Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Billy Mays

CosmicJay wrote: »

Its really easy, you tag everyone who marched in protest of that statue being torn down as being a white supremacist, and neo-Nazi, racist etc etc.

Theres absolutely 100% no way there are any non-Nazi's in there right?



You even supported violence against these people. You saw an article on the internet and decided yes, I support violence against this entire section of people.

If you can make those generalisations why cant I?

You attend a rally that was organised by white supremacists, features neo Nazi and white supremacist speakers and features Nazi imagery on it's posters well then you're gonna get called a neo Nazi or a white supremacist.


As mentioned earlier it was not organised by moderate right wingers as some other poster claimed. Personally speaking if I turned up to protest against the statue being taken down and saw the dregs that were in attendance I'd be out of there like a shot.


Here's the poster that was used to advertise the rally


It doesn't even mention anything about the removal of the statue ffs

Danzy

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

On one side there are two categories of Trump supporters ( Category A ) people from different backgrounds who are moderate right who support Trump vs ( Category B ) an extreme right element who support Trump, most people on the left fail to make any distinction between the two, then there,s the other side the side who riot in the streets when a democratic election doesn,t go their way,  who violently target anyone who supports Trump, who displays political banners calling for " more dead cops " lets call a spade a spade here if an extreme right element go on the way Antifa do there would of being calls to ban + proscribe such groups long ago .

Either side does not do nuance, like all authoritarians they see people as groups with that group identity determining thought and guilt.

White sheets, black hoodies, **** all difference bar the wash cycle on laundry day.

The Legend Of Kira

Billy Mays wrote: »

CosmicJay wrote: »

Its really easy, you tag everyone who marched in protest of that statue being torn down as being a white supremacist, and neo-Nazi, racist etc etc.

Theres absolutely 100% no way there are any non-Nazi's in there right?



You even supported violence against these people. You saw an article on the internet and decided yes, I support violence against this entire section of people.

If you can make those generalisations why cant I?

You attend a rally that was organised by white supremacists, features neo Nazi and white supremacist speakers and features Nazi imagery on it's posters well then you're gonna get called a neo Nazi or a white supremacist.


As mentioned earlier it was not organised by moderate right wingers as some other poster claimed. Personally speaking if I turned up to protest  against the statue being taken down and saw the dregs that were in attendance I'd be out of there like a shot.


Here's the poster that was used to advertise the rally


It doesn't even mention anything about the removal of the statue ffs

Just looked at the list of speakers, the only one whose political views Id be kinda know of/know about would be that spencer fellow , + even if someone weren,t familiar with any of the speakers the useage of the black eagle imagery makes it clear what they re about .

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense deleted. No more link dumping and one-liners please.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Snickers Man wrote: »

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Meanwhile, hours after far-right neo-confederates kill a woman in the US, Cork hurling fans wave their flag in Croke Park. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.

This is priggishness of the highest order.

Do you really think Cork hurling fans are white supremacists, supporters of slavery and fans of the worst excesses of the Baluba that is in the White House now, just because they wave a Rebel Flag?

Get over yourself. Please.

The clue is in the name. Rebel County; Rebel Flag. That's why they fly it. Even though the name Rebel means completely different things in the different countries.

The world is a big diverse place. Common values of decency, respect, individual liberty, equality, free speech, right to due process of law etc et are fine but in matters of culture and symbolism there will always be things that mean one thing in one culture and another elsewhere.

Have a look at the following clip. It is a bunch of Orangemen in Belfast being deliberately provocative by playing a tune calculated to be offensive outside a Catholic Church.

Your logic is backwards. The Cork fand are taking a symbol of hatred amd oppression and treating it as something trivial. The Orange Order, in that case, ate taking something innocuous and making it offensive. A better comparisonia to imagine that the Denver Broncos used Orange Order imagery because of the colours.

InTheTrees

If the nazis didn't hold rally's then "antifa" wouldn't even exist.
And then the nazis whine about people opposing them.

Danzy

InTheTrees wrote: »

If the nazis didn't hold rally's then "antifa" wouldn't even exist.
And then the nazis whine about people opposing them.

