The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

Which is just another echo chamber albeit an elite echo chamber and therefore far more worrying.

Why is it "far more worrying"? You think an elite echo chamber is worse than an echo chamber that's based on scare mongering and lies?

Pretty much all ideology is American ideology these days. White privilege. 3rd wage feminism. Neo conservstism. Alt rightism

Pretty much all ideology is not American. That's patently untrue. There are plenty of ideologies born outside the United states and unpopular in the US. Marxism, Islamic fundamentalism, Bolivarism etc etc.

It's not that surprising to me that you lived in the US, your ideology is entirely US driven - a leftism that supports one form of American imperialism (Clinton) over another (bush - trump).

Although the jury is still out on trump.

My ideology is not US driven. The closest ideology I identify with is Libertarian Socialism. An extreme left wing ideology that has little or no presence in the US. Completely opposed to any form of Imperialism.

I have never supported Hillary Clinton, except to believe that she was the least bad of the 2 candidates running for president.

The jury is not still out on Trump, he's a demagogue and a liar. He just hasn't had the chance to F up as president yet.

Brian?

The founders of BLM were Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. None of whom have ever murdered a police officer.

Where did this lie come from that they were founded by a cop killer?

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

Why is it "far more worrying"? You think an elite echo chamber is worse than an echo chamber that's based on scare mongering and lies?





Pretty much all ideology is not American. That's patently untrue. There are plenty of ideologies born outside the United states and unpopular in the US. Marxism, Islamic fundamentalism, Bolivarism etc etc.




My ideology is not US driven. The closest ideology I identify with is Libertarian Socialism. An extreme left wing ideology that has little or no presence in the US. Completely opposed to any form of Imperialism.

I have never supported Hillary Clinton, except to believe that she was the least bad of the 2 candidates running for president.

The jury is not still out on Trump, he's a demagogue and a liar. He just hasn't had the chance to F up as president yet.

I don't believe your libertarian socialism (and that's not because it's a bollocks theory). You know nothing about socialist theory and you are most certainly bourgeois. I doubt if you have matched with workers, or joined a left wing protest group in your life. You have nothing to say about US imperialism. You are never in economic threads fighting libertarians.

I said the jury is out on trump's imperialism. The deep state hates him which is hopeful. He's not falling into the American lefts imperialist war mongering against the new pantomime villain Putin.

Yourself isit

Osvarbravo (your posts are too long to quote).

You are totally wrong about how racism is defined by the academic left. It's commonplace to say that blacks can't be racist.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

I don't believe your libertarian socialism (and that's not because it's a bollocks theory). You know nothing about socialist theory and you are most certainly bourgeois. I doubt if you have matched with workers, or joined a left wing protest group in your life. You have nothing to say about US imperialism. You are never in economic threads fighting libertarians.

I don't really care if you believe or not. It's not really relevant to the discussion the alt right.

I said the jury is out on trump's imperialism. The deep state hates him which is hopeful. He's not falling into the American lefts imperialist war mongering against the new pantomime villain Putin.

Can you give me one real example of the American left being imperialist war mongers?

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Duh. Maybe if you had opened with that, instead of with what was in effect a justification for the egregious conflation of BLM with the crime, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You're obviously confusing me with another poster. I made absolutely no mention of BLM in my post, and my post was not intended to conflate BLM with anything at all. I am attempting to explain why some on the alt-right are smug about a white person being a victim of a hate crime, and it has nothing to do with BLM whatsoever, it has to do with regressive 'liberals' who have spent the last few years trying to ram this idea that any straight, white male, any other factors be damned, is the most privileged human on the planet and is therefore deserving of neither empathy nor the same right not to be offended that they afford to other groups.

That sentiment is almost totally fictional. True, you've been able to find examples of people who believe it - but I can find all sorts of examples of all sorts of idiots believing all sorts of nonsense, none of which gives anyone an excuse for being a hateful idiot in response.

Sorry hold on - how many examples do I need to provide before you accept that it is not totally fictional? I have hundreds. Give me a figure and I'll happily oblige. This is not an almost entirely fictional sentiment, it's one which is spreading like a plague throughout the young (18-mid twenties) demographic of feminists and 'liberal' activists.

