The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

FA Hayek

marienbad wrote: »

And you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing .

How so? Calling people up on their knee-jerk emotive reaction while putting their head in the sand on other matters? If you can find an example where I did this with Trump or Hillary then work away.

See this is what I find interesting. I have been on the record before in calling Trump a blowhard and an idiot in the terms of the things he says.

This would make is clear I am not a Trump supporter, a member of the alt right or whatever you are having yourself. Yet, even coming down on the line and saying 'Look, lets see what the guys does first' you get labeled as the above.

Also note that when I called him a blowhard idiot Trump supporters did not jump on the bandwagon and start criticising me, off the bat. In fact not one responded with any of the 'Trump is the greatest, he is going to make America great again'. Not one.

Yet, here, if I even dare to critise people and their selective hypercritical thinking when it comes to Trump then I get accused of doing the same thing that I calling people out on (with no example to back it up mind )

This is what I find interesting most of all. Is that people are quite happy to admit that when criticising a politician they will freely admit to leaving all critical thinking and processing at the door and resort to emotive primitive knee-jerk responses. Thus, no matter what Trump does it will be wrong.

A simple example would be his stimulus spending and his tearing up of TTIP. The latter of which many progressives and people on the left were very apprehensive about. Did these people give credit to Tump for dumping this trade deal. Nope! There in lies the issue I am talking about.

If what matters most to you is personality then fine, yet people pretend that issues matter to them. Looking at the last few pages here, they are lying. They don't care about the issues unless it is their guy. If its the other guy then its about personality.

In summary, people pretend to care about issues when in fact they don't give a ****.

FA Hayek

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll ask you the same question then that I keep asking Trujmp fans because so few are willing to in any way answer on it -

Have to stop you there as I am not a Trump 'fan'. The difference with me though is that I was not a Hillary 'fan' either.

FA Hayek

As to regards Carney, looks very 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' if you ask me but not sure anyone is surprised really given the sort of stuff that has come out of Universities these past few years.

terenc

I love the way you people carry on about what is right and what is wrong (2 minorities) the people of the USA voted Trump, a breath of fresh air and a feeling of how the people want their politicians to reflect their views . Time for you (mouths).

to understand what the people of your country want.#

ancapailldorcha

Actually, Hilary Clinton won more votes than Trump. The Electoral College voted for Trump.

frostyjacks

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Amazing how you unflinchingly see bigots as the victims.

Do you know what a bigot is? Someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs. Carey's views on marriage are really not that controversial; in fact they are the norm in many countries and cultures around the world. The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.

I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist. Why can't they behave like men instead of little pansies? If this LGBT group feel threatened by a poster of a former Archbishop, how pathetic is that? He's not exactly Hitler, is he?

terenc

Yeah but who is president and the system was the same before he was elected and before and before!!!!!

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you know what a bigot is? Someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs. Carey's views on marriage are really not that controversial; in fact they are the norm in many countries and cultures around the world. The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.

I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist. Why can't they behave like men instead of little pansies? If this LGBT group feel threatened by a poster of a former Archbishop, how pathetic is that? He's not exactly Hitler, is he?

It's funny how you began that post by questioning if someone knew what a bigot is. Then you laid bare that you're a bigot.

You worry about moral fibre while spewing hate. "Why can't they behave like men"? What about the women? Or are you supportive of female to male transgender people?

Denying people the right to marry people of the same sex is no longer supported by the majority of people in the U.K. and Ireland. Denying people this right is founded only in bigotry as there is no sane and rational reason to do so.

No one is trying to silence anyone btw. I love allowing bigots free speech. They will happily display their own twisted discriminatory views every time.

InTheTrees

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, Hilary Clinton won more votes than Trump. The Electoral College voted for Trump.

Clinton received almost three million more votes than trump.

2.8 million I think.

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

This would make is clear I am not a Trump supporter, a member of the alt right or whatever you are having yourself. Yet, even coming down on the line and saying 'Look, lets see what the guys does first' you get labeled as the above.

That all seems fine and reasonable at first glance, but it's predicated on the idea that someone who is a horrible person, was an appalling candidate and is a pretty disastrous President-elect is somehow an unknown quantity and that we'll have to wait until January 20 before we find out who the real Trump is.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Actually, Hilary Clinton won more votes than Trump. The Electoral College voted for Trump.

Apropos, I saw this today - apparently Trump has deleted his tweets from the 2012 election when he thought Obama had lost the popular vote, but someone helpfully kept a screenshot:

frostyjacks wrote: »

The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.

The college say that's not why it was taken down. If you're going to accuse them of lying, you really ought to produce evidence to the contrary.

I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure how you reconcile protesting against something with pretending it doesn't exist. Surely the very act of protesting bigotry acknowledges its existence?

It's almost as if you're reflexively criticising something without thinking it through.

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

Do you know what a bigot is? Someone who is intolerant of another's beliefs. Carey's views on marriage are really not that controversial; in fact they are the norm in many countries and cultures around the world. The bigots are those who cannot tolerate that view and have his image torn down from a wall.

