It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Alt-Right White Nationalism Straight From Milo

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

BS. Grow up and stop falsely whining about being labeled while you plaster everything under the goddamn sun.


Than I'm not falsely labeled?

If I wasn't, then you wouldn't be pressing me to deny being what I'm not.




posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

Nice logic you got going on there champ.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Racism is treating another race differently.


No it's not, that would be prejudice. Racism is the belief that one group is inherently better or just better than the others. The Nazi's actually believed they were better than everyone else due to superior genes or whatever.. Racist. Treating a group of people different than the others, prejudice.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What the hell are you even saying? What am I asking you to deny? That you're being whiny and hypocritical? That you're alt-right? I don't think you are alt-right. IIRC you claim to be traditionalist, I wouldn't disagree.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie

Thank you for the correction. Than under that definition there is WAY less racism than people lead to believe. I had it wrong and so do most people. The fight should be against prejudice, but again, going around calling people that for no reason won't help either.

Edit: just did a search and there are a few definitions. One said projecting prejudice. My guess is the definition evolved to include prejudice.
edit on 3-9-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
Can I be called a racist? its a badge of honor these days. It means the other side does not want to actually debate and would lose in a real debate.
Bonus points for Hitler reference.







Or it could just mean that your spouting a bunch of racist stuff..


That one swings both ways...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
The problem isn't that you are pointing out what was said about the alt right, the problem is what you are insinuating from it.

First, this article you quote says there are all sorts of people in the alt right, some of which care noting of race. For example, anti war people that hate both establishment parties can be alt right. Yet you lump them all together when you use term alt right.

You keep saying it isn't derogatory, but that is not how you or Hillary are using the term. You are using it to say "This comment is from the alt right, they are concerned with the rights of white people, therefore they are racist". You even mention Klan hoods.

You and Hillary and others use the term alt right to get out of arguments you can't win with facts. Someone mentions doing something about illegal immigrants,m you say that is alt right, and therefore racist, and magically you don't have to respond to the argument.

I asked you on another thread you posted about this and you didn't answer, but you didn't respond, but if i I say the far left includes people that hat White people, and then you make an argument that someone on the far left would, like say that we need to solve climate change, do I get to say well you are a bigot that hate America, so I don't have to answer your points?

So lets take look at how consistently you apply that logic. Just in the past couple of weeks you have made these posts.

On this thread you defend the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, a journal that defends Muslim people.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is you defending black peoples right to have BLM and group together to be angry and mad.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it is ok for these groups to be concerned about their way of life and want to defend it, but not white people? Wouldn't a journal catering to protecting Muslims be bigoted by your logic? Or how about BLM, they must be racist because they are concerned with black people.

Any organization that is a group coming together for the interests of themselves is bigoted then, right? Hispanics groups, LGBT groups, women's groups, Muslim groups, etc. are all bigoted, because they prefer are looking out for the interests of their own people.

Yet for some reason, you seem to give those groups a pass, and only focus oon when white people want to look out for their interests.

So using your logic, you are dog whistling that you hate white people. So why don't you go put on your black panther uniform, and take your racist attitude else where.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That's a whole lot of text for not addressing one thing from the article.


You keep saying it isn't derogatory, but that is not how you or Hillary are using the term. You are using it to say "This comment is from the alt right, they are concerned with the rights of white people, therefore they are racist". You even mention Klan hoods. You and Hillary and others use the term alt right to get out of arguments you can't win with facts.


Me and Hillary? Lol. Nice. Why are you inventing paraphrased comments from me? Why not just quote something I've actually said?


Someone mentions doing something about illegal immigrants,m you say that is alt right, and therefore racist, and magically you don't have to respond to the argument.


Please point out where I've ever done that. Stop making things up. If you can't win an argument without inventing things that didn't happen, then I've been giving you far too much credit.

I will gladly debate anything with anyone, even if I think that person is a racist. Not a problem. I don't go for the personal attack one-liners and I resent the insinuation. Do you have a single example of me ever calling anyone on ATS a racist in an attempt to win an argument?