They both need each other, the best course of action would be to surround both of them and fire their authoritarian asses in to space.

hatrickpatrick

If this whole saga has taught me one thing, it's that Horseshoe Theory has some credibility, far more than I used to think.

hatrickpatrick

InTheTrees wrote: »

If the nazis didn't hold rally's then "antifa" wouldn't even exist.
And then the nazis whine about people opposing them.

In my view it's the other way around - check the article I posted a few pages back, the constant drumbeat of "whites / men / white men are the root of all evil and should be ashamed of themselves for things they've never actually done" preceded the rise of the alt-right - and in many journalists' views directly precipitated it.

wes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view it's the other way around - check the article I posted a few pages back, the constant drumbeat of "whites / men / white men are the root of all evil and should be ashamed of themselves for things they've never actually done" preceded the rise of the alt-right - and in many journalists' views directly precipitated it.

Yeah, because minorities are never vilified in the media :rolleyes:. David Duke and his ilk have been around for decades. There just showing there faces due to Trump and the other white supremacists in the White house.

If what your saying is true, I can only imagine how these Neo Nazi's would act if they were actually oppressed, like lets say Christians in Iraq murdered by ISIS, or Rohinga murdered by radical Buddhists. Those people face real oppression, and its quite frankly offensive that your would even insinuate that White men in the US are oppressed on the basis of there skin color.

The fact that they weren't shot for parading around with high end guns, proves your claim wrong.

**EDIT**
Also, just to add what your saying is actually incredibly offensive to white men. To suggest that people saying mean things made these guys embrace extremism is utterly absurd.

What is happening is that extremist prey on weak willde young men (much like ISIS do actually), and then use lies to present them a world view, where there the only victim. It is a deliberate recruitment of disaffected young men, some of whom are poor and in a bad way, but not all. Some are middle class, with every advantage. The commonality is they get radicalized online.
**END EDIT**

Brian?

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The worst of American society on view the other day. Both extreme hate groups. Sickening tbh...

I'm not an Antifa supporting, being a pacifist and all. But who do they direct their anger at? Fascist groups. Seems almost reasonable.

Now the other side, the Neo Nazis and white surprmecists. Who do they direct their anger at? Everyone who isn't them. They hate you and I for being Irish, or they used to. They hate gays, black people, Jews, muslims, brown people, Asians, native Americans and white people who marry outside their race etc etc.

To paint them as 2 sides of the same coin is patently ridiculous. I don't approve of Antifa's methods or tactics, but they are most certainly not a hate group.

I would support Anitfa if they peacefully protested at white "nationalist" events. Any reasonable person should. These are hate groups.

wes

wes wrote: »

The fact that they weren't shot for parading around with high end guns, proves your claim wrong.

I wonder what would have happened if a few black guys turned up kitted out in all the tactical gear and assault rifles like the white supremacists did.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder what would have happened if a few black guys turned up kitted out in all the tactical gear and assault rifles like the white supremacists did.

They opposition does show up similarly equipped, from time to time.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c1543a_f8af286cef4c49059f79355a30de9316~mv2.jpg

http://www.thefringenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/www.intellihub.com17424899_419062565125516_-662d0e90561d32162f5533624d03e7caf057eba5.jpg

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1483/98/1483988058069.jpg

I wouldn't use the 50-round mags, personally, they are unreliable.

Although, in fairness, those who are more left-leaning tend to be less likely to own firearms. A situation a number have observed puts them at a relative disadvantage, and which they have started to rectify. Who knew, that the minorities are re-discovering that one of the stated benefits of emancipation at the time was that the blacks could arm themselves to protect themselves against racists...

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Although, in fairness, those who are more left-leaning tend to be less likely to own firearms. A situation a number have observed puts them at a relative disadvantage, and which they have started to rectify.

Oh yay. More guns. That'll calm things down.

B0jangles

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh yay. More guns. That'll calm things down.

With this kind of advertising being used by the NRA, I think we can expect even more violence against protesters in the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_jkPhrddc

The above is a genuine ad by the NRA, not a parody.

