BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Junkyard Tom

TheFactMan wrote: »

Supports blm unquestionably , calls other people **** spreaders...

Do you think the current situation is a good one ?

I find people like you that blindly follow everything blm particularly tedious to deal with.

The points you are bringing up are just strawman esque and been done to death on here and torn apart over and over.

I have no interest in engaging with people with 'new' accounts.

Sorry.

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I have no interest in engaging with people with 'new' accounts.

Sorry.

Tbh Junkyard - looks like you don't seem to want to engage with anyone in a proper discussion. I'll leave you at it ...

TheFactMan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I have no interest in engaging with people with 'new' accounts.

Sorry.

You just missed overheal, very similar posting style to your own and same views too! Ye would have got on so we'll

TheFactMan

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh Junkyard - looks like you don't seem to want to engage with anyone in a proper discussion. I'll leave you at it ...

I wonder are all BLM supporters as unreasonable and ridiculous as that completely shut off to any other view points...

gozunda

The Floyd p wrote: »

It's because if that man actually wanted to spread a message that accurately outlines the reasons for high crime rates in black neighbourhoods, he wouldn't go on Dave Rubin's show. Anything Rubin related is where rational thought and logical viewpoints go to die.

Again why is it that you somehow think you are more qualified to have an opinion about black lives than this black person ?

From having actually watched the video (something you clearly did not do) - It is evident that the black guy interviewed is not there to 'spread a message" as you claim - rather to counter some of the prevalent bs being thrown by those hell bent on sowing discord for to suit their own political bias...

Junkyard Tom

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh Junkyard - looks like you don't seem to want to engage with anyone in a proper discussion. I'll leave you at it ...

TBH Gozunda, using Dave Rubin interviewing a hand-picked subject that will confirm his viewers'* biases to make a political point is not 'proper discussion'.



*His viewers are his bread-and-butter too so he knows he's got to keep them happy so he'll keep giving them the crap they want, it's a business model.

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

TBH Gozunda, using Dave Rubin interviewing a hand-picked subject that will confirm his viewers'* biases to make a political point is not 'proper discussion'. *His viewers are his bread-and-butter too so he knows he's got to keep them happy so he'll keep giving them the crap they want, it's a business model.

Let me spell it out in simple words for you.

The guy giving the interview is a black ex cop who grew up in the exact circumstsnce you attempted to align with your personal views.

Again to answer what was asked - Why do you think you are more qualified to have an opinion about black lives than this black person ?

TheFactMan

gozunda wrote: »

Let me spell it out in simple words for you.

The guy giving the interview is a black ex cop who grew up in the exact circumstsnce you attempted to align with your personal views.

Again to answer what was asked - Why do you think you are more qualified to have an opinion about black lives than this black person ?

Que discrediting the host or some other irrelevant point rather than taking the context of the interview at face value.

Junkyard Tom

gozunda wrote: »

Let me spell it out in simple words for you.

The guy giving the interview is a black ex cop who grew up in the exact circumstsnce you attempted to align with your personal views.

Again to answer what was asked - Why do you think you are more qualified to have an opinion about black lives than this black person ?

The story of an individual is just his story. I would suggest you develop an understanding of 'survivorship bias' as I'm sure it would help us to develop a better understanding of the individual's story (if it is what I suspect) and would place it in context.

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He's a paid actor.

Lol. You are suggesting the ex policemsn is employing the online equivalent of 'blackface'?

Seriously? Lol. Ok you've now just lost any credability you may just once have had ...

Edit: I see you changed your answer

The Floyd p

Given that Brandon Tatum has worked for Turning Point USA and made a video for PragerU talking about how white privilege isn't real, I've really no desire at all to watch that video with Rubin.

If someone can say with a straight face:

"If two people are equally qualified for a job, the black person will usually get it."

They're almost certainly a bad faith actor, or you know, a liar.

Biafranlivemat

The Floyd p wrote: »

Yes.

"As of 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, you would have to combine the net worth of 11.5 black households to get the net worth of a typical white U.S. household."

"Their parents’ wealth gives many white children a boost at birth, an advantage many of their black peers lack."