You on the other hand are going straight for the personal attacks and accusing me of things I haven't done in an attempt to make your argument. How's that not blatant hypocrisy on your part?


I asked you on another thread you posted about this and you didn't answer, but you didn't respond, but if i I say the far left includes people that hat White people, and then you make an argument that someone on the far left would, like say that we need to solve climate change, do I get to say well you are a bigot that hate America, so I don't have to answer your points?


Are you referring to the Dog Whistle thread of yours? I devoted quite a bit of time to that thread as you'll recall. If I didn't answer, it's probably because I finished doing whatever administration tasks I was working on remotely and went to sleep. I'm certainly not one to duck out.

Let's cut the BS right now. You're a smart person. You're an observant person. Look at the responses on the first page of the three threads I made today. Who is doing all the wanton deflection and attempting to use false allegations to dismiss me and derail the thread? How many of those responses actually addressed the substance of the OP and tried to argue against them at all versus the number that were simply personal attacks?

Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. I ain't that guy. I don't play stupid. I'll admit if I'm wrong but I won't relent if I'm not.


On this thread you defend the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, a journal that defends Muslim people.


I didn't defend anything. I pointed out the obvious fact that nobody in the thread, including myself was at all familiar with the journal. Do you think that people should have passionate opinions about things they know absolutely nothing about? I'm going to guess that the answer to that question is "no."


Here is you defending black peoples right to have BLM and group together to be angry and mad.


Again. I did not once mention BLM in that post. What I did do was give a substantive opinion backed up with research and citing sources. What's interesting about your selection is the very next line of that paragraph:

"Black people have a reason to be angry and frustrated.Here's the kicker, so do all those blue collar white folks who are also facing diminishing economic opportunity, many of whom are supporting Donald Trump. Unfortunately, no matter who wins this election, nothing and I mean NOTHING will be fixed because both parties and their candidates are either incapable or unwilling to address things like deindustrialization head on. So don't expect things to be getting any better anytime soon. Employment is only going to get weaker until we face facts and embrace a paradigm shift."

WHA WHA WHA? Me acknowledging that Trump support has legitimacy? That's because I'm not an intellectually dishonest parrot who runs around Internet forums blabbing one-line personal attacks like a number of people in this very thread. I call it like I see it.

Why don't you join me and acknowledge that in light of what I actually said, your very next paragraph doesn't really seem appropriate:


So it is ok for these groups to be concerned about their way of life and want to defend it, but not white people? Wouldn't a journal catering to protecting Muslims be bigoted by your logic? Or how about BLM, they must be racist because they are concerned with black people.


?

Moving on.


Any organization that is a group coming together for the interests of themselves is bigoted then, right? Hispanics groups, LGBT groups, women's groups, Muslim groups, etc. are all bigoted, because they prefer are looking out for the interests of their own people.


I never said that. Nor did I imply it. I don't know how you want me to respond to that? Between the straw men, the mischaracterization and these attempts to pigeonhole me, how exactly do you expect to have a discussion/debate with me?

There are certainly groups of minorities that are bigots. Gosh. So easy to say. Would you like me to name a few? NBPP and NOI are two examples. Certainly some of the people who have attached themselves to BLM are racists. I have no love for racial/ethnic separatists or nationalists of any flavor. Do I have to preface any thread about a movement like the alt-right movement with paragraphs of explanations of my views on other groups?

Do you apply that standard to other people? How about yourself?


Yet for some reason, you seem to give those groups a pass, and only focus oon when white people want to look out for their interests. So using your logic, you are dog whistling that you hate white people.

So why don't you go put on your black panther uniform, and take your racist attitude else where.


Awww.. here you are trying to silence me now. Lol. See that s# won't ever work with me and if anything, it just inspires me to rant profusely. 100,000 more characters for you!

Was that all? Spurious accusations, dubious assertions, complete fabrications? I'll give you this, you sure do put a bit more effort into your personal attacks than some of your cohorts.

