Tommy Robinson jailed

rgossip30

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.

The presception being that the left are on the side of humanity they are just as capeable of being an ugly angry mob.

OMM 0000

rgossip30 wrote: »

The presception being that the left are on the side of humanity they are just as capeable of being an ugly angry mob.

They are as extreme as the right.

The problem really is intersectionality.

There is a hierarchy of victims.

Generally speaking:

The left hate white heterosexual males.

The right dislike muslims.

Using the hierarchy of victims, white heterosexual males are in the oppressor category, and muslims are in the victim category.

Obviously this is stupid, and anyone who is able to think things through can see it makes no sense (e.g. white males on a whole are one of the least successful groups in the US), but intersectionality is like a religion, so no amount of logic will change its followers minds.

Because the tech companies have signed up to this intersectionality belief system, it means hate towards white heterosexual males is fine, whereas hate towards muslims results in a ban.

They are private companies, so they can do what they want. I would prefer they were fair. Either ban anyone who speaks hate, or ban no one.

OMM 0000

List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income

Indian American (2016) : $122,026 [2]
Taiwanese American (2016) : $101,450 [3]
Chinese American (2016) : $90,221 [3]
Jewish American (2016) : $88,745 [2]
Korean American (2016) : $79,872[3]
Singaporean American (2016) : $78,127[3]
British American (2016): $77,841[3]
Japanese American (2016): $77,636[3]
Bulgarian American (2016): $76,861[3]
Lithuanian American (2016) : $76,694[3]
Israeli American (2016) : $76,584 [3]
Slovene American (2016) : $75,940[3]
Lebanese American (2016): $75,337[3]
Croatian American (2016): $73,991[3]
Sri Lankan American: $73,856[3]
Scandinavian American (2016): $73,797[3]
Belgian American (2016) : $73,443[3]
Malaysian American (2016): $72,827[2]
(excluding Taiwanese American)
Swiss American (2016) : $72,823[3]
Iranian American (2016) : $72,733[3]
Italian American (2016) : $72,586[3]
Ukrainian American (2016): $72,449 [3]
Romanian American (2016): $72,381[3]
Greek American (2016): $72,291[3]
Scottish American (2016): $71,925[3]
Danish American (2016) : $71,550[3]
Swedish American (2016): $71,217 [3]
Polish American (2016): $71,172[3]
Slavic American (2016) : $71,163[3]
Norwegian American (2016): $71,142[3]
Canadian American (2016) : $70,809[3]
Welsh American (2016): $70,351[3]
Czech American (2016) : $70,454[3]
Czechslovakian American (2016) : $70,084[3]
Finnish American (2016) : $70,045[3]
Serbian American (2016) : $70,028[3]
Hungarian American (2016): $69,515[3]
French Canadian American (2016) : $68,075[3]
Portuguese American (2016): $67,807[3]
English American (2016) : $67,663[3]
Slovak American (2016) : $67,471[3]
Armenian American (2016): $67,450[3]
German American (2016): $67,306[3]
Filipino American : $66,737[2]
Irish American (2016) : $66,688[3]
Ghanaian American (2016): $66,571[3]
Turkish American (2016) : $66,566[3]
Palestinian American (2016): $65,170[3]
Egyptian American (2016) : $64,728[3]
Vietnamese American : $64,191[4]
Scotch-Irish American (2016) : $64,187[3]
Yugoslavian American (2016) : $63,765[3]
Dutch American (2016) : $63,597[3]
French American (2016) : $63,471[3]
Syrian American (2016): $63,096[3]
Nepali American : $62,848[5][6]
Albanian American (2016) : $62,624[3]
Indonesian American : $61,943[5]
Guyanese American (2016) : $60,968[3]
Nigerian American (2016): $60,732[3]
British West Indian American (2016): $60,407[3]
Vietnamese American : $58,700[7]
(Foreign Born)
Cuban American : $57,000[8]
West Indian American : $56,998[3]
Brazilian American (2016): $56,151[3]
Barbadian American : $56,078[3]
Argentine American: $55,000[9]
Laotian American : $53,655[5]
Thai American : $53,468[5]
Cambodian American : $53,359[5]
Cajun American : $52,886[3]
Jamaican American (2016): $52,669[3]
Trinidadian and Tobagonian American : $55,303[3]
Moroccan American (2016) : $52,436[3]
Peruvian Americans : $52,000[3]
American (2016): $51,601[3]
Jordanian American (2016): $51,552[3]
Pennsylvania German American (2016): $48,955[3]
Ecuadorian American : $49,000[3]
Colombian American : $48,000[9]
Haitian American (2016): $47,990[3]
Cape Verdean American (2016) : $47,281[3]
Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac American (2016): $44,733[3]
Pakistani American : $44,677[5]
Bangladeshi American : $44,512[5]
Afghan American : $43,838[3]
Arab American (2016): $42,204[3]
Bahamian American : $42,000[3]
Ethiopian American (2016) : $41,357[3]
Puerto Rican American : $40,000[9]
Mexican American : $38,000[9]
Burmese American : $35,016[5]
Iraqi American (2016) : $32,818[3]
Dominican American : $32,300[9]
Somali American (2016): $24,185[3]

