the borders and prevent them from entering then?
Also still didn't answer my question about the hypocrisy I pointed out earlier.
Firstly, you need to stop talking about non-white people like they're a rodent infestation.
Secondly, white people already reproduce above the replacement rate. They don't, however, reproduce far enough over said replacement rate to sustain an economy without immigration.
Ergo, the is no such thing as 'white genocide'.
Secondly, white people already reproduce above the replacement rate. They don't, however, reproduce far enough over said replacement rate to sustain an economy without immigration.
Ergo, the is no such thing as 'white genocide'.
Hey you used the analogy, not I. If that's how you want to see things that's up to you.
They... Don't? Everything I see says it's abysmal. Here's my country for example!
Still not my point, it was about land ownership. The population issue was secondary.
They... Don't? Everything I see says it's abysmal. Here's my country for example!
Still not my point, it was about land ownership. The population issue was secondary.
Right, I'm a bit scatterbrained in this and I apologize.
"Because it's based on the idea that nations whose prosperity has been built from stealing and oppressing other nations and cultures can push any non-white person from their borders, regardless of how long they've lived their, how far back their ancestry goes, or, say, whether or not their ancestors were there before white people. "
In the case of Europe, if white people are native to that place it implies they were there first ones there- so they should have sole claim to the land?
USA is an example like you say, where there were people here before whites; therefore whites have no claim to the land?
So then, why is white nationalism a bad thing for a nation like Europe where by your logic, they were there first, they built it of their own labor, but now they're expected to share with non-whites because they have better infrastructure and resources?
If non-whites want to lead better lives, and like you say they built these great white nations with their own labor(i.e. USA), then are they not capable of doing the same in their own lands?
Isn't it "racist" in itself to look on all non-whites as helpless and needing what whites have in order to get by, while at the same time implying they can only do well at nation building when they're "oppressed and controlled" by whites?
Oh and finally, if these other nations have resources that whites "stole" then that implies the place has these resources- why aren't they being used by the people there? Or did whites take all of these resources and now the non-whites are helpless but to migrate? If this is the case then why is it a bad thing when the exact same thing happens to whites(run out of resources in Europe for whatever reason either by theft or natural disasters, move to North America where there are resources, take it from the people there and prosper, etc.)?
(Sorry if this last part doesn't make much sense, I'm trying to draw a parallel to the migrant crisis and European colonization of N.A. in terms of war/famine/disease/other bad stuff happening to cause people to move and replace another group by disease/outbreeding/government/etc.)
"Because it's based on the idea that nations whose prosperity has been built from stealing and oppressing other nations and cultures can push any non-white person from their borders, regardless of how long they've lived their, how far back their ancestry goes, or, say, whether or not their ancestors were there before white people. "
In the case of Europe, if white people are native to that place it implies they were there first ones there- so they should have sole claim to the land?
USA is an example like you say, where there were people here before whites; therefore whites have no claim to the land?
So then, why is white nationalism a bad thing for a nation like Europe where by your logic, they were there first, they built it of their own labor, but now they're expected to share with non-whites because they have better infrastructure and resources?
If non-whites want to lead better lives, and like you say they built these great white nations with their own labor(i.e. USA), then are they not capable of doing the same in their own lands?
Isn't it "racist" in itself to look on all non-whites as helpless and needing what whites have in order to get by, while at the same time implying they can only do well at nation building when they're "oppressed and controlled" by whites?
Oh and finally, if these other nations have resources that whites "stole" then that implies the place has these resources- why aren't they being used by the people there? Or did whites take all of these resources and now the non-whites are helpless but to migrate? If this is the case then why is it a bad thing when the exact same thing happens to whites(run out of resources in Europe for whatever reason either by theft or natural disasters, move to North America where there are resources, take it from the people there and prosper, etc.)?
(Sorry if this last part doesn't make much sense, I'm trying to draw a parallel to the migrant crisis and European colonization of N.A. in terms of war/famine/disease/other bad stuff happening to cause people to move and replace another group by disease/outbreeding/government/etc.)
In essence, Europe wasn't built simply with only the labor of native Europeans. Few nations have ever really been built independently, but Europe is a special case in that it's the largest example of a continent built up almost entirely on the wealth and labor of foreign nations, and those nations either received nothing in return or were actively destroyed in the pursuit of increasing Europe's wealth.
PoC do fine at building nations. There have been a great many powerful and sprawling kingdoms and empires in African and Asian history. The modern concept of the college originated in the Islamic Empire through the institutions of Houses of Wisdom. One African king, regarded as being the wealthiest person to have ever lived, led such a prosperous nation that, when he went on his Hajj, he created massive inflation on the way just by spending his money.
Colonialism didn't end hundreds of years ago. For many nations, it's only been twenty years since they gained independence, and it takes time to rebuild a country from a glorified cash crop plantation into a first-world nation, and many people decide to hedge their bets on education to allow them to move somewhere that's already a first-world nation, rather than simply waiting for their own to finish its Industrial Revolution and move into a modern economy.
PoC do fine at building nations. There have been a great many powerful and sprawling kingdoms and empires in African and Asian history. The modern concept of the college originated in the Islamic Empire through the institutions of Houses of Wisdom. One African king, regarded as being the wealthiest person to have ever lived, led such a prosperous nation that, when he went on his Hajj, he created massive inflation on the way just by spending his money.