Edit: Before its said that they do not explicitly call for violence, they do everything in their power to depict anti-Trump protesters as The Enemy, talk about the 'Clenched Fist of Truth" and are you, know, in the business of convincing people to buy as many guns as possible. They know exactly what they are doing, and it's terrifying.

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

They opposition does show up similarly equipped, from time to time.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c1543a_f8af286cef4c49059f79355a30de9316~mv2.jpg

http://www.thefringenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/www.intellihub.com17424899_419062565125516_-662d0e90561d32162f5533624d03e7caf057eba5.jpg

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1483/98/1483988058069.jpg

I wouldn't use the 50-round mags, personally, they are unreliable.

All the armed people in those photos look white to me.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The worst of American society on view the other day. Both extreme hate groups. Sickening tbh...

I'm not an Antifa supporting, being a pacifist and all. But who do they direct their anger at? Fascist groups. Seems almost reasonable.

Now the other side, the Neo Nazis and white surprmecists.  Who do they direct their anger at? Everyone who isn't them. They hate you and I for being Irish, or they used to. They hate gays, black people, Jews, muslims, brown people, Asians, native Americans and white people who marry outside their race etc etc.

To paint them as 2 sides of the same coin is patently ridiculous. I don't approve of Antifa's methods or tactics, but they are most certainly not a hate group.

I would support Anitfa if they peacefully protested at white "nationalist" events. Any reasonable person should. These are hate groups.

" But who do they direct their anger at? Fascist groups. Seems almost reasonable.  " If it were just " fascist " groups like the Bnp they were against Id say reasonable but its not just groups like the Bnp they oppose its also anyone who publicly advocate for strong Immigration controls as evident in the past here when they disrupted public meetings of groups seeking restrictions on Immigration + when they assaulted a speaker about to argue a case for Immigration control at a college debate in 2004, I can also point out they targeted Ukip in the past too also , now Ukip are right wing and that but they are moderates they aren,t white supremacists or anything of the sort, Ann Coulter also targeted by Antifa yes  shes right wing and that but she isn,t  a white supremacist nor a fascist, only about two months ago they attacked Andrew Bolt an Australian conservative in the street, once again this person isn,t a white supremacist nor a fascist .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUyzZzz4Q0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUyzZzz4Q0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUyzZzz4Q0

Recently enough New Jersey homeland security has placed Antifa on domestic counter terrorism list.

https://www.njhomelandsecurity.gov/analysis/anarchist-extremists-antifa

hatrickpatrick

wes wrote: »

Yeah, because minorities are never vilified in the media :rolleyes:. David Duke and his ilk have been around for decades. There just showing there faces due to Trump and the other white supremacists in the White house.

If what your saying is true, I can only imagine how these Neo Nazi's would act if they were actually oppressed, like lets say Christians in Iraq murdered by ISIS, or Rohinga murdered by radical Buddhists. Those people face real oppression, and its quite frankly offensive that your would even insinuate that White men in the US are oppressed on the basis of there skin color.

The fact that they weren't shot for parading around with high end guns, proves your claim wrong.

**EDIT**
Also, just to add what your saying is actually incredibly offensive to white men. To suggest that people saying mean things made these guys embrace extremism is utterly absurd.

What is happening is that extremist prey on weak willde young men (much like ISIS do actually), and then use lies to present them a world view, where there the only victim. It is a deliberate recruitment of disaffected young men, some of whom are poor and in a bad way, but not all. Some are middle class, with every advantage. The commonality is they get radicalized online.
**END EDIT**

So you don't believe there's any possibility that living in a culture which routinely sh!ts on you for who you are while telling you that you couldn't possibly be a victim of racism or sexism might assist in radicalising young people?

super_furry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you don't believe there's any possibility that living in a culture which routinely sh!ts on you for who you are while telling you that you couldn't possibly be a victim of racism or sexism might assist in radicalising young people?

Turn off the internet and stop looking for idiots on tumblr and in their own self-selecting community and I simply don't believe that's happening in wider society. Sure there's the fringe lunatics in universities but they've always been there. It's no mistake that the current generation of white nationalists are the first generation to have grown up online.