OMM 0000

Just to add a bit more data, muslims are above average in the US when it comes to income:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/

The intersectionality hierarchy is not based on data, but rather on feelings.

Surprise surprise.

OMM 0000

For the record, I'm not in any way anti-muslim. But I am anti-extremist. It's divisive and dishonest.

Trump Is Right

The left are totally and spectacularly shooting themselves in the foot by banning certain political or social commentators/activists from social media sites.... all it does it highlight how biased and unethical they are, when faced with opposing viewpoints to their own!

Ultimately this will only speed up the development of more social media platforms that cater for greater variety and greater equity. Most people want to hear all sides of the argument... even things they might find mildly offensive or highly disagreeable. Because it all helps to better form your own viewpoints on subjects... censorship never wins in the long run. It's only a stop-gap measure. Like the boy that picks up his ball and storms off the pitch... there will be other balls and other pitches! The game always supersedes the players!

batgoat

Trump Is Right wrote: »

The left are totally and spectacularly shooting themselves in the foot by banning certain political or social commentators/activists from social media sites.... all it does it highlight how biased and unethical they are, when faced with opposing viewpoints to their own!

Ultimately this will only speed up the development of more social media platforms that cater for greater variety and greater equity. Most people want to hear all sides of the argument... even things they might find mildly offensive or highly disagreeable. Because it all helps to better form your own viewpoints on subjects... censorship never wins in the long run. It's only a stop-gap measure. Like the boy that picks up his ball and storms off the pitch... there will be other balls and other pitches! The game always supersedes the players!

Like Gab which failed miserably with exception of hosting a spree killer.

Trump Is Right

@OMM 0000

Those stats don't really give you an accurate picture of who is in control in a country like the USA... just because more Indian American families have slightly higher per household income, than say British Americans... this does not mean that there are lots of influential Indians in powerful positions within American society!

The top end wealthiest people and families in the USA, are overwhelmingly white. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that... just pointing it out)

Extreme wealth is where the real power is in the USA... this is a very small club, and the vast majority are white and male! But that won't necessarily show up in certain statistics, depending on which ones you decide to use...

OMM 0000

Trump Is Right wrote: »

@OMM 0000

Those stats don't really give you an accurate picture of who is in control in a country like the USA... just because more Indian American families have slightly higher per household income, than say British Americans... this does not mean that there are lots of influential Indians in powerful positions within American society!

The top end wealthiest people and families in the USA, are overwhelmingly white. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that... just pointing it out)

Extreme wealth is where the real power is in the USA... this is a very small club, and the vast majority are white and male! But that won't necessarily show up in certain statistics, depending on which ones you decide to use...

It is true the highest power is generally with white families, but the data clearly shows non-white people are doing quite well in the US.

There are similar results for women.

This idea of "oppression" in the US (or Ireland) is absurd.

Does oppression or racism or bigotry exist every now and then? Yes. But everyone is the target.

OMM 0000

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

I must have been in the jax when we voted on that at the annual leftists conference.

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

I must have been in the jax when we voted on that at the annual leftists conference.

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

Surely you've heard the term "equity" banded about? It doesn't mean equality. It means exactly what I explained above.

lbc2019

Who are the extreme leftist in power?

ohnonotgmail

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

so you're going to ignore the examples of hate speech and incitement to violence that FB quoted when they banned him?

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

Who are the extreme leftist in power?

They have a lot of power in universities, HR departments, and they're creeping into politics.