Colonialism didn't end hundreds of years ago. For many nations, it's only been twenty years since they gained independence, and it takes time to rebuild a country from a glorified cash crop plantation into a first-world nation, and many people decide to hedge their bets on education to allow them to move somewhere that's already a first-world nation, rather than simply waiting for their own to finish its Industrial Revolution and move into a modern economy.
I agree for the most part. Land belongs to whoever is inhabiting it at the time and there is literally nothing wrong with conquest for the purposes of collecting resources, whatever they may be.
So perhaps it's a good idea to stop the"le evil white people are exploiting le innocent brown people" meme? It's completely unfair to say it's alright for one group to have free travel and colonize land previously not belonging to them, but shame another group for doing the exact same thing(or being better at it).
So perhaps it's a good idea to stop the"le evil white people are exploiting le innocent brown people" meme? It's completely unfair to say it's alright for one group to have free travel and colonize land previously not belonging to them, but shame another group for doing the exact same thing(or being better at it).
Do you honestly not understand the difference between individuals moving to a country and living there and a foreign nation toppling the government, installing a puppet or colonial regime, and exporting everything produced there without any of the profits ending up in the hands of the natives? Or do you think places like India, Zimbabwe, and Ireland wanted to not be allowed to eat any of the food they were growing on colonial plantations on land seized at gunpoint even while they and their families were starving?
But I suppose you think that a Pakistani person moving next door is just as bad as all that.
But I suppose you think that a Pakistani person moving next door is just as bad as all that.
Is that what you're talking about? Because I had assumed it was mass immigration i.e. colonization.
It's not "a" person. That's ridiculous downplaying of the millions of people in a mass migration that will, in one generation, make the natives a minority in their own country. That is what I thought we were talking about(migrant crisis and things of that scale, like Europeans moving to North America).
Right and with democracy, it's nearly the exact same thing as what you're describing. All of these people get to vote and they can change the nation how they see fit, as it should be, the government should represent the will of the people. It might not be those exact things you listed, but there is certainly crime and violence going on as well as a change in regime and pushing for backwards practices, etc.
If you'd read my link you'd see exactly what I'm talking about is true, and there are many other stories like it if you cared to look it up(I didn't find the link for this conversation, I stumbled upon it and saw it was relevant), but I found it's typical of people with these views to ignore any evidence brought up that doesn't support the ideology(usually by attacking the host website rather than the information on it, or downplaying like you already did).
It's not "a" person. That's ridiculous downplaying of the millions of people in a mass migration that will, in one generation, make the natives a minority in their own country. That is what I thought we were talking about(migrant crisis and things of that scale, like Europeans moving to North America).
Right and with democracy, it's nearly the exact same thing as what you're describing. All of these people get to vote and they can change the nation how they see fit, as it should be, the government should represent the will of the people. It might not be those exact things you listed, but there is certainly crime and violence going on as well as a change in regime and pushing for backwards practices, etc.
If you'd read my link you'd see exactly what I'm talking about is true, and there are many other stories like it if you cared to look it up(I didn't find the link for this conversation, I stumbled upon it and saw it was relevant), but I found it's typical of people with these views to ignore any evidence brought up that doesn't support the ideology(usually by attacking the host website rather than the information on it, or downplaying like you already did).
Europeans never made any natives minorities without the use of genocide. In India, throughout Africa, and in South America, they overthrew the local power structure and installed apartheid governments or puppet regimes. There was no democracy, no will of the people, only foreign nations deciding their financial interest were more important than the rights of 'lesser races'.
Explain this genocide? What I know of Canadian history, besides bringing over disease(every group does this, it's a by-product of travel) it was a matter of mass migration, outbreeding, and interbreeding that reduced their numbers to what they are now. Residential schools and war also accounted for deaths, but not as many as what I previously listed and falls under the whole "conquest" theme we discussed(changing regime, enforcing backwards laws, etc.). The exact same thing now happening to whites. If you admit they had genocide committed against them, then you're also admitting that whites genocide is real because the exact same thing is happening. :)
I like to bring it back to Europe because I know more about that topic, What about cities that have no-go areas and rape gangs that aren't being dealt with by the law because they don't want to be called racist by the public? That isn't democracy as people want something done about it. It's treating the natives as a lesser race, taking advantage of their women and children, killing them, torturing them(FGM on the rise too). Why are the crimes of these "lesser races" as you say, completely ignored in your worldview? Why aren't they held accountable for their actions and why are they given a pass? Slavery is still practiced in many places in the world controlled by "the lesser races". Why isn't this being mentioned?
You have many examples of "evil whites" from hundreds of years ago, but what about today? Freedom and peace loving, tolerant, in-fighting to maintain these values; pathologically altruistic. This is the current state of whites, but yet they are still "evil" for things other(long dead) members of their race have done? All the while ignoring other crimes by other groups. So not only is white genocide happening but it is justified then? I've seen this opinion before, that white people should pay for their historical sins by being mixed away.
I like to bring it back to Europe because I know more about that topic, What about cities that have no-go areas and rape gangs that aren't being dealt with by the law because they don't want to be called racist by the public? That isn't democracy as people want something done about it. It's treating the natives as a lesser race, taking advantage of their women and children, killing them, torturing them(FGM on the rise too). Why are the crimes of these "lesser races" as you say, completely ignored in your worldview? Why aren't they held accountable for their actions and why are they given a pass? Slavery is still practiced in many places in the world controlled by "the lesser races". Why isn't this being mentioned?
