Right Wing Grifters

Blind Eagle

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seem to spend a lot of time defending them. strange that. and i'm not a member of the labour party. i couldn't a monkeys what they do.

Defending who?

The Labour Party are a left-wing party. They are as such on your "side".

20Cent

Blind Eagle wrote: »

Right, so you accept she is racist, like Hopkins. Thus they are comparable. You didn't ask for an exact carbon copy, you asked for somebody who is comparable. That has been provided to you.

Your argument essential is our racists aren't as bad as your racists. The point is they are racists though.

You don't seem to understand what comparable means.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

She apologised and hasn't done it since so I believe her.
Maybe she is secretly racist but she isn't spreading hatred to make a living.

Making fun of trump is spreading hatred now.
And they call the left snowflakes.

Jesus here we go again. You conveniently ignore the other parts of that sentence.

Spreading hatred is spreading hatred. Just because you also dislike the people who the hate is directed against, you don't see it as an issue. That is your hypocrisy.

I have no issue with people insulting Trump or his supporters.

I have no issue with people insulting Antifa.

I do have an issue with people like yourself that scream racist/bigot/nazi at people who don't deserve it and then give anyone you align with a free pass.

Then when people point out there are bad people on the left, you deflect and say they aren't as bad as Katie Hopkins.

Well ok. Perhaps they aren't. But who here is defending her? People who are politically right and centre leaning can see there are plenty of disgusting people on the right. The majority of us do not share their extreme views.

We are saying that although you only see the right wing as grifters, there are plenty on the left, making a living from spouting your acceptable flavour of hatred.

You are just too blind to see it.

Blind Eagle

20Cent wrote: »

You don't seem to understand what comparable means.

No, you don't. It means to be similar, likened to. Both Hopkins and Jeong are racists, thus they are similar.

SaintLeibowitz

Speaking of grifters how's Stephen Yaxley lennon doing?.

ohnonotgmail

Got another trial coming up very soon.

20Cent

Blind Eagle wrote: »

No, you don't. It means to be similar, likened to. Both Hopkins and Jeong are racists, thus they are similar.

One explained why she did it, apologised and hasn't done it since. The other is making a living spreading hatred so no not comparable.

Blind Eagle

20Cent wrote: »

One explained why she did it, apologised and hasn't done it since. The other is making a living spreading hatred so no not comparable.

OK. But they are both racists. So yes comparable. The fact that you are trying to defend a clear racist in order to save face speaks volumes. In what other situation would you be doing such a thing?

TwoMonthsOff

"I'm not racist I was just joking when I sent those racist tweets"

20Cent

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Speaking of grifters how's Stephen Yaxley lennon doing?.

Cashing in big time with an estimated 5k a week.

20Cent

Blind Eagle wrote: »

OK. But they are both racists. So yes comparable. The fact that you are trying to defend a clear racist in order to save face speaks volumes. In what other situation would you be doing such a thing?

If she is a clear racist why did she apologise and hasn't done anything similar since?

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

If she is a clear racist why did she apologise and hasn't done anything similar since?

Hahaha...

Larry Murphy has kept his nose clean since he got out too.

I spose he's grand.

(before you start...I know its an absurd hyberbolic comparison)

WrenBoy

Deleted User wrote: »

.. We are saying that although you only see the right wing as grifters, there are plenty on the left, making a living from spouting your acceptable flavour of hatred.

You are just too blind to see it.

They see it, they just don't care.

Blind Eagle

20Cent wrote: »

If she is a clear racist why did she apologise and hasn't done anything similar since?

Because she got a job as an Editor of the NY Times and would no doubt lose it if she did similar again.

20Cent

Blind Eagle wrote: »

Because she got a job as an Editor of the NY Times and would no doubt lose it if she did similar again.

Is she making a living spreading hate?

Nope.
False equivalence then.

Blind Eagle

20Cent wrote: »

Is she making a living spreading hate?

Nope.
False equivalence then.

Again, you said someone comparable. Not exactly the same. Comparable. They are similar due to both being racists. It's really easy to understand if you would just take your ideological blinkers off.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Is she making a living spreading hate?

If we leave Katie Hopkins for a second, as most people don't defend or even like the woman, can you please give me your definition of what "hate" is?

As with "fascist" and "racist", "hate" is bandied around with such regularity, nobody ever stops to question the actual meaning.

Just a few posts ago, you alluded to me being a "snowflake" because I mentioned that people saying insulting things about Trump and his supporters could quite easily be classed as hate.

So what is hatred to you?

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

And no, I don't feel any particular interest in explaining it now. Back then, when I said it, sure. But now? Nope.

Yeah I think we know why you're backing away from this - because it's the type of shit these 'right wing grifters' come out with for their followers.



It's the 'cultural marxism' conspiracy crap isn't it Klaz? Or is it pound-shop intellectual Jordan Peterson's 'Postmodern neo-Marxism' rotting West Civilisation from within, which itself is the 21st Century version of Kulturbolschewismus? (google it)

The age-old enemy within. Same oul fascistic shite that skulks around in the fringes waiting for vulnerable half-wits who are angry at the world to latch onto, giving them someone to blame for their own annoyance at the world.

boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110840781&postcount=21

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110683488&postcount=68

20Cent

Blind Eagle wrote: »

Again, you said someone comparable. Not exactly the same. Comparable. They are similar due to both being racists. It's really easy to understand if you would just take your ideological blinkers off.