The keyword you need to fear is "equity".

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

Surely you've heard the term "equity" banded about? It doesn't mean equality. It means exactly what I explained above.

Leftist doesn't mean extreme left, "Extreme leftist" would cover that, and what is considered "extreme" will vary in definition depending on context.

The left, including the extreme left, is not a monolith. There are many squabbles and disagreements. Your understanding of equity is fine but there's far more to the oppression/privilege argument than that. What kind of sources do you use to get your understanding of these topics?

It seems like you've taken on a lot of the talking points of the right wing/"centrist" youtube talky men that you often get posters on here posting up rather than bothering to articulate their own opinions (shoutout to Snake, DS & the army of posters that spammed AH with that Stefan Molyneux Ireland 2030 video). These kind of commentators generally tend to oversimplify things and construct an idea of "leftists" to suit their current argument.

I hope that doesn't come off as patronising, I disagree with much of what you've put forward in this thread but you seem to demonstrate a desire to understand different points of view, fair play.

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Leftist doesn't mean extreme left, "Extreme leftist" would cover that, and what is considered "extreme" will vary in definition depending on context.

The left, including the extreme left, is not a monolith. There are many squabbles and disagreements. Your understanding of equity is fine but there's far more to the oppression/privilege argument than that. What kind of sources do you use to get your understanding of these topics?

It seems like you've taken on a lot of the talking points of the right wing/"centrist" youtube talky men that you often get posters on here posting up rather than bothering to articulate their own opinions (shoutout to Snake, DS & the army of posters that spammed AH with that Stefan Molyneux Ireland 2030 video). These kind of commentators generally tend to oversimplify things and construct an idea of "leftists" to suit their current argument.

I hope that doesn't come off as patronising, I disagree with much of what you've put forward in this thread but you seem to demonstrate a desire to understand different points of view, fair play.

I am fine to accept leftist doesn't necessarily mean extreme left, but colloquially it commonly does. In my experience anyway.

A lot of my knowledge comes from the amazingly painful debates I have with a group of friends of mine who studied gender studies. I really cannot emphasise how painful it is. Their arguments are at least 80% emotion. So I've spent a lot of time googling things, thinking things through, etc. We're now at a stage where they criticise me for always using data.

I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux. He's certainly intelligent, but I've always sensed a dishonesty from him. He makes it doubly worse by frequently claiming he's impartial. He's definitely not impartial. He's biased like everyone else. He does make some good points though.

mcmoustache

RWCNT wrote: »

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

Of course. Victims of the alt-right grift feel compelled to support the various supplement salesmen and basement youtubers online whenever they appear in a thread.

The only problem is that despite the compulsion to defend, they often lack the expertise to form a coherent argument in favour of their favourite youtube personality.

This leaves them with very little room to manoeuvre so what you get are slogans such as "Tommy is a Legend", "Tommy's not afraid", "Tommy won't be censored", "Tommy's being censored" etc and of course, the inevitable video of a youtuber.

This argument by youtube is really popular among Jordan Peterson fans but other youtube grifters perform the same trick - they make the viewer feel clever without having educated them in any meaningful way. As a consequence, the fans of these videos often have no option but to insist that you watch a video - if they could form a coherent opinion, they would.

The problem is that they can't and they know this. To address these shortcomings, they offer up a video knowing that they watched it and it made them feel clever. If you would only watch this three-hour video Jordan Peterson shoving a dildo up his ass, you too would be convinced that he's a genius and all the other alt-right shíte and, as a bonus, you too could feel clever.

Again, they won't summarise the video because the grift is all about making the viewer feel clever while saying nothing of substance. If there was anything of substance in the video, it could be summarised and the important points could be written in such a way that didn't look stupid when put in the form of text. But there isn't.

And that's why we now have the lads who hover around threads on race like flies to shíte putting up videos of their favourite supplement salesman or basement video producer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

No, they would want everyone to have an 50-50 chance of attaining these positions. BIG difference.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

Oh. Right. In the same way right usually means Nazi, correct?

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

The problems you have are that you:
1 - have absolutely NO clue what left means
2 - are completely unable to determine the difference between "moderate" and "exteme" when it comes to political stances.
3 - do not know the difference between equity and equality.
4 - appear to think that identity politics incorporates an entire political position.