You have many examples of "evil whites" from hundreds of years ago, but what about today? Freedom and peace loving, tolerant, in-fighting to maintain these values; pathologically altruistic. This is the current state of whites, but yet they are still "evil" for things other(long dead) members of their race have done? All the while ignoring other crimes by other groups. So not only is white genocide happening but it is justified then? I've seen this opinion before, that white people should pay for their historical sins by being mixed away.
Red herring. Apoint judges who would overturn gay marriage at the federal level. States should have the right to set the laws themselves. I'm completely for gay marriage but I think states should be allowed to make the laws legalizing it and the stipulations surrounding it themselves.
"GOP's platform includes gay conversion therapy?"
Yea, the alt-right is against the GOP, they're loons out of touch with reality.
"And that white nationalists believe gay people are degenerates and want them to be targeted on the day of the rope?"
I believe you're forgetting "not all" somewhere in there.
"GOP's platform includes gay conversion therapy?"
Yea, the alt-right is against the GOP, they're loons out of touch with reality.
"And that white nationalists believe gay people are degenerates and want them to be targeted on the day of the rope?"
I believe you're forgetting "not all" somewhere in there.
The fact he doesn't understand any policies? The fact that he has a history of illegally bribing judges? The fact that he's a scam artist? The fact that he's an egomaniac who worships despots? The fact that one of his primary strategies is claiming that the election is rigged to undermine the very faith in Democracy that holds the country together? The fact that he's a serial rapist? The fact that he actively promotes violence against protestors? That fact that he wants to restrict the 1st Amendment by allowing rich people to sue anybody who says anything bad about them into bankruptcy? Do you want me to go on?
Except they're in civil court, not criminal court, there's no charges to drop, and part of their settlements are agreements that neither party will discuss the events in question, and that these events were brought up as part of the divorce filings as factors that led to the divorce.
And extortion requires that somebody has evidence of something, which means you're sorta admitting that evidence points very clearly to Trump being a rapist.
But what a shocker that a Trump supporter believes in the 'false rape claim epidemic'.
And extortion requires that somebody has evidence of something, which means you're sorta admitting that evidence points very clearly to Trump being a rapist.
But what a shocker that a Trump supporter believes in the 'false rape claim epidemic'.
Way to put words into my mouth, I'm not calling all rapes an epidemic of lying, I'm saying this falls apart when you look into it beyond the headlines. The fact you'll use this as some kind of proof of him being guilty of rape just shows how much you'll scrape the bottom of the barrel, you've got nothing.
Witness testimony has it's issues as a form of evidence with easily being steeped in bias. Could you give a link to an article or logs of the court hearing.
You're telling me there's evidence against Trump and he's not being indicted for committing a federal crime. And this doesn't sound crazy to you? I mean Hillary at least got indicted and saw a hearing that straight up said she broke the law but they wouldn't punish her, with moutains of evidence being dug up everywhere and a lot of people surrounding this against Hillary ending up in an 'accident'. Not to mention the time she got a child molester off scot free (this is only a talking point, I don't really consider it against her, it was her job as a defense attorney). There's nothing of the sort surrounding Trump on this subject. Literally the only things people can dig up against Trump is the finest example of grasping for straws and double standards I've ever seen.
You're telling me there's evidence against Trump and he's not being indicted for committing a federal crime. And this doesn't sound crazy to you? I mean Hillary at least got indicted and saw a hearing that straight up said she broke the law but they wouldn't punish her, with moutains of evidence being dug up everywhere and a lot of people surrounding this against Hillary ending up in an 'accident'. Not to mention the time she got a child molester off scot free (this is only a talking point, I don't really consider it against her, it was her job as a defense attorney). There's nothing of the sort surrounding Trump on this subject. Literally the only things people can dig up against Trump is the finest example of grasping for straws and double standards I've ever seen.
Firstly, it was an incident that occurred well before the divorce proceedings, so there was no physical evidence, and therefor a criminal conviction would not be possible even if she wanted to press charges. Civil court, however, operates of Preponderance of Evidence, meaning, 'by the evidence we have, it's more likely than not that this occurred'. IE, witness testimony fulfilled the Preponderance of Evidence required for the court to deem it was more likely than not that Donald Trump raped his then-wife for the purposes of deciding how to divvy out assets and child custody.
Secondly, Hillary was never indicted, and the FBI found no criminal intent present that would make her actions applicable for criminal prosecution, just like how they didn't prosecute George W. Bush went millions of emails vanished off of his private server when he was president. Certain crimes are only considered crimes when criminal intent is present, so unless criminal intent can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it's merely wasting government resources.
It was hardly Hillary's fault that the child molester got off scott free on her watch, given her request to be removed from the case was denied and the prosecution completely botched the trial and mishandled all the evidence.
Secondly, Hillary was never indicted, and the FBI found no criminal intent present that would make her actions applicable for criminal prosecution, just like how they didn't prosecute George W. Bush went millions of emails vanished off of his private server when he was president. Certain crimes are only considered crimes when criminal intent is present, so unless criminal intent can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, then it's merely wasting government resources.
It was hardly Hillary's fault that the child molester got off scott free on her watch, given her request to be removed from the case was denied and the prosecution completely botched the trial and mishandled all the evidence.
"no physical evidence"
The reason why a civil court will wave the burden of proof If a civil court rules on an accusation, this does not make it stand that they are guilty of committing this. You calling Trump a "serial rapist" is false under the rule of law. Where do you draw the conclusion for this?