Using that "logic" a novelist who writes racist comments for a character in a book or someone doing an impression of a racist is the same as an actual racist.
No reasonable person would think that. It is the kind of thing right wing grifters do though.

rossie1977

Deleted User wrote: »

.

Samantha Bee, Ana Kasparian and even Steven Colbert to an extent are also making a career of spreading hatred and ridicule of Trump, his supporters and anyone who doesn't align with their thinking.

This is ok to you though.

Give examples. Bee and Colbert are comedians and anything they say should be taken in jest anyway pretty sure they have never incited violence.

I have already asked you to provide video evidence of Ana Kasparian spreading hatred. She is clearly critical of Trump and his policies but to my knowledge not once has called on her viewers to attack Trump or his supporters.

In this clip she is very critical of college students not letting conservative voices speak on campus

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

If we leave Katie Hopkins for a second, as most people don't defend or even like the woman, can you please give me your definition of what "hate" is?

As with "fascist" and "racist", "hate" is bandied around with such regularity, nobody ever stops to question the actual meaning.

Just a few posts ago, you alluded to me being a "snowflake" because I mentioned that people saying insulting things about Trump and his supporters could quite easily be classed as hate.

So what is hatred to you?

Churning out lies and vitriol at certain nationalities or religions all the time. Ramping up hatred which has even resulted in mass shootings.
Making jokes is no where near it.

These people put others lives in danger.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Churning out lies and vitriol at certain nationalities or religions all the time. Ramping up hatred which has even resulted in mass shootings.
Making jokes is no where near it.

These people put others lives in danger.

Certain nationalities and religions or any nationality or religion?

That's a very important difference.

Blind Eagle

20Cent wrote: »

Using that "logic" a novelist who writes racist comments for a character in a book or someone doing an impression of a racist is the same as an actual racist.
No reasonable person would think that. It is the kind of thing right wing grifters do though.

Eh, no it wouldn't. Novel's contain characters that are figment of the authors imagination. Sarah Jeong was posting on her twitter account under her actual name. Wasn't it you that recently mentioned false equivalences?

She would never have apologised if it wasn't for the fact that she got a high flying job. You know what else "right-wing grifters" do? Pass of consistent racist and hateful comments as just being "a joke". There's another similarity between Jeong and these right-wing folk.

Blind Eagle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Certain nationalities and religions or any nationality or religion?

That's a very important difference.

The mask slips.

rossie1977

You aren't going to find comparable examples to Hopkins, Jones in the US or Western Europe. For one there are barely any left wingers in the US and right wing/far right dominated talk radio for 20+ years and have now moved their medium online to YouTube/Facebook etc.

In Europe left wing politics is stronger but it's more left leaning than any real far left. The amount of people from this part of the world advocating for hard communism who have more than 2 listeners/viewers is miniscule.

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

Clearly we agree on alot.

I think you're discounting the impact of the Mongols on the Chinese.
China continued to develop (as I'm sure you know (because it's in Paul Kennedy's Great Powers ) they were closing their blast furnaces when the English were opening theirs (I think it's 50 years before).

If we can agree on the impact on Northern Barbarians on China we should be able to agree on the impact of Western Barbarians -Alexander , Southern Barbarians - Arabs and Eastern Barbarians - Mongols on Persia.

There's a good book out about the Arab conquests called Rome's third fall or something like that. The author seems very much up your alley ideologically.

Oh sure M, though the barbarians only get the chance to take down empires when they're already in decline(or stagnation) and weak from that decline. EG when the Tang dynasty were in play they had no bother defeating the Mongol and other nomads hoping to get the boot in. Plus empires are centralised. Take the centre and the rest tends to fall. Post Roman Europe was a far harder nut to crack and a few tried it, the Muslim empire, the various Hunnish peoples, even the Mongols. They could make some headway(the Caliphate being the most successful), but had to deal with a many headed hydra connected by culture and faith and a hydra well practiced in fighting each other so even if they do manage to take out one head, many more pop up.

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

Certain nationalities and religions or any nationality or religion?

That's a very important difference.

Muslims she spreads hatred of Muslims was trying to be subtle but should have known better.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Muslims she spreads hatred of Muslims was trying to be subtle but should have known better.

No 20Cent.

I asked you to leave Katie Hopkins aside for a moment and asked what hatred is to you.

You replied

"Churning out lies and vitriol at certain nationalities or religions all the time"

Do you mean certain nationalities or religions or ALL nationalities and religions?

20Cent

Deleted User wrote: »

No 20Cent.

I asked you to leave Katie Hopkins aside for a moment and asked what hatred is to you.

You replied

"Churning out lies and vitriol at certain nationalities or religions all the time"

Do you mean certain nationalities or religions or ALL nationalities and religions?

Any nationality or religion.

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Any nationality or religion.

Sustained criticism of religion, any religion, is considered as spreading hatred to you? That is interesting.

Are they (religion and nationality) the only two items that you feel that way about or can hatred have a wider scope?

I mean, I don't think that you wouldn't count criticism of gender, sexuality or ethnicity to be anything but hate either?