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" But who do they direct their anger at? Fascist groups. Seems almost reasonable.  " If it were just " fascist " groups like the Bnp they were against Id say reasonable but its not just groups like the Bnp they oppose its also anyone who publicly advocate for strong Immigration controls as evident in the past here when the disrupted public meetings of groups seeking restrictions on Immigration + when they assaulted a speaker about to argue a case for Immigration control at a college debate in 2004, I can also point out they targeted Ukip in the past too also , now Ukip are right wing and that but they are moderates they aren,t white supremacists or anything of the sort, Ann Coulter also targeted by Antifa yes  shes right wing and that but she isn,t  a white supremacist nor a fascist, only about two months ago they attacked Andrew Bolt an Australian conservative in the street, once again this person isn,t a white supremacist nor a fascist .

I know nothing about Andrew Bolton.

Ann Coulter regularly spews hatred, she's not a fascist. The UKIPs are not moderate.

I'm quite happy for them to be peacefully opposed.

I don't think Antifa existed in 2004.

wes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you don't believe there's any possibility that living in a culture which routinely sh!ts on you for who you are while telling you that you couldn't possibly be a victim of racism or sexism might assist in radicalising young people?

It doesn't happen as much as your suggest. Maybe some places online, that I doubt these guys frequent.

FFS, the vast majority of media shows white men as heroes, be it television, video games, or movies. Let not pretend that some how white men are being vilified in all aspects of American culture. Its absurd to think that white men are so weak willed that a few shrill people online going overboard, will make them join up with Nazi's. The simple fact is that the vast majority aren't as weak and pathetic as these Nazi's.

Look at how Dylann Root and Ander Breivik (i know different country) (or Elliot Rodgers for the combo self hating racist and misogynist variant) to name a few, were radicalized, it was via the Internet and various lies, exaggerations against minorities groups and nonsense about "white genocide", or about how there owed a Woman. The people either radicalize themselves, by seeking out hateful material, or end up being recruited by other extremists. All of this is well documented, and there major beef is other groups getting equality.

You also have an American President who attacks minority groups in pretty vile ways, be they Transgender people, Mexican, Muslim, Women or African Americans. The vile garbage, that these Nazis (and the US President) spew against minorities, pales in comparison to anything said by some nutter online somewhere (i would argue that the overwhelmingly positive representation in pretty much all aspects of media more than makes up for this).

Please, go read what the Nazi's said about terror attack victim Heather Heyer on Deir Strommer, or whatever there vile little website is called. Read up on the daily and constant harassment against any Women on the Internet. Its a simple Google away. The type of hatred that Women of any race get online is truly astonishing. Sure if your a guy, you may get a bit of abuse, but a Women (White, black, Asian, doesn't matter) will receive is in order of magnitude worse, and yet I don't see Women running around castrating men on mass, considering how ****ing bad there treated online.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" But who do they direct their anger at? Fascist groups. Seems almost reasonable.  " If it were just " fascist " groups like the Bnp they were against Id say reasonable but its not just groups like the Bnp they oppose its also anyone who publicly advocate for strong Immigration controls as evident in the past here when the disrupted public meetings of groups seeking restrictions on Immigration + when they assaulted a speaker about to argue a case for Immigration control at a college debate in 2004, I can also point out they targeted Ukip in the past too also , now Ukip are right wing and that but they are moderates they aren,t white supremacists or anything of the sort, Ann Coulter also targeted by Antifa yes  shes right wing and that but she isn,t  a white supremacist nor a fascist, only about two months ago they attacked Andrew Bolt an Australian conservative in the street, once again this person isn,t a white supremacist nor a fascist .

I know nothing about Andrew Bolton.

Ann Coulter regularly spews hatred, she's not a fascist. The UKIPs are not moderate.

I'm quite happy for them to be peacefully opposed.

I don't think Antifa existed in 2004.

Antifa short for anti fascist action attacked Justin Barrett as he was about address a debate on Immigration in Ucd in 2004, now as I said before on older threads he did express certain views in the past that Id disagree with him on such as his past opposition to divorce + his opposition to contraception, that said what separates me from Antifa is Im not one to go around physically attacking people because they disagree with me about political issues .