Having no criminal intent does not validate breaking the law. But the law doesn't apply to those higher than us lowly plebs right? Fuck Bush. Fuck Hillary. Fuck any sleeze bag that tries to slip by on destroying transparency and accountability like this. She's making every excuse in the book to cover up the fact that many of the deleted e-mails were a threat to what she lies about to people's faces. It is criminal.
Right and I don't hold it against her in that case. The entire case was a disaster, and her role in defending the client shouldn't be condemned for it. I won't grasp for the smallest minute details of 'that one time' years or decades ago to try and ruin Hillary's name, she does a good enough job of that on her own.
The reason why a civil court will wave the burden of proof If a civil court rules on an accusation, this does not make it stand that they are guilty of committing this. You calling Trump a "serial rapist" is false under the rule of law. Where do you draw the conclusion for this?
Having no criminal intent does not validate breaking the law. But the law doesn't apply to those higher than us lowly plebs right? Fuck Bush. Fuck Hillary. Fuck any sleeze bag that tries to slip by on destroying transparency and accountability like this. She's making every excuse in the book to cover up the fact that many of the deleted e-mails were a threat to what she lies about to people's faces. It is criminal.
Right and I don't hold it against her in that case. The entire case was a disaster, and her role in defending the client shouldn't be condemned for it. I won't grasp for the smallest minute details of 'that one time' years or decades ago to try and ruin Hillary's name, she does a good enough job of that on her own.
The court of public opinion operates under the same Preponderance of Evidence as civil court, unless you're a conspiracy nutter. Which you are, of course. Most people, however, operate under a system of occam's razor: Is it more likely that this given explanation occurred than the alternative? In this scenario, is it more likely that Donald Trump raped his wife or that his wife and the majority of their friends would lie and claim he did, with such conviction that Trump's extremely expensive lawyer was unable to find any flaws in their testimonies, despite that it would be fan more financially beneficial to suck up to Trump himself?
Again, because you seem to have a hard time reading, there are certainly laws for which breaking them is only criminal when criminal intent can be proven. If you file your taxes incorrectly by sheer mistake and ignorance, the IRS can't pursue criminal convictions against you for tax evasion, because you did not have the criminal intent necessary to make the action criminal rather than simply not legal.
Yet you're still bringing it up.
Again, because you seem to have a hard time reading, there are certainly laws for which breaking them is only criminal when criminal intent can be proven. If you file your taxes incorrectly by sheer mistake and ignorance, the IRS can't pursue criminal convictions against you for tax evasion, because you did not have the criminal intent necessary to make the action criminal rather than simply not legal.
Yet you're still bringing it up.
The court of public opinion does not legitimize anything. Opinions and interpretations of the events do not make evidence or justify leaps in logic. While you call me a conspiracy nutter, you simply assert your pre-disposed position is more likely based on your own implicit bias, while admitting there is no physical evidence. What is most likely is not proof to the subject of inquiry.
That's fairly apples and oranges to say the least. Running for public office and covering up corruption, and the subject of actual conspiracies; is fairly different from making a mistake. The entire fiasco surrounding the e-mail server is one long line of 'mistakes' that are easily seen as intentional, all to end with covering it up and simply claiming to not know. Making a big enough 'mistake' on an IRS tax return they will hand you your ass. As with making logical leaps, I'm not, the e-mails have been dug up, we can see what's in them. I have it bookmarked https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
While you insult me, I'm trying to show I have a sense of empathy, not grasping for straws and not cutting off my nose to spite my face. I'm not going to go on an Alex Johns tier sperg rage and call her the antichrist.
That's fairly apples and oranges to say the least. Running for public office and covering up corruption, and the subject of actual conspiracies; is fairly different from making a mistake. The entire fiasco surrounding the e-mail server is one long line of 'mistakes' that are easily seen as intentional, all to end with covering it up and simply claiming to not know. Making a big enough 'mistake' on an IRS tax return they will hand you your ass. As with making logical leaps, I'm not, the e-mails have been dug up, we can see what's in them. I have it bookmarked https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
While you insult me, I'm trying to show I have a sense of empathy, not grasping for straws and not cutting off my nose to spite my face. I'm not going to go on an Alex Johns tier sperg rage and call her the antichrist.
And you say I'm the conspiracy nut job?
Granted I'd be willing to buy the Trump buying off a judge, if the payment happened before the court date, I'd expect him to be in prison. He didn't, speculate over the intentions all you like but it's not a clear link.
The other link, okay more opinions on it, nothing of substance. Literally everything surrounding your accusations and defenses, are based entirely on interpretation and opinion. I won't accept Trump is perfect, I'm highly skeptical of his views on making new libel laws for the media. I'd gladly see someone like Ron or Rand Paul before Trump, but he's shaking the entire system on his way in, he's a wild card, but it's better on Hillary reliably running this country further into authoritarian left policies and solidify the corrupt fed even more. She's just 4-8 more years of Obama's policies and war mongering.
Granted I'd be willing to buy the Trump buying off a judge, if the payment happened before the court date, I'd expect him to be in prison. He didn't, speculate over the intentions all you like but it's not a clear link.
The other link, okay more opinions on it, nothing of substance. Literally everything surrounding your accusations and defenses, are based entirely on interpretation and opinion. I won't accept Trump is perfect, I'm highly skeptical of his views on making new libel laws for the media. I'd gladly see someone like Ron or Rand Paul before Trump, but he's shaking the entire system on his way in, he's a wild card, but it's better on Hillary reliably running this country further into authoritarian left policies and solidify the corrupt fed even more. She's just 4-8 more years of Obama's policies and war mongering.