Greater income inequality will lead to higher crime rates. if your racial group is more likely to be poorer and not have upward economic mobility, this will happen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

How brave of you to repeat the lie “Poverty causes crime”

Junkyard Tom

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. You are suggesting the ex policemsn is employing the online equivalent of 'blackface'?

Seriously? Lol. Ok you've now just lost any credability you may just once have had ...

Edit: I see you changed your answer

Sorry, I was just going to write that to prove the point about how easy it is to lie and how much more effort it is to disprove lies. I thought better of it so deleted it as it would be a waste of your time.

Edit: After reading Floyd P's post about him cashing in on the alt-right circuit then he may as well be an actor.

Junkyard Tom

The Floyd p wrote: »

Given that Brandon Tatum has worked for Turning Point USA and made a video for PragerU talking about how white privilege isn't real, I've really no desire at all to watch that video with Rubin.

If someone can say with a straight face:

"If two people are equally qualified for a job, the black person will usually get it."

They're almost certainly a bad faith actor, or you know, a liar.

Oh dear. He's cashing in on being celebrity black guy who agrees with the right-wing grifters/frauds and the YouTube subscribers are eating it all up without salt.

So much fail.

gozunda

ķ

The Floyd p wrote: »

Given that Brandon Tatum has worked for Turning Point USA and made a video for PragerU talking about how white privilege isn't real, I've really no desire at all to watch that video with Rubin.
If someone can say with a straight face:
"If two people are equally qualified for a job, the black person will usually get it."
They're almost certainly a bad faith actor, or you know, a liar.

I'd suggest you consider the level at which you are pitching that particular argument. It appears to be at subpar - level 2

The Floyd p

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Oh dear. He's cashing in on being celebrity black guy who agrees with the right-wing grifters/frauds and the YouTube subscribers are eating it all up without salt.

So much fail.

Someone I saw had described him as a male Candace Owens. Sounds about right.

gozunda

The Floyd p wrote: »

Someone I saw had described him as a male Candace Owens. Sounds about right.

I can only suggest that you see the previous comment for an logical appraisal of that type of argument because we are now in the sewer ...

As said 'so much fail' ...

Junkyard Tom

The Floyd p wrote: »

Someone I saw had described him as a male Candace Owens. Sounds about right.

Bottom-feeders.

Outlaw Pete

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not interested, I don't want to fuck up my YouTube algorithm with a shit-spreading fraud like Dave Rubin. If that's how you're forming your opinions then you're very poorly informed. Here's a comprehensive breakdown of how Dave Rubin is making a fool out of people.

Part 1

The three parts add up to over three and a half hours, demonstrating perfectly the maxim that the amount of energy needed to disprove bullshit is an order of magnitude greater than that needed to create it.

Watched the first part of that (at 1.25 speed given the guy talks to annoyingly slow) and I really needn't have bothered as it was just as I'd suspected and the chap is insufferable and an irritatingly long winded bore to boot. Takes him 5 minutes to saying something which should take him 30 seconds. The first part can be summed up as just a smug and condescending dismissal of views that don't align with whatever the leftist hot take on a particular issue is. Which of course is what really annoys this guy the most of course, as what the Rubin show does well is highlight leftist bs and the damage that it has and is doing.

The crux of this dope's stance on Rubin, in essence, is that his show just goes out of its way to reinforce the perspective of the viewer and the more popular the show becomes then Dave just tailors "his messaging to align with what his anti-PC crowd like to hear". He cites Dave agreeing with a viewer and frames it as him nervously backtracking to please his audience. He highlights him condemning absurd allegations by the left that someone is a racist and then him also calling sections of the left racist himself and holds both these things up as an example of hypocrisy but it of course is not and it's just sleight of hand on his part, as the left are notorious for labeling people racist for the most absurd of reasons but yet will have no trouble calling black people 'Uncle Toms' if they dare to agree with conservatives and so what he cited wasn't remotely hypocritical at all, of course.