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/assault-on-speaker-at-ucd-debate-25893151.html

Samaris

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you don't believe there's any possibility that living in a culture which routinely sh!ts on you for who you are while telling you that you couldn't possibly be a victim of racism or sexism might assist in radicalising young people?

Well, black people and women certainly had their radicalists (and they were usually told and still told that they can't possibly be victims of racism or sexism), so there's a potential of that.

It is still every individual's own choice to turn to violence.

For what it's worth, I am very uneasy about the punch a Nazi rhetoric too. I believe that being the first to resort to violence is a losing argument (and absolutely feeds into the oppressed victim narrative that they're pulling).

Snickers Man

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Your logic is backwards. The Cork fand are taking a symbol of hatred amd oppression and treating it as something trivial. The Orange Order, in that case, ate taking something innocuous and making it offensive. A better comparisonia to imagine that the Denver Broncos used Orange Order imagery because of the colours.

???

So are you saying the Cork fans are more at fault for being "trivial" than the Orange band members are for being "offensive"? You'll have to explain that logic to me.

My point is simply that a symbol, piece of artwork, flag etc that means something in one part of the world may mean something completely different elsewhere. The Stars and Bars is not offensive in itself. It's the meaning one invests in it that makes the difference. All the Cork fans are doing is saying "Hey Hey we're the Rebels"

And we know what they mean.

Snickers Man

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh yay. More guns. That'll calm things down.

An American solution to an American problem :rolleyes:

Overheal

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The two people I referred to in that post were Milo + Ann Coulter who had their speaking engagements at Berkley cancelled due to violence, are you seriously saying those two are " nazis " ?

They are both white supremacists whom are very vocally supportive of the Alt-Right. Milo even works for Breitbart, Bannon's flagship, which Bannon himself stated last July was a platform for the Alt-Right.

So yes. Those two are about a semantic label away from being neo-nazis.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Snickers Man wrote: »

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Your logic is backwards. The Cork fand are taking a symbol of hatred amd oppression and treating it as something trivial. The Orange Order, in that case, ate taking something innocuous and making it offensive. A better comparisonia to imagine that the Denver Broncos used Orange Order imagery because of the colours.

???

So are you saying the Cork fans are more at fault for being "trivial" than the Orange band members are for being "offensive"? You'll have to explain that logic to me.

My point is simply that a symbol, piece of artwork, flag etc that means something in one part of the world may mean something completely different elsewhere. The Stars and Bars is not offensive in itself. It's the meaning one invests in it that makes the difference. All the Cork fans are doing is saying "Hey Hey we're the Rebels"

And we know what they mean.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that taking an innocuous thing and making it offensive does not make the original innocuous thing necessarily bad. But Cork fans are taking a symbol of oppression and trying to use it as a symbol of rebellion. It makes no sense and whether or not they are aware of the origin, it's disgusting. Surely, if they are proud of Cork's rebel past they should use flags against oppression, not ones that celebrate it.

Personally, as long they continue to wave that flag, I hope they get beaten in every single match.

Snickers Man

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I hope they get beaten in every single match.

Well I'm from D4. I'm with you there.

hatrickpatrick

super_furry wrote: »

Turn off the internet and stop looking for idiots on tumblr and in their own self-selecting community and I simply don't believe that's happening in wider society.

Una Mullally. Louise O'Neill. Bahar Mustafa. The Guardian. The Huffington Post. Buzzfeed. The Irish Times. The Irish Examiner. These are not mere fringe publications, they are mainstream, and their hate speech is tolerated as acceptable by mainstream society in ways which it most certainly would not be if directed against other groups. You don't see how this could cause a minority of troubled individuals to go beyond resentment and towards dangerous radicalisation?

Sure there's the fringe lunatics in universities but they've always been there.

There is absolutely no denying that they've become a thousand times worse. Even some mainstream feminists are now commenting on how American universities have become utterly hostile to young white men, and how this is contributing to an explosion in dangerously resentful and hateful reactionary ideologies.

It's no mistake that the current generation of white nationalists are the first generation to have grown up online.

I agree with that - does this mean that you in fact concur, that a culture which slams and undermines their identity at every opportunity is contributing to their anger issues?