Why do you keep bringing other countries into this? Many of these countries are nations which the alt right is all-too-keen on keeping away from but now you're happy to cite common cause? The UK is a liberal nation and has been for a very long time.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I do worry about the moral fibre of our young people coming out of universities these days. Their response to a challenge or confrontation is to wish it away, silence it, pretend it doesn't exist. Why can't they behave like men instead of little pansies? If this LGBT group feel threatened by a poster of a former Archbishop, how pathetic is that? He's not exactly Hitler, is he?

As opposed to someone who moans about on an online forum? These people identified something they saw as a problem and decided to do something about it. Same as the people who donated to Hope Not Hate. You on the other hand do absolutely nothing and expect others to defend your freedom from this phantom threat.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

King's College London removes a photo of the former Archbishop of Canterbury from its 'wall of fame' amid student anger about his views on gay marriage - Daily Mail

King's College removes photo of ex-archbishop opposed to gay marriage - The Guardian

Former Archbishop of Canterbury's picture removed from King's College London amid concerns about his views on gay marriage - Telegraph

'Gay-stapo' campaigners force removal of Archbishop picture from King's College London campus - Evening Standard

Nobody covered this story with reference to Tutu, or Howard, or any of the other people on the wall. It was purely a hate campaign from the LGBT lobby against someone with traditional Christian views on marriage, under the guise of 'diversity'. They've turned that into a toxic word now.

I'm having a hard time believing you've read those articles.

From the first (Daily Mail) article you cited:

The picture is one of a number on the wall, which also featured Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, to be removed to make way for a digital display board.

...

'In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed.
'The individuals were notified in advance and expressed themselves fully supportive. Further digital screens will be rolled out when we move into Bush House in September 2017.'

From the second (Guardian) article you cited:

A spokesman said a number of static portraits, including those of Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard had been removed to make space for new digital screens next to a university entrance.

...

“In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed. The individuals were notified in advance and expressed themselves fully supportive.”

From the third (Telegraph) article you cited:

A spokesman for King's confirmed that a number of static portraits, including ones of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed following a review into the university's "window display policy".

...

"In order to make space for the screens next to the prominent Strand campus entrance, a number of static portraits, including those of Lord Carey, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Sir Michael Howard, were removed."

So no, that does absolutely nothing to answer why you're so offended on behalf of Carey but not Tutu & Howard.

frostyjacks

oscarBravo wrote: »

The college say that's not why it was taken down. If you're going to accuse them of lying, you really ought to produce evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure how you reconcile protesting against something with pretending it doesn't exist. Surely the very act of protesting bigotry acknowledges its existence?

It's almost as if you're reflexively criticising something without thinking it through.

Evidence to the contrary? How about the five year campaign they had going? I guess every news article is mistaken in linking that campaign to the college's decision.

They should spend more time studying, less time hugging trees and burning flags. No wonder society is going down the toilet.

frostyjacks

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm having a hard time believing you've read those articles.

From the first (Daily Mail) article you cited:


From the second (Guardian) article you cited:


From the third (Telegraph) article you cited:


So no, that does absolutely nothing to answer why you're so offended on behalf of Carey but not Tutu & Howard.

Why are you playing dumb? The story has nothing to do with the other pictures. The reason they were all taken down was because of the campaign by the LGBT lobby. They can't tolerate the traditional view on marriage.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are you playing dumb? The story has nothing to do with the other pictures. The reason they were all taken down was because of the campaign by the LGBT lobby. They can't tolerate the traditional view on marriage.

To try and defend the fact that you weren't (and still apparently aren't given your constant dodging of the question) offended on behalf of Howard or Tutu, only of Carey, you said...

Nobody covered this story with reference to Tutu, or Howard

...and then went on to cite three articles that made reference to Tutu AND Howard.

Seriously. That's what you did. I'm not making it up because I actually couldn't.

I think it's safe to say at this point that you're not going to give a reason why you're apparently not offended about Tutu's picture being taken down and naturally given some of what you've posted in here not only today but in recent weeks, that's going to lead people to draw reasonable conclusions - none of which reflect well on you.

Amazingfun

The ongoing extortion/cowardly attack on Richard Spencer's mother is addressed by him here:

Richard's mother wrote a post about it herself where she reveals the emails she received from the odious Tanya Gersh:

https://medium.com/@recnepss/does-love-really-live-here-fff159563ba3#.hpvj4g9cn

On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied. Gersh’s other conditions included that I make a public denunciation of my son in a statement written by the Montana Human Rights Network and that I make a donation to this organization from the sale of the property. As Gersh announced on Facebook, she was “spear heading” the campaign.

There has been pushback against Gersh and her fellow travellers, which is great to see. The media is desperately spinning it as "Nazis attack innocent Jews in Montana" , but thanks to Gersh's own words, the timeline and sequence of events clearly shows it was all instigated by them.

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why are you playing dumb? The story has nothing to do with the other pictures. The reason they were all taken down was because of the campaign by the LGBT lobby. They can't tolerate the traditional view on marriage.