Hit me up if you want to actually discuss the influence of white nationalism/white identity whatever you feel comfortable calling it within the alt-right movement. Otherwise, collect your high fives from the low-information useful idiots, go about your business and spare me your sanctimonious prattle.
edit on 2016-9-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The problem isn't that you are pointing out what was said about the alt right, the problem is what you are insinuating from it.

First, this article you quote says there are all sorts of people in the alt right, some of which care noting of race. For example, anti war people that hate both establishment parties can be alt right. Yet you lump them all together when you use term alt right.

You keep saying it isn't derogatory, but that is not how you or Hillary are using the term. You are using it to say "This comment is from the alt right, they are concerned with the rights of white people, therefore they are racist". You even mention Klan hoods.

You and Hillary and others use the term alt right to get out of arguments you can't win with facts. Someone mentions doing something about illegal immigrants,m you say that is alt right, and therefore racist, and magically you don't have to respond to the argument.

I asked you on another thread you posted about this and you didn't answer, but you didn't respond, but if i I say the far left includes people that hat White people, and then you make an argument that someone on the far left would, like say that we need to solve climate change, do I get to say well you are a bigot that hate America, so I don't have to answer your points?

So lets take look at how consistently you apply that logic. Just in the past couple of weeks you have made these posts.

On this thread you defend the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, a journal that defends Muslim people.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is you defending black peoples right to have BLM and group together to be angry and mad.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it is ok for these groups to be concerned about their way of life and want to defend it, but not white people? Wouldn't a journal catering to protecting Muslims be bigoted by your logic? Or how about BLM, they must be racist because they are concerned with black people.

Any organization that is a group coming together for the interests of themselves is bigoted then, right? Hispanics groups, LGBT groups, women's groups, Muslim groups, etc. are all bigoted, because they prefer are looking out for the interests of their own people.

Yet for some reason, you seem to give those groups a pass, and only focus oon when white people want to look out for their interests.

So using your logic, you are dog whistling that you hate white people. So why don't you go put on your black panther uniform, and take your racist attitude else where.



But everyone considered a face of the alt right and the "father" of the term did focus on race. In fact that is the key difference between them and conservatives.



Richard spencer was the founder and a white Supremist.


Anyone not a racist who identifies as alt right isn't magically a racist. They are just wrong about being alt right.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The problem isn't that you are pointing out what was said about the alt right, the problem is what you are insinuating from it.

First, this article you quote says there are all sorts of people in the alt right, some of which care noting of race. For example, anti war people that hate both establishment parties can be alt right. Yet you lump them all together when you use term alt right.

You keep saying it isn't derogatory, but that is not how you or Hillary are using the term. You are using it to say "This comment is from the alt right, they are concerned with the rights of white people, therefore they are racist". You even mention Klan hoods.

You and Hillary and others use the term alt right to get out of arguments you can't win with facts. Someone mentions doing something about illegal immigrants,m you say that is alt right, and therefore racist, and magically you don't have to respond to the argument.

I asked you on another thread you posted about this and you didn't answer, but you didn't respond, but if i I say the far left includes people that hat White people, and then you make an argument that someone on the far left would, like say that we need to solve climate change, do I get to say well you are a bigot that hate America, so I don't have to answer your points?

So lets take look at how consistently you apply that logic. Just in the past couple of weeks you have made these posts.

On this thread you defend the Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs, a journal that defends Muslim people.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is you defending black peoples right to have BLM and group together to be angry and mad.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So it is ok for these groups to be concerned about their way of life and want to defend it, but not white people? Wouldn't a journal catering to protecting Muslims be bigoted by your logic? Or how about BLM, they must be racist because they are concerned with black people.

Any organization that is a group coming together for the interests of themselves is bigoted then, right? Hispanics groups, LGBT groups, women's groups, Muslim groups, etc. are all bigoted, because they prefer are looking out for the interests of their own people.

Yet for some reason, you seem to give those groups a pass, and only focus oon when white people want to look out for their interests.

So using your logic, you are dog whistling that you hate white people. So why don't you go put on your black panther uniform, and take your racist attitude else where.




It is fair to point out the hypocracy of the left using identity politics and all the pro brown people stuff...