20Cent

How is anyone supposed to have a discussion or a debate with a Nazi. Here is their attitude.

https://t.co/BfPKEIlMiF?amp=1


His father recalled a time when his son joked, “The thing about us fascists is, it’s not that we don’t believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We’ll just throw you in an oven,” Tefft recalled.

super_furry

Think it's simple with the confederate flag being flown by Cork fans. All they need to do is ask themselves how a young black player or supporter would feel if they saw that in flying in Croke Park. They don't care or they're trying to make a very twisted point.

hatrickpatrick

Overheal wrote: »

They are both white supremacists whom are very vocally supportive of the Alt-Right. Milo even works for Breitbart, Bannon's flagship, which Bannon himself stated last July was a platform for the Alt-Right.

So yes. Those two are about a semantic label away from being neo-nazis.

Guilt by association alone, then. Can you find any neo-Nazi content in anything Yiannapolos has said? He's a cultural nationalist, sure, but that's not the same as being a white supremacist. He doesn't take issue with minority races, but minority cultures which he views as incompatible with Western values.

I disagree with him on just about everything except his views on free speech, which in my view the world needs a massive dose of at the moment - particularly the mainstream media.

It's a pity the debate to retain statues like those to a general like Robert E. Lee has been seized so completely by the far right. I'd support it, for the reasons others have articulated earlier, we can't go around in a society that airbrushes the past. But I'd rather they all came down rather than any association with those who have used it as a platform to push an agenda based on hate.

The Legend Of Kira

Overheal wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The two people I referred to in that post were Milo + Ann Coulter who had their speaking engagements at Berkley cancelled due to violence, are you seriously saying those two are " nazis " ?

They are both white supremacists whom are very vocally supportive of the Alt-Right. Milo even works for Breitbart, Bannon's flagship, which Bannon himself stated last July was a platform for the Alt-Right.

So yes. Those two are about a semantic label away from being neo-nazis.

Milo a gay guy who has revealed in past interviews has a black boyfriend ,  that makes him some " white suprenacist " alright .

wes

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's a pity the debate to retain statues like those to a general like Robert E. Lee has been seized so completely by the far right. I'd support it, for the reasons others have articulated earlier, we can't go around in a society that airbrushes the past. But I'd rather they all came down rather than any association with those who have used it as a platform to push an agenda based on hate.

It's being put in a museum, which I think is a better place for these statues. In a museum people can be better educated on the past

The Legend Of Kira

Well over a year ago  HatrickPatrick posted this thread, the opening post hit the nail on the head about a lot of things regarding why people are turned towards Trump etc .
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057610818

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The vast majority of confederate monuments were erected in the aftermath of Plassey v Ferguson or during the mid-century civil rights campaign. They're not so much memorials of the war as testaments to bigotry and Jim Crow.

Tony EH

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view it's the other way around - check the article I posted a few pages back, the constant drumbeat of "whites / men / white men are the root of all evil and should be ashamed of themselves for things they've never actually done" preceded the rise of the alt-right - and in many journalists' views directly precipitated it.

This may be correct to some degree Patrick, but, I think it's reasonable to conclude that any (even moderately) intelligent whites / men / white men, would come to understand the deeper politics of that so-called alt-right movement very quickly and be abhorred.

Unless they agree with that deeper politics, of course.

A few words out of the likes of Richard Spencer is enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If you lie down with dogs...etc

Danzy

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Well over a year ago  HatrickPatrick posted this thread, the opening post hit the nail on the head about a lot of things regarding why people are turned towards Trump etc .
https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057610818

It is a basic rule of democracy that there is only so long that a party or movement can get away without listening to voters till they refuse to listen back.

Add in top of that, that many in the new left are openly contemptuous towards their old base, have zero meas in them, and that applies whether they are genuine assholes or the nicest people around. Makes me wonder what I 'll vote in years to come.

Personally, I think the left is collapsing as a force capable of governing States in the West. There is a class divide, an outlook divide between much of it and its old voter base that is unusual, hence the electoral problems.

Not all certainly but enough to damage the movement as a whole.