He talks a lot of how Dave projects an anti-leftist agenda on to most discussions but that's really just seeing things in reverse as what's really happening is that the show evolved into being a show that exposes the left. There is no projection needed as the guests invariably are speaking the truth and backing it up as they do so. He also accuses Dave of expressing views he doesn't hold just to make his audience happy.

In this muppet's mind Dave's guests are essentially wrong and he's just giving them a place to be wrong so he can gets lots of views. About as arrogant and smug a YouTuber as you're likely to come across, but sure don't take my word for it, have a listen to him yourselves, but make sure you at least stick him on 1.25 speed, or maybe even 1.5, as he sure loves the sound of his own voice.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Bottom-feeders.

Have you a problem with articulate black folk?

Biafranlivemat

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

These guys here, the anti-BLM crowd, they're all into Rubin, Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Carl Benjamin, the Irish guy - Dave something, and so on.

They've been fed a constant diet of bullshit from the YouTube algorithm and they just eat it all up. Then they end up on threads like this in a sort of reactionary tag-team and make it tedious for anyone trying to refute their mountains of crap, and you know it's just not worth the trouble so people don't bother which sort of makes them think they're correct.

So tell me about your neighborhood, Tell me about how great it is.
How many children have you in a big city American public school.
The Gang that controls your street, are they "Cool with you"

Are you OK when 150 illegal aliens get dumped in your children High school and then do whatever they like.
And the school staff are scared Shytless to do anything about them.

The Floyd p

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with articulate black folk?

I've a problem with people who knowingly lie in order to push their conservative agenda. Especially people like Candace Owens and Dave Rubin, who are handsomely paid for pushing harmful ideology and think that being contrarian makes their viewpoints worthy of attention.

I should add, Candace Owens and Brandon Tatum being black has nothing to do with my feelings towards them. I hate grifters of all races and creeds.

Junkyard Tom

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He talks a lot of how Dave projects an anti-leftist agenda on to most discussions but that's really just seeing things in reverse as what's really happening is that the show evolved into being a show that exposes the left.

Really? He doesn't have an 'anti-leftist' agenda and he has the likes of that utter scumbag Stefan Molyneaux on?

Look at the stream of oddball reactionaries he has on. Also, I wouldn't grace these guys by calling them 'anti-left', a better description is 'anti reality' which is why they appeal to 'conservatives' who are a few steps away from Q-anon who are a bunch of lunatics.

The Floyd p

The Floyd p wrote: »

. I hate grifters of all races and creeds.

Would you say your political views are driven by hate?

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you a problem with articulate black folk?

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

I didn't even listen to the guy.

Let the tag-teaming and shit-spreading commence.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

I didn't even listen to the guy.

Let the tag-teaming and shit-spreading commence.

Actual lol..

Outlaw Pete

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

TBH Gozunda, using Dave Rubin interviewing a hand-picked subject that will confirm his viewers'* biases to make a political point is not 'proper discussion'.

*His viewers are his bread-and-butter too so he knows he's got to keep them happy so he'll keep giving them the crap they want, it's a business model.

Utter nonsense. That's the same rubbish that the fool you posted a video of spouts, acting as if those guests don't back up their opinions when the truth is that it's the other way around and it's the left that don't back up theirs. The brainwashed masses are being fed a diet of propaganda by the mainstream media in an effort to get them to believe a leftist narrative about black people and how they are being oppressed and hunted. It's utterly insane and what annoys you about Rubin really is that he is having an affect and people are starting to listen to the guests he gives a platform to. Guests that the left have often tried to silence with protests and violence.

Here's a short clip between Rubin and Larry Elder discussing the impact Larry guesting on his show the first time had on young people.

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

gozunda

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.


I didn't even listen to the guy...

That as much is obvious ...

Nobody as deaf as those who chose not to listen

The Floyd p

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Really? He doesn't have an 'anti-leftist' agenda and he has the likes of that utter scumbag Stefan Molyneaux on?

Now now, it's not fair to accuse Stefan "blacks are collectively less intelligent" Molyneux of being a scumbag. He's merely a liar, and a racist.

The Floyd p

Deleted User wrote: »

Tom there seems to think the same..

I don't see anything in his posting that would even remotely suggest that Tom thinks that. Quite the insinuation there.