Here's one for you: identity politics have never attempted genocide or started a world war.

rgossip30

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you're going to ignore the examples of hate speech and incitement to violence that FB quoted when they banned him?

I don't see any direct quotes just generalisations , incitement to hate and those he associates with..

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Of course. Victims of the alt-right grift feel compelled to support the various supplement salesmen and basement youtubers online whenever they appear in a thread.

The only problem is that despite the compulsion to defend, they often lack the expertise to form a coherent argument in favour of their favourite youtube personality.

This leaves them with very little room to manoeuvre so what you get are slogans such as "Tommy is a Legend", "Tommy's not afraid", "Tommy won't be censored", "Tommy's being censored" etc and of course, the inevitable video of a youtuber.

This argument by youtube is really popular among Jordan Peterson fans but other youtube grifters perform the same trick - they make the viewer feel clever without having educated them in any meaningful way. As a consequence, the fans of these videos often have no option but to insist that you watch a video - if they could form a coherent opinion, they would.

The problem is that they can't and they know this. To address these shortcomings, they offer up a video knowing that they watched it and it made them feel clever. If you would only watch this three-hour video Jordan Peterson shoving a dildo up his ass, you too would be convinced that he's a genius and all the other alt-right shíte and, as a bonus, you too could feel clever.

Again, they won't summarise the video because the grift is all about making the viewer feel clever while saying nothing of substance. If there was anything of substance in the video, it could be summarised and the important points could be written in such a way that didn't look stupid when put in the form of text. But there isn't.

And that's why we now have the lads who hover around threads on race like flies to shíte putting up videos of their favourite supplement salesman or basement video producer.

Listening to other peoples opinions about events and putting them there for people to view themselves is hardly a crime.

I would prefer to watch a video that people with opposing views found enlightening or interesting and make up my own opinion.

I presume (and I could be wrong) that if people summarised a video for you, you would pick arguments out of context due to the fact that a)you haven't seen the video and b) have demonstrated that you have no intention on being open minded that you could be proven wrong.

I know that I base my opinions after hearing as much information as possible. If you don't want to watch a video, don't. But to slate people for providing them to people who do want to watch them is a little silly.

I get that people hate Tommy Robinson. Some people don't. They both aren't necessarily wrong.

ohnonotgmail

rgossip30 wrote: »

I don't see any direct quotes just generalisations , incitement to hate and those he associates with..

They all relate to specific posts of tommys. Or do you think that FB just made them up? Do you think that he did not post the things that FB mentioned?

Cienciano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i have no idea who the peter fonda you referred to is. I have no idea what sanctions twitter against them assuming they did even tweet what they said. How can i comment on something i have no knowledge of?

He deleted the tweet and issued an apology. Has Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson done the same?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.

Have you links to these accounts or tweets? Have you reported any?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to other peoples opinions about events and putting them there for people to view themselves is hardly a crime.

I would prefer to watch a video that people with opposing views found enlightening or interesting and make up my own opinion.

I presume (and I could be wrong) that if people summarised a video for you, you would pick arguments out of context due to the fact that a)you haven't seen the video and b) have demonstrated that you have no intention on being open minded that you could be proven wrong.

I know that I base my opinions after hearing as much information as possible. If you don't want to watch a video, don't. But to slate people for providing them to people who do want to watch them is a little silly.

I get that people hate Tommy Robinson. Some people don't. They both aren't necessarily wrong.

Thats all great. So post YOUR opinions then. Linking to a video you watched is not posting an opinion. This is a discussion site not a video link dump. And they are generally not posted so others who do want to watch them can watch them. They are posted as a rebuttal to another users post. A link to a video is not a rebuttal.

Cienciano

Cienciano wrote: »

He deleted the tweet and issued an apology. Has Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson done the same?



Have you links to these accounts or tweets? Have you reported any?

Why do you need to be spoonfed?

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/huffpost-editor-says-new-years-resolution-is-to-kill-all-men.html

or the Clementine Ford #killallmen extravaganza?

And no, I never reported anything personally as I don't believe in deplatforming people.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Thats all great. So post YOUR opinions then. Linking to a video you watched is not posting an opinion. This is a discussion site not a video link dump. And they are generally not posted so others who do want to watch them can watch them. They are posted as a rebuttal to another users post. A link to a video is not a rebuttal.