The left has changed out of all recognition in the last 25 years. I think it had some sort of nervous breakdown in the 90s after the collapse of the Soviet Union and has never recovered.

If anything the next generation of activists are even more arrogant and out of touch, especially in America, hell, that is even just the ones I often agree with.

That is off topic, a bit, but without the left making the space for this micro movement to ever so slightly less micro, this would not be a story.

Samaris

Well, given the Cork crowd are using the flag to indicate that they are "rebels", it is hardly a far reach to assume that having taken that much meaning from it, they're probably taking the rest. It's a ridiculous notion anyway. What's wrong with the Cork colours?

If they really want a red flag, why are they not using the hammer and sickle? It would be more red at least than the stripey starred one. And they can't be too worried about connotations, all things considered.


It's not bloody hard. Get red flag. Sorted. Maybe even be a little inventive with it and give it a meaning rather than trying to co-opt someone else's flag with its own history.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Samaris wrote: »

Well, given the Cork crowd are using the flag to indicate that they are "rebels", it is hardly a far reach to assume that having taken that much meaning from it, they're probably taking the rest. It's a ridiculous notion anyway. What's wrong with the Cork colours?

If they really want a red flag, why are they not using the hammer and sickle? It would be more red at least than the stripey starred one. And they can't be too worried about connotations, all things considered.


It's not bloody hard. Get red flag. Sorted. Maybe even be a little inventive with it and give it a meaning rather than trying to co-opt someone else's flag with its own history.

The comments from Cork fans on social media today, who believe they are being oppressed, are hilarious. Maybe they're just too stingy to get a new flag.

Danzy

Samaris wrote: »

Well, given the Cork crowd are using the flag to indicate that they are "rebels", it is hardly a far reach to assume that having taken that much meaning from it, they're probably taking the rest. It's a ridiculous notion anyway. What's wrong with the Cork colours?

If they really want a red flag, why are they not using the hammer and sickle? It would be more red at least than the stripey starred one. And they can't be too worried about connotations, all things considered.


It's not bloody hard. Get red flag. Sorted. Maybe even be a little inventive with it and give it a meaning rather than trying to co-opt someone else's flag with its own history.

The Japanese Imperial rising sun flag is also used, a flag with a very bloody history, sure the USSR flag has tens of millions of dead behind it, one of the 3 most brutal States of the last century. I have seen that at games.

The obsession with what flags people in Cork fly is so far down the list of priorities or relevance that it is bizarre to even bring it up.

It is the sort of nonsense that really grinds people gears, just imagine being at a game, the same flag you have had for 20 years on a stick, enjoying it with your friends and some random asshole starts lecturing you.

I get the point people are making about it but that 1950s Priest hectoring the parish approach is never going to work, it is wearing down life long supporters of the left.

Tony EH

Overheal wrote: »

They are both white supremacists whom are very vocally supportive of the Alt-Right. Milo even works for Breitbart, Bannon's flagship, which Bannon himself stated last July was a platform for the Alt-Right.

Not any more. Milo got ejected after some stupid remarks and frankly it was only a matter of time before he imploded.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Guilt by association alone, then. Can you find any neo-Nazi content in anything Yiannapolos has said? He's a cultural nationalist, sure, but that's not the same as being a white supremacist. He doesn't take issue with minority races, but minority cultures which he views as incompatible with Western values.

I disagree with him on just about everything except his views on free speech, which in my view the world needs a massive dose of at the moment - particularly the mainstream media.

Milo was just an asshole. An attention seeking queen that loved the limelight that being part of this noisy alt-right nonsense afforded him. He would have happily sided with any group, if they acted as a conduit for him be "outrageous" in the public eye.

He was the alt-right's wild card. But, I'd wager there were many on the right that absolutely loathed him for being a Jew and gay.

Unfortunately, Milo got schooled in the fact that you simply cannot say anything you want without consequence. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say anything you wish in public and get up the next morning as if nothing happened. You have to be adult about your content and deal with the consequences of what you have to say.

Even the people he thought were his own turned their back on him in the end.

red ears

super_furry wrote: »

Turn off the internet and stop looking for idiots on tumblr and in their own self-selecting community and I simply don't believe that's happening in wider society. Sure there's the fringe lunatics in universities but they've always been there. It's no mistake that the current generation of white nationalists are the first generation to have grown up online.