But only if your not playing the same game.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Also. Why don't you take your complaints up with Milo? JoshuaCox made an interesing point. Let's take a look at something.

From the Breitbart source:


The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.


Richard Bertrand Spencer. What do we know about him?

Here's a Vice piece on him from 2013



The National Policy Institute is a white nationalist think tank. These aren’t Breaking Bad Nazis or yokels in KKK robes. These are suit-and-tie white separatists—academic-sounding fellows who speak grimly about “preserving European culture” from the swarthy tide of egalitarianism and immigration. Their leader, Richard Spencer, is as clean-cut as they come, which, as he told Salon, is essentially a recruitment tactic:

“'[White separatists] have to look good,' Spencer said, adding that if his movement means 'being part of something that is crazed or ugly or vicious or just stupid, no one is going to want to be a part of it.'”

Spencer explained it me using an interesting analogy:

"In the mid 19th century, many Jews in Central Europe had an idea of an ethno-state, an idea of Zionism, and they were considered ridiculous and insane,” Spencer said. “But they had that dream, and that dream came into reality. Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence."

The conference featured plenty of guest speakers, all from the “alternative right,” as the loose coalition of antidemocratic and race-obsessed groups call themselves.


There you have it. Again, straight from the horse's mouth. We're talking about the operator of AlternativeRight.com himself, a self-avowed white SEPARATIST which in case you're having trouble keeping up, is a step beyond even white nationalism.

Let me show you something that this same guy said that you might agree with


What blocks our progress is the meme that has been carefully implanted in White people’s minds over the course of decades of programming, from Mississippi Burning to Lee Daniel's The Butler—that any kind of positive racial feeling among Whites is inherently evil and stupid and derives solely from bigotry and resentment. And that the political and social advancement of non-Whites is inherently moral and wonderful.


That sounds an awful lot to my ear anyway, like what you were trying to say. See that's how people like Spencer dress up their ideology to make it easier for people like you to accept. I'd also mention here that Samuel T. Francis is a contributor to Spencer's latest publication, Radix Journal and according to Wikipedia, he's spoken at events for the HL Mencken Club. You'll recognize those names from the short list of influential intellectuals that was given by Milo and co-author.

There's also an interesting quote on the Wikipedia:


Greg Johnson, then-editor of The Occidental Quarterly, stressed how Spencer's concept of the "Alternative Right" was to collect a variety of perspectives that are outside the purview of the American Conservative movement:[12]

[Alternative Right] will attract the brightest 'young' conservatives and libertarians and expose them to far broader intellectual horizons, including race realism, White Nationalism, the European New Right, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, neo-paganism, agrarianism, Third Positionism, anti-feminism, and right-wing anti-capitalists, ecologists, bioregionalists, and small-is-beautiful types.


That's for the folks who insist that I'm smearing the alt-right with terms like "white nationalism." I guess they're smearing themselves too. I'll leave you with one more tidbit about Spencer direct from The Occidental Observer (the first part is their excerpt from the Daily Beast):


After spending time as an editor at the Pat Buchanan-founded American Conservative, Spencer decided to leave the confines of paleoconservative journalism for outright white nationalism, assuming the leadership position at NPI and its affiliated Washington Summit publishers in 2011. At a conference organized last year by American Renaissance, another white nationalist publication, Spencer called for a “white homeland” to be created via a process of “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” about which he did not elaborate. Echoing Martin Luther King Jr., Spencer declared, “I have a dream.”


Here's the author's comment about "peaceful ethnic cleansing"


One wonders what Kirchick, who is Jewish and writes regularly for Jewish publications like Forward, Haaretz, and Commentary, thinks of the idea of a Jewish homeland. I suspect that the “peaceful ethnic cleansing” that Spencer has in mind is less violent than that being perpetrated by the Israelis.


Well that's reassuring. Truly. Maybe he just means forced sterilization? Or maybe mass deportation?

Just in case you want to slander me again, here's another excerpt from Milo's article where he lists the intellectual influences of the alt-right:


The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine.

In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought. Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another.

All of these websites have been accused of racism.