They don't need ammunition. And if you will insist on using a stupid phrase like "regressive left", would you at least have the courtesy to define it?

I already have defined it, multiple times. The regressive left believes that (a) the right not to have one's feelings hurt is more important than others' right to free speech, that (b) certain ideologies are objectively "wrong" or "incorrect" and that they should not be afforded a fair hearing, that (c) racism and sexism include a 'power' distinction which makes certain demographics of their choosing immune from the aforementioned right not to have one's feelings hurt (or conversely that with certain demographics, they retain the right to free speech which is denied to other demographics) and finally (d) that marco-societal concepts matter more than individual experiences when judging a person's right to be listened with empathy, as opposed to laughed at and shouted down.

At its heart, the regressive left believes that double standards are justified on the basis of "privilege". That's a simple, one line explanation of the phenomenon. That double standards against men don't matter because men have some background, macro-societal privilege even if the individual man in question is homeless and begging for money, and the individual woman in question is wearing designer heels and on her way to a five star restaurant. Ditto for race - that a well off, black man such as Barack Obama is still fundamentally 'oppressed' and therefore less privileged than the aforementioned homeless white man.

Using the aforementioned redefinitions of sexism and racism (prejudice plus 'power'), they then go on to claim that a woman cannot by definition be sexist against a man, and that misandry as a concept cannot exist. Same for black-on-white racism - which is why the alt-right is rubbing this racist hate crime in their faces, because in their minds it's a "gotcha - your claim that black people cannot be racist against white people is bullsh!t and we have an example with which to prove that".

This then combines with a desire to ensure that certain viewpoints and ideologies do not get a fair hearing - cultural authoritarianism is something which also defines what this movement is about: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-19/students-fight-back-against-political-correctness-rise-cultural-libertarianism is a good summary of the culture war as I have described it.

Some examples include feminists pulling fire alarms to prevent fathers' rights activists from speaking in colleges, campaigns to have offensive facebook memes banned en masse, campaigns to ban certain songs with offensive lyrics from being played on college property, etc. Such campaigns are anathema to cultural libertarians, who believe that there should be no limits to the expression of opinions or to cultural productions such as art and music.

You can ignore this culture war crap, but to act as if it's an insignificant number of people ranting on obscure websites is moronic. It's being endorsed by student societies all over the western world, it's being parroted by politicians (Senators Lorraine Higgins and Fidelma Healy Eames want to make hurt feelings take precedence over free expression on the internet, for example) and is understandably causing a huge amount of resentment among the demographics which are targeted as unworthy of a voice or empathy.

Some of that resentment will cause people like myself to simply rail against regressive leftists while maintaining their own left wing beliefs, but unfortunately others, particularly younger people who haven't yet discovered their own political identity, will instead be drawn to the alt-right and other such movements because it offers instant gratification revenge against the regressive leftists. There are people on Trump's Reddit forum who support left wing political beliefs, but voted Trump purely because they got a vindictive thrill out of seeing hysterical young liberals freaking out and having "meltdowns" because they can't accept the reality of a Trump victory ( http://reddit.com/r/The_Meltdown ). Entirely stupid reason to vote for somebody, but these are impressionable young idealists and when has that demographic ever not been in danger of ill-thought out reactionism? All I'm asking is for you to acknowledge that this movement did not appear in a vacuum, and that the obnoxious baiting of 'privileged' people by the regressive left bears at least some responsibility for radicalising members of the demographics they target.

Committed leftists (those who won't be swayed to join the alt-right in response to regressive leftists) can ignore this, or we can do something about it. In my view, more of us need to speak out against cultural authoritarians on our own side of the political aisle.

I can understand why it's happening too: there are people vile enough to celebrate an act of violence because it helps them to score political points. That's all you need to know.

No, it isn't. You're looking only at the surface and refusing to consider the underlying, deeper issues.

When you start finding extreme examples of silliness and using them as justification for vile behaviour (all the while claiming you're not justifying it), you're becoming part of the problem.