I'm afraid it runs deeper than that. Some universities have modules on white privilege and deconstructing whiteness, abolition of whiteness etc.

Google evergreen university day without whites.

20Cent

red ears wrote: »

I'm afraid it runs deeper than that. Some universities have modules on white privilege and deconstructing whiteness, abolition of whiteness etc.

Google evergreen university day without whites.

Which university has a module on the abolition of whites?

Rjd2

Tony EH wrote: »

Not any more. Milo got ejected after some stupid remarks and frankly it was only a matter of time before he imploded.



Milo was just an asshole. An attention seeking queen that loved the limelight that being part of this noisy alt-right nonsense afforded him. He would have happily sided with any group, if they acted as a conduit for him be "outrageous" in the public eye.

He was the alt-right's wild card. But, I'd wager there were many on the right that absolutely loathed him for being a Jew and gay.

Unfortunately, Milo got schooled in the fact that you simply cannot say anything you want without consequence. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say anything you wish in public and get up the next morning as if nothing happened. You have to be adult about your content and deal with the consequences of what you have to say.

Even the people he thought were his own turned their back on him in the end.

Milo was loathed by many on the right because his political beliefs were little more exciting than "piss of lefties~!" which to be fair has proven to be financially rewarding to many.

Many conservatives loathed him, because he had little depth to anything he said and he getting spotlight done them no favours by association.

I think the below an article I linked before is worth a read. Its written by a libertarian whose initial opinion of Milo is somewhat favourable, but the more you dig into him, he is ultimately much worse than those who he is attacking and ultimately detrimental to the young libertarian/right wing normal people (yes they are some!) who could be tempted to copy him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-milo-yiannopoulos-the-appealing-young-face-of-the-racist-alt-right?via=twitter_page

red ears

20Cent wrote: »

Which university has a module on the abolition of whiteness?

Hunter College, City University of New York.

Danzy

Rjd2 wrote: »

Milo was loathed by many on the right because his political beliefs were little more exciting than "piss of lefties~!" which to be fair has proven to be financially rewarding to many.

Many conservatives loathed him, because he had little depth to anything he said and he getting spotlight done them no favours by association.

I think the below an article I linked before is worth a read. Its written by a libertarian whose initial opinion of Milo is somewhat favourable, but the more you dig into him, he is ultimately much worse than those who he is attacking and ultimately detrimental to the young libertarian/right wing normal people (yes they are some!) who could be tempted to copy him.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-milo-yiannopoulos-the-appealing-young-face-of-the-racist-alt-right?via=twitter_page

Milo is a flamboyant gay Jew with a fetish for blackmen and he'll tell that to a telephone pole. Do the hard Alt Right like him, not at all.

His talks are never that well attended in Universities in America or elsewhere, so I think a lot take him with a pinch of salt, he says some things that are reasonable and some that are pure trollish and that part has made him rich.

If no one reacted his talks wouldn't be watched, people watch for the put downs his acerbic reaction etc.

He wouldn't fill the Parish hall if he hadn't have been helped so much by people reacting to him.

Does he have political beliefs, possible but I doubt it.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

There has been a somewhat comical response from self styled 'voice of a generation' Randy Marsh Lorde, who manages to make a massive racist generalisation in a post about racists.

https://twitter.com/lorde/status/896528771636903936


Got that, whitey? It's all your fault!

Danzy

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

There has been a somewhat comical response from self styled 'voice of a generation' Randy Marsh Lorde, who manages to make a massive racist generalisation in a post about racists.

https://twitter.com/lorde/status/896528771636903936


Got that, whitey? It's all your fault!

It is truly bizarre things like this, mind boggling.

It presents an opportunity for people like Corbyn, Clinton, Obama etc to be blunt with the many who come out with this. just say" shut up you self-indulgent fool".

60K people liked it on Twitter!!

If you liked that it is because you have money in the bank, serious opportunities lined up and an ego that that would have you in the same Narcissism Therapy Group as The Donald.