FWIS3

And yes, people like Milo Y were involved pretty directly with honest to God neo-Nazis.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstei ... fpD9XVeq6v

Can people please, please start paying attention now?

Buzz...feed... Rofl

Actually, they hired a few serious investigative journalists a few years back and now do some excellent reporting. They're the ones who have uncovered the sexual harassment in astronomy, for example.

I read GJ's link then the sources it links to. I gave up after seeing the same pattern they have used before.
It goes like this:
1 make unsubstantiated claims
2 place link in that doesn't substansiate the claim. Sometimes even contradicts it.
3 continue as though they have provided facts.
4 repeat.

I could not find the source of these emails in the article. If they are there they are well hidden. Some of the sources for Milo were to Milo himself and even though the man specifically states that he is not a white supremisist in the link they use, they use the article as though it was proof he is.
He apparently has a new master plan of fooling everyone that he isn't, he just married a black guy. How evil and sneaky is this Jewish gay black loving white supremisist Nazi? He is as evil as Ben Shapiro. That Nazi is fooling the world by being a practicing Jew for decades. That is serious Nazi commitment!

Buzzfeed will have to pump out serious non agenda driven news as opposed to agenda driven politics for a long time consecutively before I could consider anything they write without having to check every source to its source. It is too much effort. I read a couple of links, see the same thing and cross it off as a fail.

What vendic said. And I'll just add the white supremacists aren't shy about it. They don't lie about it, and they aren't trying to trick anyone. If they are, I'm going to need proof because all I see are attacks on people like Milo Y. and Ben Shapiro. You don't have like either of them. You don't have to agree with them. But they are NOT white supremacists.

Also, GJ, I'm not sure what you mean by paying attention. I'm certainly paying attention. I just disagree with you. For the record, both Antifa and BLM have been classified as domestic terror organizations and I agree with the classification.

I pretty much lose respect for any reporter that calls black marrying guys of Jewish heritage Nazi.
Same with anyone that calls a practicing Jew a Nazi.

That just tells me anyone they disagree with is a Nazi.
Hence my complete opposition to this latest fad of punch a Nazi.

When any group can twist hate of Nazi's to violence against Jews, I cannot support them or their sympathisers. Fuck them and their lies.

I know I'm going to regret asking this question....

SciFi Chick wrote: For the record, both Antifa and BLM have been classified as domestic terror organizations and I agree with the classification.

First where did you hear that Black Lives Matter (BLM) was so classified. All I could find was this from Fox News and it makes no mention that BLM has been so classified.

The FBI report said that the agency previously had analyzed the potential for violence of black identity extremism, a term that was unfamiliar before it appeared in the document. What has changed, according to the report, is that violence has now actually occurred and is 'likely" to continue.

Why do you think BLM should be so classified?

Swift wrote:I know I'm going to regret asking this question....

SciFi Chick wrote: For the record, both Antifa and BLM have been classified as domestic terror organizations and I agree with the classification.

First where did you hear that Black Lives Matter (BLM) was so classified. All I could find was this from Fox News and it makes no mention that BLM has been so classified.

The FBI report said that the agency previously had analyzed the potential for violence of black identity extremism, a term that was unfamiliar before it appeared in the document. What has changed, according to the report, is that violence has now actually occurred and is 'likely" to continue.

Why do you think BLM should be so classified?

I read about it in The Guardian, and yes, I conflated it in my mind with the fact that Antifa has been classified that way.

To answer your other question, I think groups that encourage as well as commit violence should be classified as terrorists. As an example, their habit of chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." That doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.

They're acting like Black people are no better off than they were in the 60's. I heartily disagree. The main people I've been following that are against the BLM movement are, in fact, Black people. But all of these commentators are on the dreaded YouTube, and my understanding is that no one around here is interested in YouTube videos. If I'm mistaken and you are interested, I'd be happy to dig some up and share them.

SciFi Chick wrote:To answer your other question, I think groups that encourage as well as commit violence should be classified as terrorists. As an example, their habit of chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." That doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.