I've lost my health coverage and can't pay into the new government care system under Obama Care. Prices have been driven up across the board and you're penalized for not having insurance. It's been a giant train wreck as a whole.
Also sharpen up Akam's razor if you want to stay consistant http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/.....isnt-cronyism/
Trump. Fascist. My sides, Try again with less buzzwords and more substance. When Republicans wouldn't shut up about Obama being Hitler, it was annoying to hear the constant brainless shrieking then, it hasn't changed even though the people doing it are the polar opposite. I'm a libertarian and all for personal freedoms' I know Trump is very much like Putin in what his policies appear to reflect. This opposed to Hillary who shows the same ambition to grow the central government's influence through raising taxes and funding more endless war coralled by government... oh wait that fits the qualifications of fascism's economic model a little too closely.
Also, inb4 Trump literally Hitler. Inb4 godwin's syndrome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7LWJaBFIFw
Also sharpen up Akam's razor if you want to stay consistant http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/.....isnt-cronyism/
Trump. Fascist. My sides, Try again with less buzzwords and more substance. When Republicans wouldn't shut up about Obama being Hitler, it was annoying to hear the constant brainless shrieking then, it hasn't changed even though the people doing it are the polar opposite. I'm a libertarian and all for personal freedoms' I know Trump is very much like Putin in what his policies appear to reflect. This opposed to Hillary who shows the same ambition to grow the central government's influence through raising taxes and funding more endless war coralled by government... oh wait that fits the qualifications of fascism's economic model a little too closely.
Also, inb4 Trump literally Hitler. Inb4 godwin's syndrome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7LWJaBFIFw
The iron cross doesn't have anything to do with Nazis, it's something German that the Nazis adopted, and being a Trump supporter or alt-right makes you NOTHING close to a Nazi, or a fascist. I personally don't like the guy, but he's nowhere near as cool as Adolf Hitler. Besides, Milo doesn't even consider himself alt-right, just a right winger; and if you ask me, the right and the left both have their heads way too far up their asses, and my politics don't align with either.
I just like Milo because he stands against racism.
I just like Milo because he stands against racism.
Definitely that too, I just wanted to say something that'd be hard to argue against. He definitely makes me better about myself though, being a poor white city kid isn't easy nowadays. I'm hoping to maybe get a piece of the "Privilege Grant" if he ever gets around to making it functional.
The Nazis didn't invent the swastika either but parading around with it strapped to your chest is gonna make people rightfully associate you with nazis.
Milo doesn't remotely stand against racism, unless you believe coordinately a massive harassment mob against a black women for the crime of being a black woman in a movie he doesn't like is 'standing against racism'.
Milo doesn't remotely stand against racism, unless you believe coordinately a massive harassment mob against a black women for the crime of being a black woman in a movie he doesn't like is 'standing against racism'.
If anyone wnats some critcism of Milo with actual substance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-RhNIPKacc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-RhNIPKacc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhD_JmYNqoY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-RhNIPKacc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-RhNIPKacc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhD_JmYNqoY
then there is https://www.facebook.com/myiannopou.....739172030647:0
He deliberately misquoted Putin and perpetuated false beliefs about him(despite Milo being a huge Putin fan)
Putin was never anti Islam; he maintains very close relations with Chechenya and its president; tell me a person who wants to genocide all Muslims would do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JU_pCy2N10
He deliberately misquoted Putin and perpetuated false beliefs about him(despite Milo being a huge Putin fan)
Putin was never anti Islam; he maintains very close relations with Chechenya and its president; tell me a person who wants to genocide all Muslims would do this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JU_pCy2N10
Because everything on the internet has to be serious all the damn time.
Literally anyone who knows anything about this quote knows it's fake. It's a meme at this point.
He's never been anti-islam, he's been very firm in his statements against allowing a big flow of migrants into Russia like Western Europe is growing to regret.
Literally anyone who knows anything about this quote knows it's fake. It's a meme at this point.
He's never been anti-islam, he's been very firm in his statements against allowing a big flow of migrants into Russia like Western Europe is growing to regret.
Not his fans, they revel in that
I know he was never Islam, that's exactly what I said, but the majority of the west seems to think so. Yeah, he may not be so keen on the migrant crisis but parts of Russia are under Sharia law anyways, Just look up Putin's right hand man, Ramzan Kadyrov
I know he was never Islam, that's exactly what I said, but the majority of the west seems to think so. Yeah, he may not be so keen on the migrant crisis but parts of Russia are under Sharia law anyways, Just look up Putin's right hand man, Ramzan Kadyrov
Absolutely love this.
I'm so glad to see so many people are triggered over this.
Do I have your permission to use this design?
I need to give that "hungry bottom" what he wants...
While we talk about sending out right wing death squads to kill all fags, deport all camels and systemically oppress horses because that's all the alt-right want to do is be evil blood thirsty racists :^)
I'm so glad to see so many people are triggered over this.
Do I have your permission to use this design?
I need to give that "hungry bottom" what he wants...
While we talk about sending out right wing death squads to kill all fags, deport all camels and systemically oppress horses because that's all the alt-right want to do is be evil blood thirsty racists :^)
I've come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a professional Troll - and the man sincerely has an immense talent for it to such an extent that he will become rather rich literally being a troll. Now I might find this rather discomforting but part of that is simple because I'm a bit jealous that I could never be a complete asshole and get paid enormous amounts of money to do it at the same time. Milo, from what I've seen is kind of in the same realm, he is an immensely successful troll. Now, admittedly, the people that don't realize this is all a big troll and still support him, are actually kinda genuinely scary and would probably toss you, me and Milo himself tossed in a theological re-education camp for various offenses against their religion (or really, their feelings). But if you realize he's just a troll, and you've experienced your fair share of trolls from living any amount of time on the internet, you can respond to any and all of his antics with "I see what you did there >.>" Then you go on and live your life XD.