I wouldn't consider myself as a supporter of Tommy Robinson but I certainly think that the level of hatred that he receives is unwarranted. I wouldn't consider him far right but agree that a large number of his supporters could be.

I feel that while often hard left views are tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by the media (antifa etc), anything that veers right regarding transgender, islam, mens rights, abortion etc is shut down or exaggerated to make them seem bigotted and hatefilled.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

Listening to other peoples opinions about events and putting them there for people to view themselves is hardly a crime.

I would prefer to watch a video that people with opposing views found enlightening or interesting and make up my own opinion.

I can understand posting a video as a form of argument in something like a tinker call-out situation. There's also no harm putting up videos in general to support a point being made. It's where someone insists that you watch a video because they can't string a point together that I have a problem and it's happening more and more these days.

To give an example, adding a video to show evidence that Tommy did something or other is fine. Putting up a meandering 2-hour Jordan Peterson video in response to being asked to explain whatever the hell cultural marxism is is not fine.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't consider myself as a supporter of Tommy Robinson but I certainly think that the level of hatred that he receives is unwarranted. I wouldn't consider him far right but agree that a large number of his supporters could be.

I feel that while often hard left views are tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by the media (antifa etc), anything that veers right regarding transgender, islam, mens rights, abortion etc is shut down or exaggerated to make them seem bigotted and hatefilled.

Yeah, tommy is a great lad. Not in the least bit far right.

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:
a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel that while often hard left views are tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) by the media (antifa etc),

I have to stop you there. Are antifa that mainstream? I thought that the general consensus, even among people who would describe themselves as being on the left, was that they were generally crust trouble-makers. I don't even know who their high-profile figures are but I could list a heap of high-profile alt-right figures without even straining myself.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yeah, tommy is a great lad. Not in the least bit far right.

See, I never said he was "a great lad". I just don't think he is far right.

I also would be interested in seeing those particular facebook posts in their context before coming to a full opinion.

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

I have to stop you there. Are antifa that mainstream? I thought that the general consensus, even among people who would describe themselves as being on the left, was that they were generally crust trouble-makers. I don't even know who their high-profile figures are but I could list a heap of high-profile alt-right figures without even straining myself.

I think they are reported much more favourably than people who would carry out the same/equivalent level of violence and disturbance if they had been wearing a MAGA hat.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, they would want everyone to have an 50-50 chance of attaining these positions. BIG difference.

Only about 0.01% have a realistic chance of becoming a CEO.

Here's one for you: identity politics have never attempted genocide or started a world war.

The Identity politics of nationalism have started most wars in fact.

All that “white” reaction to identity politics is is itself identity politics.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

See, I never said he was "a great lad". I just don't think he is far right.

I also would be interested in seeing those particular facebook posts in their context before coming to a full opinion.

what context would make

a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims

acceptable to you?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The Identity politics of nationalism have started most wars in fact.

All that “white” reaction to identity politics is is itself identity politics.

FYP.

Identity politics perfers to the personal identiy and is about as far from traditional nationalism/national identity as you can get.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

See, I never said he was "a great lad". I just don't think he is far right.

I also would be interested in seeing those particular facebook posts in their context before coming to a full opinion.

He stood in a muslim neighborhood and said that the people who lived in the houses there were enemy combatants who wanted to kill everyone else. That's pretty far right.

ancapailldorcha

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

FYP.

Identity politics is about as far from traditional nationalism as you can get.

Identity politics is based on dividing people into groups which ignore borders whereas nationalism is based around nationhood and emphasises strong borders.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you need to be spoonfed?

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/huffpost-editor-says-new-years-resolution-is-to-kill-all-men.html

or the Clementine Ford #killallmen extravaganza?

And no, I never reported anything personally as I don't believe in deplatforming people.

That's a tweet they deleted. The entire argument is twitter has no problems leaving that sort of thing up is therefore invalid. That's why I asked for a source. Looks like someone screenshot something nobody would see, sent it to the usual right wing sites so they could all clutch their pearls and pretend to be offended.
On a side note, do you legitimately think she wants 50% of the worlds population killed?

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

I think they are reported much more favourably than people who would carry out the same/equivalent level of violence and disturbance if they had been wearing a MAGA hat.

That's possible. I don't know how active antifa these days but I thought that most of their activities were confined to acting the maggot at protests.