I'm not justifying it, again, and this absolutist view of the problem is the reason the world is failing to deal with it. Again, you can take this stance if you like - because dismissing these people as beyond outreach and instead belittling them as subhuman worked out sooo well for the left when it came to Brexit and Trump, didn't it?

More of this is coming down the line if these people continue to be maligned and dismissed instead of engaged with in genuine debate and conversation.

Brian?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're obviously confusing me with another poster. I made absolutely no mention of BLM in my post, and my post was not intended to conflate BLM with anything at all. I am attempting to explain why some on the alt-right are smug about a white person being a victim of a hate crime, and it has nothing to do with BLM whatsoever, it has to do with regressive 'liberals' who have spent the last few years trying to ram this idea that any straight, white male, any other factors be damned, is the most privileged human on the planet and is therefore deserving of neither empathy nor the same right not to be offended that they afford to other groups.



Sorry hold on - how many examples do I need to provide before you accept that it is not totally fictional? I have hundreds. Give me a figure and I'll happily oblige. This is not an almost entirely fictional sentiment, it's one which is spreading like a plague throughout the young (18-mid twenties) demographic of feminists and 'liberal' activists.



I already have defined it, multiple times. The regressive left believes that (a) the right not to have one's feelings hurt is more important than others' right to free speech, that (b) certain ideologies are objectively "wrong" or "incorrect" and that they should not be afforded a fair hearing, that (c) racism and sexism include a 'power' distinction which makes certain demographics of their choosing immune from the aforementioned right not to have one's feelings hurt (or conversely that with certain demographics, they retain the right to free speech which is denied to other demographics) and finally (d) that marco-societal concepts matter more than individual experiences when judging a person's right to be listened with empathy, as opposed to laughed at and shouted down.

At its heart, the regressive left believes that double standards are justified on the basis of "privilege". That's a simple, one line explanation of the phenomenon. That double standards against men don't matter because men have some background, macro-societal privilege even if the individual man in question is homeless and begging for money, and the individual woman in question is wearing designer heels and on her way to a five star restaurant. Ditto for race - that a well off, black man such as Barack Obama is still fundamentally 'oppressed' and therefore less privileged than the aforementioned homeless white man.

Using the aforementioned redefinitions of sexism and racism (prejudice plus 'power'), they then go on to claim that a woman cannot by definition be sexist against a man, and that misandry as a concept cannot exist. Same for black-on-white racism - which is why the alt-right is rubbing this racist hate crime in their faces, because in their minds it's a "gotcha - your claim that black people cannot be racist against white people is bullsh!t and we have an example with which to prove that".

This then combines with a desire to ensure that certain viewpoints and ideologies do not get a fair hearing - cultural authoritarianism is something which also defines what this movement is about: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-19/students-fight-back-against-political-correctness-rise-cultural-libertarianism is a good summary of the culture war as I have described it.

Some examples include feminists pulling fire alarms to prevent fathers' rights activists from speaking in colleges, campaigns to have offensive facebook memes banned en masse, campaigns to ban certain songs with offensive lyrics from being played on college property, etc. Such campaigns are anathema to cultural libertarians, who believe that there should be no limits to the expression of opinions or to cultural productions such as art and music.

You can ignore this culture war crap, but to act as if it's an insignificant number of people ranting on obscure websites is moronic. It's being endorsed by student societies all over the western world, it's being parroted by politicians (Senators Lorraine Higgins and Fidelma Healy Eames want to make hurt feelings take precedence over free expression on the internet, for example) and is understandably causing a huge amount of resentment among the demographics which are targeted as unworthy of a voice or empathy.