That last line is pretty hilarious because Spencer is the definition of a racist (and so were most of those intellectuals if you care to look into it) and will even refer to himself as such. He just thinks there's nothing bad about being a racist because every race is entitled to an ethno-homeland. After all, isn't that really "natural conservatism" taken to its logical conclusion?
edit on 2016-9-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Alt right and proud I suppose
So many times these same things...



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

A picture speaks a thousand words, and still has more weight than the off-topic, deflective opinions some people are prone to posting.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Also. Why don't you take your complaints up with Milo? JoshuaCox made an interesing point. Let's take a look at something.

From the Breitbart source:


The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought.


Richard Bertrand Spencer. What do we know about him?

Here's a Vice piece on him from 2013



The National Policy Institute is a white nationalist think tank. These aren’t Breaking Bad Nazis or yokels in KKK robes. These are suit-and-tie white separatists—academic-sounding fellows who speak grimly about “preserving European culture” from the swarthy tide of egalitarianism and immigration. Their leader, Richard Spencer, is as clean-cut as they come, which, as he told Salon, is essentially a recruitment tactic:

“'[White separatists] have to look good,' Spencer said, adding that if his movement means 'being part of something that is crazed or ugly or vicious or just stupid, no one is going to want to be a part of it.'”

Spencer explained it me using an interesting analogy:

"In the mid 19th century, many Jews in Central Europe had an idea of an ethno-state, an idea of Zionism, and they were considered ridiculous and insane,” Spencer said. “But they had that dream, and that dream came into reality. Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence."

The conference featured plenty of guest speakers, all from the “alternative right,” as the loose coalition of antidemocratic and race-obsessed groups call themselves.


There you have it. Again, straight from the horse's mouth. We're talking about the operator of AlternativeRight.com himself, a self-avowed white SEPARATIST which in case you're having trouble keeping up, is a step beyond even white nationalism.

Let me show you something that this same guy said that you might agree with


What blocks our progress is the meme that has been carefully implanted in White people’s minds over the course of decades of programming, from Mississippi Burning to Lee Daniel's The Butler—that any kind of positive racial feeling among Whites is inherently evil and stupid and derives solely from bigotry and resentment. And that the political and social advancement of non-Whites is inherently moral and wonderful.


That sounds an awful lot to my ear anyway, like what you were trying to say. See that's how people like Spencer dress up their ideology to make it easier for people like you to accept. I'd also mention here that Samuel T. Francis is a contributor to Spencer's latest publication, Radix Journal and according to Wikipedia, he's spoken at events for the HL Mencken Club. You'll recognize those names from the short list of influential intellectuals that was given by Milo and co-author.

There's also an interesting quote on the Wikipedia:


Greg Johnson, then-editor of The Occidental Quarterly, stressed how Spencer's concept of the "Alternative Right" was to collect a variety of perspectives that are outside the purview of the American Conservative movement:[12]

[Alternative Right] will attract the brightest 'young' conservatives and libertarians and expose them to far broader intellectual horizons, including race realism, White Nationalism, the European New Right, the Conservative Revolution, Traditionalism, neo-paganism, agrarianism, Third Positionism, anti-feminism, and right-wing anti-capitalists, ecologists, bioregionalists, and small-is-beautiful types.


That's for the folks who insist that I'm smearing the alt-right with terms like "white nationalism." I guess they're smearing themselves too. I'll leave you with one more tidbit about Spencer direct from The Occidental Observer (the first part is their excerpt from the Daily Beast):


After spending time as an editor at the Pat Buchanan-founded American Conservative, Spencer decided to leave the confines of paleoconservative journalism for outright white nationalism, assuming the leadership position at NPI and its affiliated Washington Summit publishers in 2011. At a conference organized last year by American Renaissance, another white nationalist publication, Spencer called for a “white homeland” to be created via a process of “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” about which he did not elaborate. Echoing Martin Luther King Jr., Spencer declared, “I have a dream.”