I do remember in my younger days that antifa were disliked at lefty protests. Well, them and the SWP. Both of those had a nasty habit of escalating things

Grayson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Identity politics is based on dividing people into groups which ignore borders whereas nationalism is based around nationhood and emphasises strong borders.

And the biggest thing about identity politics is that it recognises that different groups face different challenges and that we should do something about it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

FYP.

Identity politics is about as far from traditional nationalism as you can get.

It’s literally just another form of nationalism, along with other isms.

In fact prior to the American colonisation of all our minds the term identity was often used in Northern Ireland for both sides.

ie

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44461166?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Of course more identities have now been added to the mix but it’s largely the same thing - group divisions based on nationality, race, sex and other newly invented groups.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what context would make






acceptable to you?

I don't know. Perhaps if I saw that one post was to "make war" on a particular terrorist organisation that was muslim, it wouldn't be so egregious.

Or if he was criticising extremists living in Luton who agree with beheading people by saying something like "how would they like it if we did the same to them"

Both could be interpreted as a post urging people to terrorise and behead muslims if they wanted to.

Again, I haven't seen the posts in question but there is likely more to the story. I could be wrong.

sirmanga

The left tell people how to live their lives.

The right just want to live their lives.

ancapailldorcha

Grayson wrote: »

And the biggest thing about identity politics is that it recognises that different groups face different challenges and that we should do something about it.

In theory. In practice, it's become something of a cottage industry for a lot of leftie student types and far right white nationalists.

Cienciano

Cienciano wrote: »

That's a tweet they deleted. The entire argument is twitter has no problems leaving that sort of thing up is therefore invalid. That's why I asked for a source. Looks like someone screenshot something nobody would see, sent it to the usual right wing sites so they could all clutch their pearls and pretend to be offended.
On a side note, do you legitimately think she wants 50% of the worlds population killed?

They weren't required to do so, they just did so in order to escape a backlash.

It didn't offend me and no I don't legitimately think she wants 50% of the population killed. In much the same way that I don't think Tommy Robinson thinks all brown people are "Pakis" or all Muslims are evil. But I can see how some of his rhetoric could be framed that way.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know. Perhaps if I saw that one post was to "make war" on a particular terrorist organisation that was muslim, it wouldn't be so egregious.

Or if he was criticising extremists living in Luton who agree with beheading people by saying something like "how would they like it if we did the same to them"

Both could be interpreted as a post urging people to terrorise and behead muslims if they wanted to.

Again, I haven't seen the posts in question but there is likely more to the story. I could be wrong.

so, if he posted something urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran in Luton that would be ok with you?

Franz Von Peppercorn

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Identity politics is based on dividing people into groups which ignore borders whereas nationalism is based around nationhood and emphasises strong borders.

Ignoring borders? are you sure that’s relevant.

Nationalism is a form of identity. Identity politics in the US is primarily racial but there are other strands.

Both sides in Northern Ireland are nationalist, and both have identities. Politics in multinational states is often about playing off different sides, with quotas and political representation etc.

ancapailldorcha

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ignoring borders? are you sure that’s relevant.

Nationalism is a form of identity. Identity politics in the US is primarily racial but there are other strands.

Both sides in Northern Ireland are nationalist, and both have identities. Politics in multinational states is often about playing off different sides, with quotas and political representation etc.

Fairly poor wording on my part. The right wing sort emphasises them of course and the NI example is a good one as well.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Identity politics is based on dividing people into groups which ignore borders whereas nationalism is based around nationhood and emphasises strong borders.

More about accepting that they exist rather than dividing into. On the positive side, they will accept most people at first target you than making a point-blank decision or opinion based on a circumstance of birth.

On the negative, they tend to get obsessed with labels which define 'what' a person is, rather than 'who' a person is. THIS is where they mirror nationalism, but they aren't going to take up arms and invade different social groups.

Grayson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Identity politics is based on dividing people into groups which ignore borders whereas nationalism is based around nationhood and emphasises strong borders.

I'd say identity politics recognises that groups exist within populations. gay people, different races etc. It's not creating divisions, it's recognising that these divisions exist and are detrimental to society.

mcmoustache

sirmanga wrote: »

The left tell people how to live their lives.

The right just want to live their lives.

Nice slogan you have there.

For your next trick, you should post a video when I ask you how you square the likes of the Iona "institute's" stance on gay marriage with the second part of your dumb slogan.