Your stance is not unreasonable but I don't hold with classifying every violent act or group as terrorism or terrorists, which you seem to be doing with that last sentence. Use of those terms has, in my opinion, been applied with far too broad a brush.

SciFi Chick wrote:I read about it in The Guardian, and yes, I conflated it in my mind with the fact that Antifa has been classified that way.

I consider Antifa a different kettle of fish, and I know even less about them, so I wasn't including them in my post.

To answer your other question, I think groups that encourage as well as commit violence should be classified as terrorists. As an example, their habit of chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." That doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.

I almost universally oppose groups that either commit or encourage violence, though I'm not sure I would just broadly classify all such groups as terrorists. I think there is a difference, but maybe I'm picking nits.

I had no belief that the group Black Lives Matter either committed or encouraged violence. There may have been events, for example protests in some city, where they were protesting and people committed violence, but I think that is different than saying that they encouraged violence. If I am holding a peaceful protest, and others come in and commit violence, is that my fault?

Shouting offensive slogans might not be my cup of tea, but just shouting them doesn't make a protest non-peaceful, and I certainly don't think it makes you a terrorist.

They're acting like Black people are no better off than they were in the 60's. I heartily disagree.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a poor argument. "We passed the 'Voting Rights Act' and we don't lynch you folks as often as we used to, isn't that good enough?"

Sure, African Americans are better off than they were in the 60s. So are lots of minority groups. Does that mean any continuing discrimination is OK? "Hey, we gave women the right to vote... now you want equal pay?"

I think the evidence is overwhelming that African Americans, particularly African American men (most particularly young men) are disproportionately targeted by police, even if all that happens is a uneventful traffic stop. I've never been stopped for "driving while white". Everything I've read or heard says it is the norm for most Black men.

And some of these police shootings (and the lack of consequences to the shooters) have just been appalling.

Do I think most cops are bad? Absolutely not; the overwhelming majority are good, decent, and hard working. But to say there is no problem, or that departments don't need to clean out the bad apples, is just wrong.

I actually think a lot of the problems are not outright discrimination by police, but very poor police training and skills with regard to high-stress situations.

The main people I've been following that are against the BLM movement are, in fact, Black people. But all of these commentators are on the dreaded YouTube, and my understanding is that no one around here is interested in YouTube videos. If I'm mistaken and you are interested, I'd be happy to dig some up and share them.

Then I think those Black people are wrong. That happens too.

And thank you for the offer, but I'll pass. It isn't anything specifically against YouTube, but I think I've had my fill of this topic and don't want to watch a couple of hours of video (particularly from dubious sources) or read huge websites of a similar kind. I think I've said my piece.

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:To answer your other question, I think groups that encourage as well as commit violence should be classified as terrorists. As an example, their habit of chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." That doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.

Your stance is not unreasonable but I don't hold with classifying every violent act or group as terrorism or terrorists, which you seem to be doing with that last sentence. Use of those terms has, in my opinion, been applied with far too broad a brush.

Can you name groups that commit and encourage others to commit violence who you don't consider terrorists. We're not talking about war, that is inherently violent.

r.e. blm

Kill the pigs.
Fuck white people.
Black lives are more important than white lives.
We don't need police.
Etc

This is recorded regularly at their marches. Their marches are often violent. The chase and harass white people just for being white. These are not isolated cases.

When sfc says YouTube she means presenters that show raw footage of these events. Some are highly educated and pillars of the black community. Others are villified and sneered at because they hold a differing view to the "black people are MORE REPRESSED now than they ever were" narrative. Sorry, anyone who believes that is a moron. It is however a very popular view to push.

r.e. wage equality. I covered that completely in the red pill thread. Its a bs statistic that has been pushed so much it has become defacto truth. I don't know what else to say about it. But lets just point this out again: 91% or so workplace deaths are male. That tells us that men and women work in different fields. But I understand your point. I too wish more women would die in workplace accidents. At least something might then be done about it. Afterall, I think any sane person can agree that fixing people dying at work is more important than trying to correct a misused and misunderstood statistic.

vendic wrote:r.e. wage equality. I covered that completely in the red pill thread. Its a bs statistic that has been pushed so much it has become defacto truth. I don't know what else to say about it. But lets just point this out again: 91% or so workplace deaths are male. That tells us that men and women work in different fields. But I understand your point. I too wish more women would die in workplace accidents. At least something might then be done about it. Afterall, I think any sane person can agree that fixing people dying at work is more important than trying to correct a misused and misunderstood statistic.