Some of that resentment will cause people like myself to simply rail against regressive leftists while maintaining their own left wing beliefs, but unfortunately others, particularly younger people who haven't yet discovered their own political identity, will instead be drawn to the alt-right and other such movements because it offers instant gratification revenge against the regressive leftists. There are people on Trump's Reddit forum who support left wing political beliefs, but voted Trump purely because they got a vindictive thrill out of seeing hysterical young liberals freaking out and having "meltdowns" because they can't accept the reality of a Trump victory ( http://reddit.com/r/The_Meltdown ). Entirely stupid reason to vote for somebody, but these are impressionable young idealists and when has that demographic ever not been in danger of ill-thought out reactionism? All I'm asking is for you to acknowledge that this movement did not appear in a vacuum, and that the obnoxious baiting of 'privileged' people by the regressive left bears at least some responsibility for radicalising members of the demographics they target.

Committed leftists (those who won't be swayed to join the alt-right in response to regressive leftists) can ignore this, or we can do something about it. In my view, more of us need to speak out against cultural authoritarians on our own side of the political aisle.



No, it isn't. You're looking only at the surface and refusing to consider the underlying, deeper issues.



I'm not justifying it, again, and this absolutist view of the problem is the reason the world is failing to deal with it. Again, you can take this stance if you like - because dismissing these people as beyond outreach and instead belittling them as subhuman worked out sooo well for the left when it came to Brexit and Trump, didn't it?

More of this is coming down the line if these people continue to be maligned and dismissed instead of engaged with in genuine debate and conversation.

I'm not going to argue with most of your post. I'm not sure where my head is on it. But the bolder part I'll disagree with. In my experience it's impossible to engage in genuine debate and conversation with the alt right. In my own personal experience they have a 100% record in falling back on name calling, insults, lies and when all else fail they'll refuse to answer a simple question. It's infuriating and impossible to debate with.

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

I'm not going to argue with most of your post. I'm not sure where my head is on it. But the bolder part I'll disagree with. In my experience it's impossible to engage in genuine debate and conversation with the alt right. In my own personal experience they have a 100% record in falling back on name calling, insults, lies and when all else fail they'll refuse to answer a simple question. It's infuriating and impossible to debate with.

All I can do is counter with two points: Firstly, this has not been my experience (in fact I can categorically tell you that as a Sanders supporter, I was received with far more warmth and willingness to have an honest debate on Donald Trump's subreddit as opposed to Hillary Clinton's, where I was attacked and bashed for even considering not automatically voting for her because Trump was so God-awful. On both, I presented my issues with each candidate and asked what their support base would respond with, Trump's folk were generally engaging while Clinton's were snide and condescending.

Perhaps this was merely a case of a discrepancy in the electioneering ability of each candidate's support base, wherein Trump's folk knew that engaging undecided voters was essential, while Clinton's were arrogant enough to assume they could win without the support of anyone who wasn't a 100% Clintonista (Clintonisto?).

Second point, not everyone who gravitates towards the alt right is 100% alt right already, and they could be persuaded not to radicalise further if engaged with before they go too far down the rabbit hole.

Let's forget about terms such as alt right and regressive left for a moment - do you agree or disagree that the 'liberal' bashing, insulting, disparaging and dismissing of anyone leaning towards voting yes on Brexit was a disgrace, and undoubtedly did nothing but cause people with Brexit leaning attitudes to harden those attitudes? I saw this in person among my own Facebook friends which would obviously include a lot of leftists and liberal activists - the belittling attitude was just insufferable. Based on what I've seen, identical tactics were deployed against undecideds and Trump voters in the US. What else did both incidents have in common? Oh yeah - the attacks failed to change the outcome of the vote. Surprise, surprise.

Have you not seen any of the following terms used to blindly describe Brexit and/or Trump voters without engaging those voters at all to find out what they say their motivations are? Racist, uneducated, stupid, ignorant, uninformed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/welcome-to-brexit-britain---a-nation-of-secret-leave-voters-too/

No wonder many Leavers are keeping quiet; the social media shaming has begun and if they speak out now, they risk being vilified. One 19-year-old summed it up when he spoke on Twitter about voting out and the assumptions people make about him: “I must be a racist and uneducated obviously.”

Do you call that kind of automatic smearing "engaging in a genuine conversation"? Because in my view that's evidence of the regressive left's counterpoint to what you have said about the alt-right - unwilling to have a civilised debate.

