Wank Dad 2: Electric Wankaloo

[agrajag]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-ban-infowars-alex-jones-milo-yiannopoulos-louis-farrakhan-islam-a8897221.html

pouring one out for the Bore's freeze peach warriors and their losses in the battle of ideas

[toku]

I just don't see how any of them thought this runway would last forever. Mile especially I feel like got handed so many opportunities to go a bit more mainstream and above ground while making money but I guess nazi far right donations were too good?

[Nintex]

Accounts that continue to share information from InfoWars will also face potential bans, The Atlantic reported, and all InfoWars content will be removed from Facebook’s platforms.

[benjipwns]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-ban-infowars-alex-jones-milo-yiannopoulos-louis-farrakhan-islam-a8897221.html

pouring one out for the Bore's freeze peach warriors and their losses in the battle of ideas

Facebook bans far-right leaders including Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos

Correction: Louis Farrakhan is an extremist leader who has espoused anti-Semitic views. An earlier version of this story and headline incorrectly included him in a list of far-right leaders.

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/1124142060045520902

[benjipwns]

until Stefan Molyneux moved I thought that was a stock photo like when someone is shown as "ON THE PHONE" on a news show

[Mandark]

Congrats on landing Owen Benjamin. That's a big get for team voluntaryism.

[benjipwns]

I'm just glad we're getting somebody who can maybe play some minutes up front and hit the boards a little. Penn trends to drift outside instead of banging down low, especially after the weight loss.

[Leadbelly]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/facebook-ban-infowars-alex-jones-milo-yiannopoulos-louis-farrakhan-islam-a8897221.html

pouring one out for the Bore's freeze peach warriors and their losses in the battle of ideas

Facebook bans far-right leaders including Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos

Correction: Louis Farrakhan is an extremist leader who has espoused anti-Semitic views. An earlier version of this story and headline incorrectly included him in a list of far-right leaders.

lol

Correction: Louis Farrakhan has got oppression points for being black and we don't want to jump into that minefield, so off he goes...

Seriously though, in most people's mind 'far-right' still practically means white supremacist or neo-nazi, etc.  However, it has been so consistently misused against a whole swathe of people that it has now lost all meaning. And that just makes it funny because if Louis Farrakhan was white then no one would give a shit about him being labelled 'far-right'. However, now, all of a sudden, people are far more specific about how far-right is defined. Alex Jones though, he's far-right. I mean, no matter what you think of Alex Jones, he's not far-right.

It just goes to show how strictly or broadly people will define 'far-right' when it suits them. lol.

[curly]

It wasn't liberals who were complaining about Farrakhan being called far-right

[Rufus]

Seriously though, in most people's mind 'far-right' still practically means white supremacist or neo-nazi, etc.  However, it has been so consistently misused against a whole swathe of people that it has now lost all meaning.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

[Leadbelly]

It wasn't liberals who were complaining about Farrakhan being called far-right

It doesn't matter who it was complaining. It might have been Farrakhan himself who complained. What is telling is the retraction. The Independant was perectly understanding of the complaints it seems after all. In other words, they're quite happy to use the term quite broadly when it suits them, but they seem to understand the connotation of far-right with white supremacist all of a sudden.

Of course they do, because really it is used to smear people. That is really what I am hinting at.

[Leadbelly]

Seriously though, in most people's mind 'far-right' still practically means white supremacist or neo-nazi, etc.  However, it has been so consistently misused against a whole swathe of people that it has now lost all meaning.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Err? I''m not even sure you follow my point...

[Rufus]

If the misuse of 'far-right' has eroded its meaning, how do you figure that it still means white supremacist or neo-nazi in most people's minds?

[Leadbelly]

If the misuse of 'far-right' has eroded its meaning, how do you figure that it still means white supremacist or neo-nazi in most people's minds?

In the average person's mind people still associate the term with white supremacist. The media, particularly the left-wing media, and left-wing activists are now using the term far more broadly. So for example, if you label Alex Jones, far-right, then as you say, you are eroding the meaning of far-right, or rather, expanding the meaning actually.

And actually I was hinting at this being merely a tool to smear people. They know perfectly well that connotation which is why they were so quick to retract.

[Rufus]

OK. Now I understand what you were trying to say.

In other words, they're quite happy to use the term quite broadly when it suits them, but they seem to understand the connotation of far-right with white supremacist all of a sudden.

I think in this case it was far-right = anti-semite that was the clincher.

[team filler]

it's like reeeee calling everyone they disagree with a nazi 

[nachobro]

wow sounds like some shit a nazi would say

[Leadbelly]

OK. Now I understand what you were trying to say.

In other words, they're quite happy to use the term quite broadly when it suits them, but they seem to understand the connotation of far-right with white supremacist all of a sudden.

I think in this case it was far-right = anti-semite that was the clincher.