You are making too much of one particular analogy I made.

I am arguing against the proposition that "They're acting like Black people are no better off than they were in the 60's." My main point was that just because things for any particular group are better, it does not mean the current situation is acceptable.

Oh I understand that and I totally agree.
It's just not how the cutting edge, which is fast becoming the norm, is thinking.

I figure at this point in time, everyone on this forum understands the issues pretty well. What the problem is, is determining what the person with an average IQ is going to conclude. Thats the determining factor here. Not what is right or wrong but what the mindless masses will end up accepting as truth.
In Nazi Germany, they accepted Jews were the source of their misery. Now we're being told Jewish people are Nazi's and large sections of the population are buying it.
Same shit with blm. Don't forget that prior to the police being shot by a crazed nut job, blm was chanting kill the cops at their rallies. Well, they got their wish.


Everything that is said and done needs to factor the stupidity err normal IQ index. No matter what you or I say, write, how carefully we phrase our sentences and choose our words, their will be large sections of the population that completely miss the point.

Anyone that has ever had to try to teach those that do not have the intelligence to comprehend, can understand this. You cannot give wisdom to those who are incapable of being wise.
Think of it this way, the greatest wisdom passed can only be as useful as interpreted by the lowest common denominator.
This is why religion fails. Do unto others.. fails. Because some shithead will figure he'd love to get laid every day so decides rape is awesome.

When I look at what is happening I try not to see it as I would. That would end in hundreds of different paths. So I try to see it as Mr/ms average would see it. Its a very different world when viewed that way but fuck me if predictions aren't more accurate and the world makes more sense. By that I mean what you expect is what typically happens.

Sorry Swift. I know how little faith you have in people and humanity. I could tell you about all the things that we've seen and are going through. It's depressing. Try to do the right thing only to find that if you bullshited you'd be far better off. This world imho is fuelled on bullshit and I'm well past the point of no return.

Please ignore if it offends. Been drinking for the first time in a while...

vendic wrote:

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:To answer your other question, I think groups that encourage as well as commit violence should be classified as terrorists. As an example, their habit of chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." That doesn't seem like peaceful protest to me.

Your stance is not unreasonable but I don't hold with classifying every violent act or group as terrorism or terrorists, which you seem to be doing with that last sentence. Use of those terms has, in my opinion, been applied with far too broad a brush.

Can you name groups that commit and encourage others to commit violence who you don't consider terrorists. We're not talking about war, that is inherently violent.

I don't choose to name any such groups. It is easier to say I believe the label should apply more properly to groups such as ISIS, al Qaeda, the old IRA and PLO, etc, who commit random acts of violence against unsuspecting innocent people as a way of destabilizing civil society and furthering their own agenda. Calling everyone who involves themselves with violent criminal acts a terrorist just furthers the General War on Terrorism mantra that George W Bush and Richard Cheney inflicted on us.

I have attended and participated in two civil rights rallies recently in which BLM was a major sponsor and organizer. None of them, or the affiliated groups, encouraged violence. Quite the opposite. You may find videos showing counter examples but I do not believe they reflect the policy or goal of the movement.

I have a BLM sign outside my front door, and have had for some time. I fully support the cause.

On ya Geo

vendic wrote:Oh I understand that and I totally agree.
It's just not how the cutting edge, which is fast becoming the norm, is thinking.

I figure at this point in time, everyone on this forum understands the issues pretty well...