Yourself isit

Brian? wrote: »

I don't really care if you believe or not. It's not really relevant to the discussion the alt right.

It tells us a bit about the nature of the poster.

Can you give me one real example of the American left being imperialist war mongers?

What? Libya. Syria. Serbia. Yemen. Vietnam. Cuba.

And more. No real socialist would find a fig leaf of difference between republicans and Democrats.

Brian?

Yourself isit wrote: »

It tells us a bit about the nature of the poster.

Do tell.

What? Libya. Syria. Serbia. Yemen. Vietnam. Cuba.

Wars started by or indulged in by Democrat administrations. Not by the American left. You see where I'm going? The Democratic Party has never been the American left and likely never will be. They are merely a shade to the left of the GOP.

And more. No real socialist would find a fig leaf of difference between republicans and Democrats.

I agree 100%. I am not now, nor ever have been aligned with the Democratic Party. I just felt Clinton was the least bad candidate for POTUS.

Nice implication that I could never be a real socialist.

Brian?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

All I can do is counter with two points: Firstly, this has not been my experience (in fact I can categorically tell you that as a Sanders supporter, I was received with far more warmth and willingness to have an honest debate on Donald Trump's subreddit as opposed to Hillary Clinton's, where I was attacked and bashed for even considering not automatically voting for her because Trump was so God-awful. On both, I presented my issues with each candidate and asked what their support base would respond with, Trump's folk were generally engaging while Clinton's were snide and condescending.

Perhaps this was merely a case of a discrepancy in the electioneering ability of each candidate's support base, wherein Trump's folk knew that engaging undecided voters was essential, while Clinton's were arrogant enough to assume they could win without the support of anyone who wasn't a 100% Clintonista (Clintonisto?).

Second point, not everyone who gravitates towards the alt right is 100% alt right already, and they could be persuaded not to radicalise further if engaged with before they go too far down the rabbit hole.

Let's forget about terms such as alt right and regressive left for a moment - do you agree or disagree that the 'liberal' bashing, insulting, disparaging and dismissing of anyone leaning towards voting yes on Brexit was a disgrace, and undoubtedly did nothing but cause people with Brexit leaning attitudes to harden those attitudes? I saw this in person among my own Facebook friends which would obviously include a lot of leftists and liberal activists - the belittling attitude was just insufferable. Based on what I've seen, identical tactics were deployed against undecideds and Trump voters in the US. What else did both incidents have in common? Oh yeah - the attacks failed to change the outcome of the vote. Surprise, surprise.

Have you not seen any of the following terms used to blindly describe Brexit and/or Trump voters without engaging those voters at all to find out what they say their motivations are? Racist, uneducated, stupid, ignorant, uninformed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/welcome-to-brexit-britain---a-nation-of-secret-leave-voters-too/

No wonder many Leavers are keeping quiet; the social media shaming has begun and if they speak out now, they risk being vilified. One 19-year-old summed it up when he spoke on Twitter about voting out and the assumptions people make about him: “I must be a racist and uneducated obviously.”

Do you call that kind of automatic smearing "engaging in a genuine conversation"? Because in my view that's evidence of the regressive left's counterpoint to what you have said about the alt-right - unwilling to have a civilised debate.

It's wrong when either side are unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. I have yet to encounter anyone who self identifies as alt right who will engage in honest, meaningful debate.

Jan_de_Bakker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Duh. Maybe if you had opened with that, instead of with what was in effect a justification for the egregious conflation of BLM with the crime, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That sentiment is almost totally fictional. True, you've been able to find examples of people who believe it - but I can find all sorts of examples of all sorts of idiots believing all sorts of nonsense, none of which gives anyone an excuse for being a hateful idiot in response. They don't need ammunition. And if you will insist on using a stupid phrase like "regressive left", would you at least have the courtesy to define it? I can understand why it's happening too: there are people vile enough to celebrate an act of violence because it helps them to score political points. That's all you need to know. When you start finding extreme examples of silliness and using them as justification for vile behaviour (all the while claiming you're not justifying it), you're becoming part of the problem.