Here's the author's comment about "peaceful ethnic cleansing"


One wonders what Kirchick, who is Jewish and writes regularly for Jewish publications like Forward, Haaretz, and Commentary, thinks of the idea of a Jewish homeland. I suspect that the “peaceful ethnic cleansing” that Spencer has in mind is less violent than that being perpetrated by the Israelis.


Well that's reassuring. Truly. Maybe he just means forced sterilization? Or maybe mass deportation?

Just in case you want to slander me again, here's another excerpt from Milo's article where he lists the intellectual influences of the alt-right:


The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine.

In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought. Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another.

All of these websites have been accused of racism.


That last line is pretty hilarious because Spencer is the definition of a racist (and so were most of those intellectuals if you care to look into it) and will even refer to himself as such. He just thinks there's nothing bad about being a racist because every race is entitled to an ethno-homeland. After all, isn't that really "natural conservatism" taken to its logical conclusion?



Yup it is not that the MSM has the alt right wrong. It is that a lot of people identify as alt right who are not really alt right.


Very similar to the confederate flag....

It is a symbol of rebellion and treason, but people have built a nastolgia around it having nothing to do with its original meaning.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I will say their is a definite hypocracy in racial solidarity being ok for some and not for all.



My vote is it is all BS, but the left has got to stop setting the right up for home runs by playing that game.

Look at BLM. They were quickly and easily trumped by all lives matter, only because of choosing racial tag lines.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian



Please point out where I've ever done that. Stop making things up. If you can't win an argument without inventing things that didn't happen, then I've been giving you far too much credit.

I will gladly debate anything with anyone, even if I think that person is a racist. Not a problem. I don't go for the personal attack one-liners and I resent the insinuation. Do you have a single example of me ever calling anyone on ATS a racist in an attempt to win an argument?

You on the other hand are going straight for the personal attacks and accusing me of things I haven't done in an attempt to make your argument. How's that not blatant hypocrisy on your part?


These are strong words for someone who said on this very thread, "The proverbial cat is out of the bag (made from a klansman's hood no doubt). " But you are right, you are so mature in your comments, you would never do something like that.

You want an example of you using the term Alt Right to try to discredit an argument? Well you make this too easy. From a post of yours today.

"but hey, it was on an alt-right (OH I DID IT AGAIN) propaganda blog so it just must be true. Actually, it's not even any sort of fake reporting by the hack propagandists at TCT, they took their cues from a YouTuber who is trying to make out conversation from *somebody* EVP-style. "

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I like how you joke that you are doing it again. That really hits home the point that you would NEVER do something like this.
Heres another from today.

"All 200 of them? Come now. You've linked to more than 200 alt-right sources in your threads this year."
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is you today repeatedly using the phrase white nationalist to win arguments.

"Given a choice between these two dishonest cronies, without the white nationalist pandering, I might have considered Donald Trump."

"maybe you should stop deluding yourself and take a look at your peer group who have essentially fallen for the white nationalist version of "hope and change" HOOK, LINE, and SINKER. "

"Read a very candid analysis of the alt-right and then try to tell me that the alt-right, a driving force behind Donald Trump, is not centrally focused on white nationalism, white identity, whatever term doesn't make you squirm so much that your brain immediately rejects reality. " (In other words, your argument against trump is just to scream white nationalism, you provide no examples, other to say it makes you squirm that he is focused on white identity)

In addition, you have posted this article on four threads to prove a point, that people are white nationalists so it hurts their argument. Not just Trump either, you went on about how Ron Paul is to be impugned because his followers are white nationalists. Again, all of this is from TODAY!!!!



And you are against name calling and personal attacks right? Here are some phrases you have used today.


"Trump sycophants"
"you clowns"
"useful idiot of the orange messiah"
"Are you autistic?"



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
double post

edit on 3-9-2016 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I'll just leave this here:




posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


You want an example of you using the term Alt Right to try to discredit an argument? Well you make this too easy. From a post of yours today.

