jet_lagg wrote:Aneris wrote:
I don't even know how to argue with that. When you assert such views are somehow at odds with her “real” political views, then you show this — not I. And how am I to demonstrate what isn't there, namely inconsistencies between alleged “triggering leftists” and her “real views”? Proving a negative and such?
Very nice. You accuse someone of being alt-right, promoting a Neo-nazi agenda and such, and the burden of proof is on
them. You've got a wonderfully twisted concept of what proving a negative means.
When you complain to your wife that the shirt is not the same as pictured online, then you have to make that case, not your wife showing that there is no difference. You have to show how something exist, not she has to show how something does not exist. With that out the way, ...
jet_lagg wrote:Aneris wrote:Your Wikipedia denial is even more bizarre. There are categories, at the bottom, she was listed under Alt Right. That's a fact. If it changed in the meantime, the logs would reveal it.
Mea culpa. I was looking at her political affiliations which are more prominently displayed. You are correct though. Wikipedia has category lists, and Lauren Southern appears on the list for alt-right, as does the gay Jew Milo Yiannopoulos. Fine bunch of white supremacists these alt-righters are. All I can say is wikipedia is just as shiite as I'd thought they were and you are breathtakingly desperate for taking their word at face value.
Mea culpa this, goal post shifting that, it's quite clear that this is some sort of taboo you are defending with desperation. Not only is it not important how Wikipedia sorts these people, I also know that political writings on such matters are often infested by SJWs. She is in the Alt Right category because she belongs there, which was shown by a plethora of evidence, produced by herself. I know, you just can't hold more than one piece of evidence in your head, and you just can't do basic inference.
Your gang's denialism is interesting though: each time some fact is in focus (typically one of the less important ones, which is also a strategy of denial) you instantly forget about all the others brought up before. In other words, focus on something trivial, or bite into deliberately misunderstood halfsentence, etc and when caught mea-culpa it all away, and hope that the facts are fogotten and go away.
Comical Kirby has still not explained Dave Cullen’s sharing of Daily Stormer to the MRA crowd (Bearing etc) in one stream, etc. It's wonderfully consistent: there are people who apparently drifted off into the Far Right wilderness, and see no problem with sharing Daily Stormer, participate on identitarian movement (aka Alt Right) channels, hang out and party with again the same people and so on. Keep in mind that Lauren Southern not only went to Pettibone's channel (who herself is directly connected to Spencer's project), they also celebrate their friendship with party pictures, featuring Rudkowski and Cernovich on Twitter. The same Rudkowski who shortly afterwards is on Sargon's channel and presented there as a neutral or “centre” journalist. The same Cernovich who is known as the actual Alt Right meme master. Etc. and there's much more already, with the Alt Right Truther-Conspiracy-Trump corner, or Sargon's recent endorsement of Alex Jones. How on earth can “skeptics” defend any of this?
jet_lagg wrote:Aneris wrote:She appeared as first guest on Pettibone's channel:
Trying to tar someone for appearing at a certain online venue
while posting on the fucking slymepit has to be the single most insane thing I've seen someone do this year. And I follow the lives of people like Daniel Muscatto for fun.
I have asked you guys a few times to please look up your fancy association fallacy. You still didn't. You and the others before you have not the faintest idea. There's a reason why association fallacies are a thing: people who like each other, or share views, tend to hang out with each other. They at least can tolerate each other. Two things that have something in common might be similar in important ways. Because this is often true, it is precisely the reason why someone might use this heuristic to make wrong inferences! An example: P1: a Trump-voter posts on the Slymepit, P2, someone else posts on the Slymepit, C: therefore someone else is a Trump-voter. This is an association fallacy.
Whether some feature is useful to connect the dots or not obviously depends on what is argued. Consider this: P1. A person with an internet connection posts on the Slymepit, P2, someone else posts on the Slymepit, C, therefore someone else has an internet connection, too — fallacious (it does not follow), but it's still true.
Pettibone's channel is not free-for-all posting where anyone can come and go, and where even people who can't reason good are welcome. You do not just happen onto a far right identitarian channel, write identitarian books, pose with Alt Right “swedistan” memes, party with core members of the Alt Right scene and so on.
jet_lagg wrote:Aneris wrote:So, Sargon and Southern want to look like Alt Right, because reasons, and when they do, then … what exactly?
I can't speak to their motives, but mine are to work people into a frothing mess over the existential threat of cartoon frogs and creeping Nazi agendas (much as you're now doing), then quietly pull in neutrals to point out how insane you look. It's pretty remarkable the kinds of change that come over people when they learn the white supremacist threat people have been wailing about is actually a bunch of socially conservative libertarians who will calmly explain to you why they think 90% of the population would be better off and happier in monogamous, heterosexual relationships and going to church every Sunday.
First off, I had no problem with pepe memes or people who share them, e.g. Chris Raygun. Nice try again. You think I don't see your cheap tricks? Mea Culpa again? Secondly, edgelords don't want to pull in neutrals, and shitposting is exactly the opposite of what you allege. Since when is trolling useful for winning over neutrals? and win over to what? Here you reveal your tribalism and you probably believe in this “Culture War”. People who are into Culture War are obviously identitarian keyboard warriors, ie. basically SJWs.
Allegedly, Pepe was flooded with Nazi references to drive the mainstream off again, and worked first because a lot of people saw Clinton's campaign as ridiculous. But this is not cards where “shitposting” is an eternal Trump card. This is more like Rock, Paper, Scissors. First, the joke was on the Regressives. But then the actual Far Right supremacists quickly took over the memes (provided they didn't originate them in the first place, read what political commentators and people like Cernovich have to say on that one). This left those too slow to adapt, people like you, indistinguishable from the real thing. You only have good faith, and that is now quickly used up.
I can be confident that someone like Chris Raygun has nothing to do with the Alt Right, despite shitposting or using Pepe memes. But Trumpists who constantly surround themselves with the Alt Right, immerse themselves in memes indistinguishable from Alt Right political propaganda, and who advance themselves an Alt Right narrative of a Culture War, promote Alex Jones and Rudkowski etc do not have a reputation as somehow being against the thing. In fact, people who claim otherwise are either mad, or are lying. As if it somehow casts doubt on Bernie Sanders' views as a social democrat that he frequently surrounds himself with Democrats.