Yeah, that's the rationalisation. It's built on a categorical refusal to understand what the phrase "black lives matter" means.

I'll explain it to you, not because I think you're open-minded, but because I don't want to give you the cover of pretending not to understand: the phrase "black lives matter" is itself a response to the belief that black lives don't matter, or that black lives matter less. It's shorthand for "black lives matter too", or "black lives matter as much as everyone else's".

When someone counters "black lives matter" with "all lives matter", it's a contradiction. It's not intended to be inclusive: witness the many situations where Trump supporters were asked to agree that black lives matter, and refused to say it: they alway countered with "all lives matter".

So, while on the face of it it's designed with the clever pretence of inclusiveness, when it's used as a retort to "black lives matter", in fact it's a rebuttal: "all lives matter, to the extent that that's apparently the case today". When you start rejecting Trump and his ilk out of hand because of the thuggery he attracts, come back to me.

What people don't like about BLM is that it confronts them with the idea that black lives matter less, and that's not something they're either not prepared to admit to, or not prepared to admitting to being comfortable with. That's not true. I wonder if you believe it, or if it's a lie that you're repeating uncritically because it suits your argument? Yes, the problem is one of police brutality. The problem is also that black people are disproportionately victims of police brutality, which gives rise to the idea that black lives don't matter as much as white - a belief that you're doing your damnedest to promote. No, it's not - and even if it was, why aren't you asking why a disproportionate number of black people are involved in crime?

The alt-right white supremacist explanation is that black people are inherently criminal. The "regressive left" view, I guess, is that black people are stuck in a poverty trap that's the result of a systemically racist society.

I never said black people are inherently criminal !

I agree it's a poverty trap , and a social problem in the US - and I don't like it - doesn't mean I agree with marches screaming for the murder of cops either.

Jan_de_Bakker

marienbad wrote: »

Is this correct ? no mention here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

Sorry I could be confusing it with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

It's wrong when either side are unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. I have yet to encounter anyone who self identifies as alt right who will engage in honest, meaningful debate.

That's fair enough. All I can say is that I have. But the point is, that again this is a toxicity which is mirrored on both sides, it is not unique to the right wing.

midnight city

Brian? wrote: »

It's wrong when either side are unwilling to engage in meaningful debate. I have yet to encounter anyone who self identifies as alt right who will engage in honest, meaningful debate.

There is no alt right manifesto. Its a loose group of ideas. Some extreme and some not so. Its like assuming every progressive leftie agrees on a set of ideas. Its much like voting for a political party, you generally don't agree with everything they stand for but you pick sides based on agreeing with more of their politics than the other parties.

20Cent

Nicholas Pell the author of the controversial IT article will be further silenced/censored by appearing on Claire Byrne live tonight. That and a few radio interviews poor fella can't get a word out.

midnight city

20Cent wrote: »

Nicholas Pell the author of the controversial IT article will be further silenced/censored by appearing on Claire Byrne live tonight. That and a few radio interviews poor fella can't get a word out.

That section was basically an audience with Colm O'Gorman. Glad the representatives from Irish times and Independent got the chance to speak a little and made sense. There are actual successful political movements in other countries with views similar to the alt right. Here in Ireland some people can't even handle an article appearing in the paper.

Ben Gadot

I couldn't disagree with the IT opinion editor. He was very succinct in his point: they trust their readers to form an opinion, simple as.

Pell's article was crass based on the Irish Times' usual standard but still, it highlights a rising element that needs to be methodically deconstructed. Ignoring them for this long has gotten us where we are.

meepins

20Cent wrote: »

What is the alt right?

White nationalism.

frostyjacks

Is nationalism a bad thing? Only the other day we saw gangs of Africans running amok on one of Dublin's main thoughorfares. Nobody told us this is what multiculturalism meant.

NP33

They weren't Africans they were Irish who happen to be black. And teenagers run amok, white or black, it doesn't make a difference.

It's pretty dim witted to think this had anything to do with multiculturalism although I suspect you have an agenda here.