Not really. Those who troll just have a certain capacity at deriving pleasure from finding and pushing other people's buttons in a way that gets the other person all worked up and bent out of shape. And let's face it, it is quite exciting to find out you can, with almost scientific precision, cause a creature with supposed free-will to act exactly like you desire, just by saying something, showing someone a picture or some other minor action. It's like a freaking super power. And I suppose it was almost predictable that such individuals would love this election, as SJWs combined with their demands for 'trigger warnings' have effectively declared with a loud speaker just what their buttons are and how to press them... and the trolls are delighted to put those buttons to the test. I could go into why Milo and Trump fall into these categories, but I doubt it would be worthwhile. I am, after all, not the boss of the word 'troll' - I simply have the word in my vocabulary and when it smells like a troll I apply the label. But you can be safe knowing that not everyone with a different opinion, no matter how far away from my own, is actually a troll.
Omfg lol I can't believe this https://www.bloomberg.com/features/.....-yiannopoulos/
I wish - sadly, he's a native-born Brit, and so we'd need to amend the Constitution before he could run... Same with Steven Crowder.
Now, ironically, Ben Shapiro COULD run... and I'd love to see the sparks between him and Milo. Seriously, the two should just hate-fuck already and get it over with.
Now, ironically, Ben Shapiro COULD run... and I'd love to see the sparks between him and Milo. Seriously, the two should just hate-fuck already and get it over with.
Can you show me evidence of this? That isn't the impression I got, at least regarding Milo; he's called Milo a provocateur, and he has a personal dislike for Milo because when his wife was pregnant Milo insinuated the father was some black dude, but I don't recall him saying that Milo baselessly accuses others of racism and white supremacy.
I've commented on his latest video with this;
Hey Ben? I've been looking over some of your recent columns, and I found this;
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/.....on-ben-shapiro
Specifically, what concerns me is the part regarding calling Milo a 'white ethno-nationalist' and with the comment sections on Breitbart being filled with 'white supremacist' meme-makers. What, exactly, makes Milo a white ethno-nationalist? Yes, he speaks frequently of Western culture being vastly superior to the various Muslim cultures in the Middle East; he also seems to prefer America to be unified in language, and for it to become a Christian nation. Are these the only ways he is a 'white ethno-nationalist', or are there other reasons?
In regards to the comment sections - sorry, I think you're quite wrong there. The 'racism' is simply a form of a joke, a practical joke on leftists who shriek autistically at even the faintest whiff of racism. It is designed to rile people up; it's not a genuine statement of beliefs. Really, you should know better; the same people who make those memes also say things like 'Praise kek' and use Pepe as their mascot, with Kek being the god of chaos and Pepe being some sort of incarnation. That part, clearly, is being done tongue-in-cheek, and you know that; why then do you take their racist jokes and insults at face-value, as proof that they're 'white supremacist'?
Hey Ben? I've been looking over some of your recent columns, and I found this;
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/.....on-ben-shapiro
Specifically, what concerns me is the part regarding calling Milo a 'white ethno-nationalist' and with the comment sections on Breitbart being filled with 'white supremacist' meme-makers. What, exactly, makes Milo a white ethno-nationalist? Yes, he speaks frequently of Western culture being vastly superior to the various Muslim cultures in the Middle East; he also seems to prefer America to be unified in language, and for it to become a Christian nation. Are these the only ways he is a 'white ethno-nationalist', or are there other reasons?
In regards to the comment sections - sorry, I think you're quite wrong there. The 'racism' is simply a form of a joke, a practical joke on leftists who shriek autistically at even the faintest whiff of racism. It is designed to rile people up; it's not a genuine statement of beliefs. Really, you should know better; the same people who make those memes also say things like 'Praise kek' and use Pepe as their mascot, with Kek being the god of chaos and Pepe being some sort of incarnation. That part, clearly, is being done tongue-in-cheek, and you know that; why then do you take their racist jokes and insults at face-value, as proof that they're 'white supremacist'?
Shoot, it's not even fascism. Not even a month into the reign of Supreme God-Emperor Trump (may cheeto dust grace his visage forevermore), and we're already seeing the lefties absolutely lose their *shit*, growing ever more violent and ever more intolerant, and there hasn't been any sort of move to militarize the police or mobilize in significant force against the protests. Shoot, the worst they've done is captured, imprisoned, and charged those who they catch vandalizing and assaulting.
Seems the supposed 'anti-fascists' have become the true fascists.
Seems the supposed 'anti-fascists' have become the true fascists.
Mmmm. Look at you, twisting reality to fit your delusion. Mmm. Breathtaking.
If you would like to cite your claim, then please, go ahead. But we CAN cite the evidence and fact that B
Leftists use violence as their tool of intimidation and oppression. Violence against all things that they don't like.
If you would like to cite your claim, then please, go ahead. But we CAN cite the evidence and fact that B
Leftists use violence as their tool of intimidation and oppression. Violence against all things that they don't like.
I guess you can say that he has two. One is constantly engaging in an internet crusade against anyone who doesn't align with his political spectrum and and the other is moderating reddit boards.