In terms of why he was on the list in the first place? I think if he was white, being an anti-semite would be good enough reason to suggest they are far-right. You can understand why he may be on a list like that. Especially considering the way the term is thrown about by the media. I just found it funny how explicitly they would then disassociate him from the far-right, yet not even blink about others they would label with that term. I understand why they retracted, but the reason why they retracted means they understand the connotation of that term. and if this is the case, does that mean they will be more careful when using the term? I don't think so... lol

[curly]

Still pretty confused how Ben Shapiro objecting to the WaPo describing Farrakhan as far-right and them capitulating is evidence that the left is using the term to slur their opponents

Is it the equating of far-right with white supremacy that's the slur, or is it the changing of that association?

Kinda think Leadbelly made an assumption about who was mad and ran with it, then when he learned he was wrong kept going anyways

[curly]

Also where does self-described paleoconservative, rabid Trump supporter, and discusser of white genocide Alex Jones fall on the political spectrum

[agrajag]

Alex Jones is obviously a moderate conservative  duh 

[curly]

I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.

Doesn't seem that contraver--oh never mind I see what he's going for there.

[Leadbelly]

Still pretty confused how Ben Shapiro objecting to the WaPo describing Farrakhan as far-right and them capitulating is evidence that the left is using the term to slur their opponents

Is it the equating of far-right with white supremacy that's the slur, or is it the changing of that association?

Kinda think Leadbelly made an assumption about who was mad and ran with it, then when he learned he was wrong kept going anyways

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.


 

[agrajag]

there needs to be a movement to address the ethics in far-right assification

[Leadbelly]

AJ's grift took him to White Genocide theory which you can't interpret as anything but far-right dogwhistles. If you think that by itself doesn't make him far-right, or that it was disingenuous then alright, but he's on record with it.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/02/alex-jones-las-vegas/

What is written in that article just sounds like Alex Jones typical conspiracy crap to me. This is the same guy that claimed sandy hook was a hoax. One thing I know about Alex Jones is that he has been hated for years by white supremacists for a being a filler shill. He was married to a Jewish woman which also technically makes his kids Jewish. There were videos they used of him in support of Israel that they beleived was evidence he was a filler shill.

[curly]

Still pretty confused how Ben Shapiro objecting to the WaPo describing Farrakhan as far-right and them capitulating is evidence that the left is using the term to slur their opponents

Is it the equating of far-right with white supremacy that's the slur, or is it the changing of that association?

Kinda think Leadbelly made an assumption about who was mad and ran with it, then when he learned he was wrong kept going anyways

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.

See this is why who complained matters: they retracted because they got pushback from people like Shapiro, Trump Jr, etc. Maybe secretly it was because they didn't think a black guy could be right-wing, but then why did they say he was in the first place? Also funnily enough I first heard about this story because left-wingers on Twitter were complaining that WaPo had caved and saying that of course Farrakhan is right-wing.

[Leadbelly]

Still pretty confused how Ben Shapiro objecting to the WaPo describing Farrakhan as far-right and them capitulating is evidence that the left is using the term to slur their opponents

Is it the equating of far-right with white supremacy that's the slur, or is it the changing of that association?

Kinda think Leadbelly made an assumption about who was mad and ran with it, then when he learned he was wrong kept going anyways

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.

See this is why who complained matters: they retracted because they got pushback from people like Shapiro, Trump Jr, etc. Maybe secretly it was because they didn't think a black guy could be right-wing, but then why did they say he was in the first place? Also funnily enough I first heard about this story because left-wingers on Twitter were complaining that WaPo had caved and saying that of course Farrakhan is right-wing.

Yeah. I assumed this bit and could be wrong..

[Leadbelly]

AJ's grift took him to White Genocide theory which you can't interpret as anything but far-right dogwhistles. If you think that by itself doesn't make him far-right, or that it was disingenuous then alright, but he's on record with it.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/02/alex-jones-las-vegas/

What is written in that article just sounds like Alex Jones typical conspiracy crap to me. This is the same guy that claimed sandy hook was a hoax. One thing I know about Alex Jones is that he has been hated for years by white supremacists for a being a filler shill. He was married to a Jewish woman which also technically makes his kids Jewish. There were videos they used of him in support of Israel that they used as evidence he was a filler shill.

Like i said, if you think he is a grifter, then fair (I wouldnt disagree with that). However, promoting Great Replacement theory and blaming leftists for tragedies in a very familiar format is content that appeals mostly to people who wave hello with their hands at erect 45 degree angles. And that's ignoring all his previous fillerdogwhistlesrellif

There is some overlap. Alex Jones believed (and probably still does) in the New World Order. He believed that the illuminati were in control, etc. Now there are white supremacists thaat believe a  similar thing, the only difference is they attribute those in control to the Jews. Alex Jones never really did this which is why for years those same white supremacists viewed Alex as a shill.

[agrajag]

lmao I forgot about the word filter and was confused for a while.

[Leadbelly]

I'm not even really sure you can pin Alex Jones down to anything because his overarching belief system is in the New World Order (4 Life) and global elites wanting to enslave the population. People tend to forget he came out of the weirdo liberal Austin scene and really started getting notoriety as a vehemently anti-GWB/neocon/War On Terror guy. When Obama got elected he just swapped out the names but basically was running the same shit but realize he could sell weird shit to his conservative listeners who for some reason seem to be much more willing to gold, silver, and industrial sized buckets of slop. At some point he became a parody of himself and then worked himself into a shoot, and he's obviously not operating on the normal wavelength in general, but I think it's pointless to tie him down to any point of the political spectrum when his NWO theory is the only thing that really matters to him.