"but hey, it was on an alt-right (OH I DID IT AGAIN) propaganda blog so it just must be true. Actually, it's not even any sort of fake reporting by the hack propagandists at TCT, they took their cues from a YouTuber who is trying to make out conversation from *somebody* EVP-style. "


Are you denying that TCT is in fact an alt-right news blog? Does the objective truth make absolutely no difference to you whatsoever? The problem with your thesis is that I had already made my argument. Here's the first paragaraph:

"Well the production people are saying that the Trump campaign made them leave. If I had a dollar for every garbage post from The Conservative Treehouse that I'd debunked personally, I'd buy a membership at a Trump golf course and hang out with him and Bill."

After that I posted the tweets from the pool producer who 100% contradicted garbage pulled off YouTube by TCT. I also posted a tweet from an AP reporter who confirmed those tweets. After the argument was already delivered, I made a quip, the purpose of which was to shame the horde of Trumpeteers who'd fallen for what amounts to a hoax because of the undue credibility they'd ascribed to an alt-right propaganda blog — because it was an alt-right propaganda "news blog." It certainly wasn't because TCT had offered anything substantial to prove their claim.

Do I need to start pasting excerpts of you using all sorts of labels of your own? How about this one:

"Don't try to turn this on conservatives, liberal ones are the ones making the argument that illegals are good for the economy, and claiming to have the moral high ground."

Tsk. Tsk.


"All 200 of them? Come now. You've linked to more than 200 alt-right sources in your threads this year."


Really? This is the best you could come up with? How about you put things in proper context? I was replying to this statement:

"Yup. All 200 of 'em."

In what way is this using the term alt-right to dismiss an argument? The argument he was making was that there are 200 alt-righters in existence. Disingenuous much?


Here is you today repeatedly using the phrase white nationalist to win arguments. "Given a choice between these two dishonest cronies, without the white nationalist pandering, I might have considered Donald Trump."


Again, I stand by that 100% and it's not an example of me using a term to dismiss the person I was responding to or to discredit any argument the poster made. It was a statement of fact in the context of me expressing why of the two candidates, I'd likely be voting for Hillary and definitely wouldn't be voting for Trump — not me calling a person I was debating a "white nationalist" to win an argument.

Let me remind you of the claim that you intitially made


You and Hillary and others use the term alt right to get out of arguments you can't win with facts. Someone mentions doing something about illegal immigrants,m you say that is alt right, and therefore racist, and magically you don't have to respond to the argument.


Are you really going to pretend that any of the statements of mine that you've so helpfully pasted fit the bill? Can't win with facts? I'm all about the facts. In fact, your very first example came at the bottom of some pretty damn conclusive facts. It's no exaggeration to say that at least to that point in the thread, my post was the most fact filled of the lot.

Since you love reading my posts, maybe you can track down one where I actually used the term "alt-right" in any way resembling what you you were talking about instead of moving the goal posts. You're a slippery one, I'll give you that.

Shall we continue the tit for tat?

Here's another example of you using a label (as you're saying you hate labels — how ironic is that?) and going on about what a disadvantage white males are at in a academic settings:

"Universities and Academia are almost entirely "progressive" (I hate these labels but don't know how else to phrase it). Being white or any other member of the "dominant class" (such as male) is hugely disadvantaged in universities."

Gee, sure looks like your entire argument is propped up on the label "progressive."


And you are against name calling and personal attacks right? Here are some phrases you have used today.


Wow, can you get through an entire line of a post without a straw man or a mischaracterization?

Here's what I actually said:

"I will gladly debate anything with anyone, even if I think that person is a racist. Not a problem. I don't go for the personal attack one-liners and I resent the insinuation. Do you have a single example of me ever calling anyone on ATS a racist in an attempt to win an argument?"

I don't go for personal attack one-liners. As in posts that are one-line personal attacks. Which is not "against name calling and personal attacks." It's a statement expressing a disdain for insubstantial arguments.

You're a practiced debater I see. It's not just the array of underhanded tactics either — I can't help but notice that you are not responding to anything about yourself from my own responses to keep the focus squarely on your dubious attacks on my character.

Of course it's all complete BS and you're not persuading anyone whose opinion carries any weight with me. Like I said, collect your high fives and move along with your sanctimonious blathering.

Or hell, don't. At least you're entertaining.

edit on 2016-9-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join