Brian?

frostyjacks wrote: »

Is nationalism a bad thing? Only the other day we saw gangs of Africans running amok on one of Dublin's main thoughorfares. Nobody told us this is what multiculturalism meant.

White nationalism is a bad thing, because it's rebranded white supremacy.

Gangs of Africans eh? Where in Africa were they from?

20Cent

frostyjacks wrote: »

Is nationalism a bad thing? Only the other day we saw gangs of Africans running amok on one of Dublin's main thoughorfares. Nobody told us this is what multiculturalism meant.

That story was also shown to be untrue. Peddled by a fake news site "the liberal.ie" which is being sued for plagerism. An example of why we should keep our media to a higher standard.

frostyjacks

How is it fake? Witnesses said it was gangs of black youths. It's a regular thing apparently, so I guess we'll just have to tolerate it, like we'll have to tolerate every other third world practice that the New Irish bring with them.

20Cent

frostyjacks wrote: »

How is it fake? Witnesses said it was gangs of black youths. It's a regular thing apparently, so I guess we'll just have to tolerate it, like we'll have to tolerate every other third world practice that the New Irish bring with them.

What witnesses?
Any photo's or video? You think something like that could happen and no one would video it?
Other journalists investigated and found nothing.
It's race baiting and stirring up hatred.

frostyjacks

20Cent wrote: »

What witnesses?
Any photo's or video? You think something like that could happen and no one would video it?
Other journalists investigated and found nothing.
It's race baiting and stirring up hatred.

Store security guards, and a black shopper who was worried they'd be mistaken for one of the thugs.

How is it race baiting? Should we be expected to tolerate this behaviour? We saw the same head-in-the-sand reaction after thousands of black youths went on the rampage in England a few years ago after some criminal was shot.

mayordenis

The vast majority of crime in this country is by white irish, which I guess to you is tolerable, but when a black irish or non-irish does it, it can't be tolerated?

It shouldn't be tolerated in either case, but you seem to be drawing the line in the sand on the back of race.

NP33

frostyjacks wrote: »

How is it fake? Witnesses said it was gangs of black youths. It's a regular thing apparently, so I guess we'll just have to tolerate it, like we'll have to tolerate every other third world practice that the New Irish bring with them.

Third world practice? Kids meeting up and fighting each other only happens in the third world? Arranged fights are pretty common among youth these days. It's a regular thing but mainly among white Irish youth (SHOCK!) go to O'Connell Street during a Airtricity derby or one of our lovely beaches on a Bank Holiday and see for yourself.

As for New Irish can you again explain what you mean by this? They are born in Ireland and are as Irish as you and me.

My son is mixed race and if you ever referred to him as 'new Irish' or from the 'third world' you wouldn't be standing upright long. Honestly people like you make my skin boil, you would never have the balls to spout the opinions you do in public.

NP33

frostyjacks wrote: »

Store security guards, and a black shopper who was worried they'd be mistaken for one of the thugs.

How is it race baiting? Should we be expected to tolerate this behaviour? We saw the same head-in-the-sand reaction after thousands of black youths went on the rampage in England a few years ago after some criminal was shot.

The behaviour has nothing to do with their skin colour. You'd swear this was the first time that Irish youth from bad areas have been involved in fights.

Do you really lack the capacity to understand this or are you just race baiting?

meepins

frostyjacks wrote: »

Is nationalism a bad thing?

No, just very confused people think it is.

NP33 wrote: »

They weren't Africans they were Irish who happen to be black.

Wrong. Irish people are not black, end of story. Anyone of african heritage is not my people and never will be.

And teenagers run amok, white or black, it doesn't make a difference.
It's pretty dim witted to think this had anything to do with multiculturalism although I suspect you have an agenda here.

The desperation.

Brian? wrote: »

White nationalism is a bad thing, because it's rebranded white supremacy.

Wrong and dishonest but this is no surprise, I skimmed three pages of the thread and caught you lying on one of them.. ironically accusing the alt right of being lying scumbags in that post.

White supremacy is the belief of superiority over the other races and that whites should rule over them.
White nationalism advocates for sovereign homelands for all whites of european descent.