No one on the web changes their views from a comment. Even if furries on here do happen to change their opinions, he'll fight with other people on twitter, YT, and reddit. There's no point into pleasing those types and giving what they want, because they're going to only demand more from you and others. Drama is like crack to him, so he's going to live and die never solving that impossible goal that he pointlessly invested so much time into.
Don't be disheartened by people who intentionally seal their personal potential, take it as a lesson and apply it to yourself.
No one on the web changes their views from a comment. Even if furries on here do happen to change their opinions, he'll fight with other people on twitter, YT, and reddit. There's no point into pleasing those types and giving what they want, because they're going to only demand more from you and others. Drama is like crack to him, so he's going to live and die never solving that impossible goal that he pointlessly invested so much time into.
Don't be disheartened by people who intentionally seal their personal potential, take it as a lesson and apply it to yourself.
Gavin is a self-depreciating old bastard, of course he'd call himself a rat - but I still think he'd be a better fit as a bear. Rats don't willingly walk into dangerous situations based on principle (at least, not stereotypically); Gavin refused to use the back door to enter an event safely because he rightfully believed that he should have the right to enter a building unmolested, and was pepper-sprayed attacked and as a result. He also fought back savagely in the process, for which I give him kudos. Definitely something fierce and strong, something with a strong will, even if its crude and crass at other times.
Shapiro... Well, what's the most Jewish avian? =p
Shapiro... Well, what's the most Jewish avian? =p
Oh! Good idea on Shapiro. That'd make him a black Jew, then, right? All the more humorous for the liberals calling him a Nazi and a Klansman.
As for Crowder... Well, he's far more 'playful' than Shapiro, but not nearly as sarcastic as Milo. I wanna say a lion, but that doesn't seem like as good a fit... Perhaps an elephant? Maybe a dolphin?
And Southern would be a fox, I'm sure =p
As for Crowder... Well, he's far more 'playful' than Shapiro, but not nearly as sarcastic as Milo. I wanna say a lion, but that doesn't seem like as good a fit... Perhaps an elephant? Maybe a dolphin?
And Southern would be a fox, I'm sure =p
Excellent for Shapiro. I was also remembering how Milo was making fun of him for his platform shoes, trying to be more tall and imposing. But also how when you see him on the Ruben Report, he's wearing that black sweater, which suits him very well.
So for Crowder, because of how playful he is, he has to be a Mr. Peanutbutter kind of person, so he'd have to be a canine. I was thinking a retriever or a lab, or better yet, a Labrador retriever!
And Southern, being all witty, foxy, and ostentatious, absolutely a fox.
So for Crowder, because of how playful he is, he has to be a Mr. Peanutbutter kind of person, so he'd have to be a canine. I was thinking a retriever or a lab, or better yet, a Labrador retriever!
And Southern, being all witty, foxy, and ostentatious, absolutely a fox.
This picture is *SO OFFENSIVE*. I am SO fucking triggered right now. Don't you know this guy is an alt-right fascist Nazi?! Let's take a look;
Adolph Hitler: primarily responsible for the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.
Joseph Goebbels: one of Hitler's underlings, was at least partially responsible for the treatment of the Jews in the Holocaust (it was a 'team effort', after all).
Mussolini: a sort of 'Mini Hitler', with his evil being of the same quality, just lesser in quantity.
Joseph Stalin: responsible for perhaps even more deaths than Hitler during his iron-fisted rule, known for sending political dissidents to the gulag.
Milo Yiannopoulos: Has said things that leftists don't like, slaughtering millions of 'fee-fees' in the process.
Yes, clearly, ALL of these names will all go down in history as some of the most vile humans to ever walk the earth. Anyone who thinks like him is a Nazi, and should be shot on sight.
Adolph Hitler: primarily responsible for the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.
Joseph Goebbels: one of Hitler's underlings, was at least partially responsible for the treatment of the Jews in the Holocaust (it was a 'team effort', after all).
Mussolini: a sort of 'Mini Hitler', with his evil being of the same quality, just lesser in quantity.
Joseph Stalin: responsible for perhaps even more deaths than Hitler during his iron-fisted rule, known for sending political dissidents to the gulag.
Milo Yiannopoulos: Has said things that leftists don't like, slaughtering millions of 'fee-fees' in the process.
Yes, clearly, ALL of these names will all go down in history as some of the most vile humans to ever walk the earth. Anyone who thinks like him is a Nazi, and should be shot on sight.
Because he didn't say that. Here's a transcript;
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2.....nedited-video/
I don't see him saying that 13 year old boys should be allowed to have sex with older men. I see him saying that relationships between 'younger boys and older men' should be permitted, and I see him saying that there are possibly people as young as 13 who are sexually mature and responsible at that age. You can also see where he said that the current law is 'probably about right' - ie, 18 is a good current barometer - but he also thinks it's possible for there to be outliers, and that the law should not prevent people who are on the outliers from acting sexually.
Now, I disagree with him, but what he said is more nuanced than you seem to be proposing.
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2.....nedited-video/
I don't see him saying that 13 year old boys should be allowed to have sex with older men. I see him saying that relationships between 'younger boys and older men' should be permitted, and I see him saying that there are possibly people as young as 13 who are sexually mature and responsible at that age. You can also see where he said that the current law is 'probably about right' - ie, 18 is a good current barometer - but he also thinks it's possible for there to be outliers, and that the law should not prevent people who are on the outliers from acting sexually.
Now, I disagree with him, but what he said is more nuanced than you seem to be proposing.