Why on earth should they? It's discriminatory.

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

They should spend more time studying, less time hugging trees and burning flags. No wonder society is going down the toilet.

Society is going down the toilet? It looks like the opposite to me. It is no longer socially acceptable to be a bigot, and that's what's really upsetting you. You feel that your right to discriminate has been removed and this constitutes persecution.

"Society", whatever it is, has not gone down the toilet.

frostyjacks

Billy86 wrote: »

To try and defend the fact that you weren't (and still apparently aren't given your constant dodging of the question) offended on behalf of Howard or Tutu, only of Carey, you said...

Nobody covered this story with reference to Tutu, or Howard

...and then went on to cite three articles that made reference to Tutu AND Howard.

Seriously. That's what you did. I'm not making it up because I actually couldn't.

I think it's safe to say at this point that you're not going to give a reason why you're apparently not offended about Tutu's picture being taken down and naturally given some of what you've posted in here not only today but in recent weeks, that's going to lead people to draw reasonable conclusions - none of which reflect well on you.

You're going to have to spit it out old chap because I genuinely haven't got a clue what you're on about. The story had absolutely nothing to do with Tutu, Howard, Woolf or Richardson. Why do you keep prattling on about them? This was an attack on free expression. Don't try and dress it up any other way, it demeans you.

frostyjacks

Amazingfun wrote: »

The ongoing extortion/cowardly attack on Richard Spencer's mother is addressed by him here:

Richard's mother wrote a post about it herself where she reveals the emails she received from the odious Tanya Gersh:

https://medium.com/@recnepss/does-love-really-live-here-fff159563ba3#.hpvj4g9cn



There has been pushback against Gersh and her fellow travellers, which is great to see. The media is desperately spinning it as "Nazis attack innocent Jews in Montana" , but thanks to Gersh's own words, the timeline and sequence of events clearly shows it was all instigated by them.

This is how they operate. Bully, intimidate, threaten. They simply cannot tolerate another point of view. But they're not bigots...yeah, right.

AnGaelach

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why on earth should they? It's discriminatory.

Having a picture up of a traditional family is discriminatory?

Brian?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Having a picture up of a traditional family is discriminatory?

No. But believing that marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman is.

Believing that any couple who do not conform to this definition should be denied the right to marry is discriminatory. Do you disagree?

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is how they operate. Bully, intimidate, threaten. They simply cannot tolerate another point of view. But they're not bigots...yeah, right.

Can you define the "they" who operate this way.

AnGaelach

Brian? wrote: »

No. But believing that marriage should be exclusively between one man and one woman is.

Disagreeing with someone's views is grounds for removing pictures? That just sounds like people complaining for the sake of it.

AnGaelach

Brian? wrote: »

Can you define the "they" who operate this way.

The Regressive Left I'd assume, they've hardly gone without courting controversy before.

Billy86

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're going to have to spit it out old chap because I genuinely haven't got a clue what you're on about. The story had absolutely nothing to do with Tutu, Howard, Woolf or Richardson. Why do you keep prattling on about them? This was an attack on free expression. Don't try and dress it up any other way, it demeans you.

When you're proven definitively wrong on something, like linking to stories also mentioning Tutu and Howard while claiming they never make reference to Tutu or Howard, repeating it again does not magically make it right. You linked to stories that did talk about not only Tutu, but Howard as well. You were wrong. Move on with it, because we both know you don't actually care about the pictures being taken down, hence your continued attempts to avoid addressing that Tutu's and Howard's were also, and that it was brought up in the stories you yourself linked to.

20Cent

AnGaelach wrote: »

The Regressive Left I'd assume, they've hardly gone without courting controversy before.

Look at Spencers buddies response.

Jews Targeting Richard Spencer’s Mother for Harassment and Extortion – TAKE ACTION!
Andrew Anglin | It's time to push back against these evil kikes!

http://www.dailystormer.com/jews-targeting-richard-spencers-mother-for-harassment-and-extortion-take-action/

Photo's (with Nazi Jewish stars photoshopped on them), social media accounts,(including a 12 year olds), phone numbers etc published. All harrassed and threatened. The 12 year old was told to climb into an oven.

Spencer runs his campaigns from the building so it's fair game imo.

Brian?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Disagreeing with someone's views is grounds for removing pictures? That just sounds like people complaining for the sake of it.

Did I say it was? I disagree with the premise that objecting to same sex marriage is not discriminatory, as I said in my post. Do you disagree?

I don't agree that it's ground for removing his picture. But then, that's not why it was removed so the point is moot.

Brian?

AnGaelach wrote: »

The Regressive Left I'd assume, they've hardly gone without courting controversy before.

The "regressive left" do not exist as a group.

Yourself isit

oscarBravo wrote: »

But your complaint was about the removal of Carey's picture, not about the fact that people expressed displeasure with his bigotry.

So why are you bothered by the removal of Carey's picture and not Tutu's?

I wonder if a picture of castro would survive?