So I know you were tipsy/drunk posting this, but I will point out right now that I think you make a dangerous assumption here when it comes to an exchange of ideas. Namely, the idea that "everyone on this forum understands the issues pretty well." I recall that we've had some issues earlier here with these kinds of assumptions, such as this thread, whereby not explaining your starting position a lot of confusion resulted.

I mean, I say this with no offense intended, but I really can't remember what all my friends think of each political issue all the time, and I do know that you shouldn't necessarily assume everyone is starting from the same point (especially on an Internet forum where we lack nuances, and often don't discuss these issues for months). It's also pretty clear from this thread alone that while I'm sure we all think we understand the issues pretty well, we do not reach the same conclusions, such as geonuc and SFC on BLM.

Just saying my two cents on this and deliberately not getting into the political side of things, just I've noticed some of our dialogues have become increasingly frustrating lately from various angles. I suspect taking a step back and not assuming everyone understands the issues on the same level (or has reached the same conclusion with the same information- people reach different ones all the time of course) would be a constructive step.

Cheers.

Back on topic - Milo not a white supremacist or alt right. He disavows them AGAIN!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zyA21lDlQ9M

I'll get to those youtube videos. Gotta work through these first:
https://youtu.be/HnB0rsRksxs
https://youtu.be/vTYJ5Yi-1kk
https://youtu.be/7Yngoj4bI2c
https://youtu.be/kyu8qtM-I4s
https://youtu.be/4HdWfTwzUsU

So not believing BuzzFeed means I'm an Alex Jones follower? Or is it the idea that some stuff on YouTube has veracity and I believe I have the sense to tell the difference?

Maybe I'm paranoid and this post isn't directed at me?

Will I get a straight answer or any answer at all? I'll sit over here and hold my breath waiting.

If that was aimed at me, Thumper, I'm really not sure how you can equate Australian journalists interviewing Milo with conspiracy theories like the idea that Sandy Hook didn't happen.

Rommie wrote:

vendic wrote:Oh I understand that and I totally agree.
It's just not how the cutting edge, which is fast becoming the norm, is thinking.

I figure at this point in time, everyone on this forum understands the issues pretty well...

So I know you were tipsy/drunk posting this, but I will point out right now that I think you make a dangerous assumption here when it comes to an exchange of ideas. Namely, the idea that "everyone on this forum understands the issues pretty well."..

I made the assumption that members of this forum are not as ignorant of current events as the average person. It was meant as a compliment. There was no suggestion however that we all agree or even have formed conclusions based on that information. I'm not sure how you derived that from what I wrote.

The only thing I can think of is that my statement was open to interpretation. I used to try and cover all the specifics and not leave room for the possibility of misinterpretation but that resulted in walls of text.

I have noticed a pattern however. It seems if open to interpretation comments are made that agree with a readers pov, more often than not it is correctly decoded. When it doesn't agree with a readers pov it more often is not. This isn't just an observation of fwis, it was fb too and other sites I read.

Iow if a pov is presented that agrees with the readers, it is taken as verbatim. If it doesn't, the statement is read into. Often in an unfavorable light.

This is just a general observation of the internet I've been seeing, and my musings regarding that observation. It doesn't seem to be the case in person however.

In any case, no offence intended or taken. I just think its an interesting observation.

What it was aimed at is that about the only use I can find for Youtube is watching 1974 Grand Funk concerts and videos of people doing stupid stuff and hitting themselves in the nuts. Your results may vary.

Wait, that's not entirely accurate. I did find a couple good videos showing me how to take my washing machine apart (and sort of get it back together), and how to replace the brake light activation switch on the brake pedal of my pickup.

Thumper wrote:What it was aimed at is that about the only use I can find for Youtube is watching 1974 Grand Funk concerts and videos of people doing stupid stuff and hitting themselves in the nuts. Your results may vary.

Can't be true. Every video you linked is of extreme propaganda by questionable people. Not one case of people doing stupid stuff and hitting themselves in the nuts... Or of diy videos.