Just because it sounds more nuanced doesn't change the fact that he's advocating pedophilia. Sure, there are outliers, but they're very rare, and what's stopping the older man from convincing the kid to say what he wants? That's pretty much what happens anyway, but they're arrested because having sex with children is fucking illegal.
He was saying that someone who is young but mature, who can make adult choices and decisions, should be allowed to make these decisions - and, as a matter of fact, the law currently agrees with him on that principle. The exact mechanism differs from state to state, but there are mechanisms by which a minor can be emancipated from their parents and legally considered an adult. They can have sex, they can marry, they can do everything an adult can; and I think this is a reasonable standard. You cannot accuse him of pushing for pedophilia without accusing the government of permitting pedophilia.
Also, a technicality but one of important note; pedophilia is having sex with a minor who has not reached sexual maturity, which is not what he was advocating in the least. Now, I personally think the law as it stands is adequate, and while I appreciate the mindset of 'get the government out of our business', I don't think he fully knows American law in this regard. It may be that he doesn't know Emancipation is a thing, and if he heard about it he may decide that that is sufficient; it may also be that he does, and wants it loosened. Now, we can discuss that, and I would err on the side restricting young adults from being considered adults rather than allowing children to be prey for sexual predators, but ultimately the guiding ideas are sound and are already respected by the US government; that is, that young people under 18 may be mature enough to engage in adult relationships, and there must be an opportunity for those who are mature to achieve that.
If you want to simplify that to 'Milo wants to let 13 year old boys sleep with older men', well... You are fake news.
Also, a technicality but one of important note; pedophilia is having sex with a minor who has not reached sexual maturity, which is not what he was advocating in the least. Now, I personally think the law as it stands is adequate, and while I appreciate the mindset of 'get the government out of our business', I don't think he fully knows American law in this regard. It may be that he doesn't know Emancipation is a thing, and if he heard about it he may decide that that is sufficient; it may also be that he does, and wants it loosened. Now, we can discuss that, and I would err on the side restricting young adults from being considered adults rather than allowing children to be prey for sexual predators, but ultimately the guiding ideas are sound and are already respected by the US government; that is, that young people under 18 may be mature enough to engage in adult relationships, and there must be an opportunity for those who are mature to achieve that.
If you want to simplify that to 'Milo wants to let 13 year old boys sleep with older men', well... You are fake news.
Also, it seems Milo has released a press statement;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABJo7w-efTA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABJo7w-efTA
You know, as often as Milo and Ben disagree, I think a famous Ben Shapiro quote* is quite appropriate for those calling Milo a fascist;
"Facts don't care about your feelings."
For example, the fact that the Regressive Left and SJWs wish to restrict free speech and free expression, and make the expressing of certain ideas and certain ideologies illegal, is something that was quite popular with the Nazi party. They are also lying about the character of their opponents, claiming that they're racist/sexist/homophobic/hateful/whatever, in an attempt to make the general public hate and fear them rather than engaging in any real meaningful debate about what is true and what is not true - again, much like the Nazi party characterized the Jews. And we also see violence by these Regressive Leftists and SJWs brought against people they don't like, simply because they disagree with their opinions, just like the Nazis brought violence against those who wanted to peacefully disagree.
Yes, fascists suck; they just call themselves Antifa, or BLM, or Feminism, or any number of hateful and coercive ideologies on the left that seek to take away your basic rights because you're not the right sort of person in their eyes. If they ever gain even a semblance of self-awareness, I expect the shock would kill them.
*I think it was Ben who said it first, anyway.
"Facts don't care about your feelings."
For example, the fact that the Regressive Left and SJWs wish to restrict free speech and free expression, and make the expressing of certain ideas and certain ideologies illegal, is something that was quite popular with the Nazi party. They are also lying about the character of their opponents, claiming that they're racist/sexist/homophobic/hateful/whatever, in an attempt to make the general public hate and fear them rather than engaging in any real meaningful debate about what is true and what is not true - again, much like the Nazi party characterized the Jews. And we also see violence by these Regressive Leftists and SJWs brought against people they don't like, simply because they disagree with their opinions, just like the Nazis brought violence against those who wanted to peacefully disagree.
Yes, fascists suck; they just call themselves Antifa, or BLM, or Feminism, or any number of hateful and coercive ideologies on the left that seek to take away your basic rights because you're not the right sort of person in their eyes. If they ever gain even a semblance of self-awareness, I expect the shock would kill them.
*I think it was Ben who said it first, anyway.
Oh wow.
So this is where it came from.
Nicely composed and drawn, thank you for creating this.
Have had a lot of fun watching/observing Milo and his antics (along with the violent protests against him).
And now, got to have a lot of fun looking through the comments, and the people falsely attributing people to nazis!
So, this really was a two-for piece you have created!
First - the artwork, which is very nice.
Second - the comment section, which is very entertaining.
So this is where it came from.
Nicely composed and drawn, thank you for creating this.
Have had a lot of fun watching/observing Milo and his antics (along with the violent protests against him).
And now, got to have a lot of fun looking through the comments, and the people falsely attributing people to nazis!
So, this really was a two-for piece you have created!
First - the artwork, which is very nice.
Second - the comment section, which is very entertaining.
And if I have my facts correct, Milo now uses this as his own now that he's in the fandom. Ironically, conventions are banning him from entering. In a way (as I see it), those who do this in the US are violating our Constitution. Why? He may be a foreigner, but he should still be allowed to speak his mind. (Note I don't agree with some of what he says, but he should still be allowed to express it.)
Comments