Pretty much this. I have listened to Alex for the lulz on a number of occasions, and nothing he has ever said I would consider particularly white supremacist in any way. Although there is probably plenty of crap he has said that could be construed that way in a soundbite, which tends to be what happens. He was pretty much apolitical for while because he believed the Government was the problem. It didn't matter if they were republican or democrat. They were all just working for the new world order.

Also, I can see why people were so confused by my comments now. I had chance to read what Ben Shapiro was saying. I think I understand the aangle he is coming at it from. I think it is related to people like Ilhan Omar and her supposed anti-semitism.  I guess he is arguing that left-wing anti-semitism is not treated as seriously as right-wing semitism. Whether you agree with any of that, that is another thing. I think that is why he is attacking this particular thing anyway.

I was just coming at it from the angle that a lot of people have been painted with the same brush who don't really fit that label, including Ben Shapiro himself. And the retraction basically explicitly admitted that they 'incorrectly' put him on the list. Which, to be honest, I don't think I agree completely with that. If his views can be considered right-wing and extreme then it isn't necessarily a totally wrong description. It only becomes so because of the connotation of white supremacism and neo-nazism.

Anyway, without actually knowing the context I assumed they probably capitulated on it because he was black and didn't want to navigate any potential minefield. I'm not sure they would back down in that way if it was Alex Jones for instance. Although that said, Ben Shapiro made a huge fuss when The Independant smeared him as being some kind of god to the Alt-Right. They backed down on that, but then it was patently absurd to begin with.

[Nola]

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.

https://twitter.com/brettsperminute/status/1111407148456525830

I'm not sure at the core what exactly it is that separates a guy that believes Judeo-Christian influences and white Western civilization is intrinsically superior to all others and needs to be preserved and remain unsullied by political force if needed(Shapiro), vs. the people that think all that but filter it through racist 8chan memes?

To me it's like jostling over whether it was fair to characterize Buckley as a white supremacist/racist in the 50's by arguing it's unfair because his views weren't rooted specifically in a belief of racial genetic superiority. Even though his sociologically rooted arguments produced alliances and prescriptions basically indistinguishable from the full throttle race science segregationists of the day.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Leadbelly]

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.

https://twitter.com/brettsperminute/status/1111407148456525830

I'm not sure at the core what exactly it is that separates a guy that believes Judeo-Christian influences and white Western civilization is intrinsically superior to all others and needs to be preserved and remain unsullied by political force if needed(Shapiro), vs. the people that think all that but filter it through racist 8chan memes?

To me it's like jostling over whether it was fair to characterize Buckley as a white supremacist/racist in the 50's by arguing it's unfair because his views weren't rooted specifically in a belief of racial genetic superiority. Even though his sociologically rooted arguments produced alliances and prescriptions basically indistinguishable from the full throttle race science segregationists of the day.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

lol

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro, but I have heard him explicitly differentiate between Muslims and Islam. There is a difference between saying all Muslims are the problem and saying there is a problem with Islam.

[Nola]

lol

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro, but I have heard him explicitly differentiate between Muslims and Islam. There is a difference between saying all Muslims are the problem and saying there is a problem with Islam.

Buckley vs Grantism. Sure, there are some categorical, rhetorical, and substantive divergences and differences, but at the end of the day both want to keep the white racial supremacy structure, or in Shapiro's case, bend over backwards to argue in defense or in favor of most of the same policies and prescriptions the Steven Miller's and David Horowitz's of the world advocate.

They're distinctions without much of a difference imo.

[Mandark]

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro

you quite clearly do

[Leadbelly]

I had no idea who the person was who complained. Didn't even bother to check. In fact I wasn't even able to view the article. It was blocked. May I ask the reason Ben Shapiro complained? .

Again the person who complained is irrelevant. It is pretty clear to me that many people labelled by the media as far-right, or alt-right aren't actually that. The way far-right has been used in recent years by the media is broader than in previous years.

Someone else on that list, Alex Jones, is not far-right. He is a right-wing conspiracy nut. He is not a white supremacist. Farrakhan is a blatant anti-semite, Alex Jones is not. Funnily enough Ben Shapiro has been labelled far-right or alt-right on a number of occasions. Far right is thrown about quite casually it seems. However, they were very quick correct the notion that farrakhan was far-right. Here's where I made an assumption;  they fely obliged to make the retraction because he is black, and therefore technically can't actually be a white supremacist. Which is true. But if they are willing to acknowledge that being a white supremacist is a prerequisite of being far-right, then surely Alex Jones doesn't fit that either, no?

To sum up, it was just comment on the way that term is used in the media often incorrectly.

https://twitter.com/brettsperminute/status/1111407148456525830

I'm not sure at the core what exactly it is that separates a guy that believes Judeo-Christian influences and white Western civilization is intrinsically superior to all others and needs to be preserved and remain unsullied by political force if needed(Shapiro), vs. the people that think all that but filter it through racist 8chan memes?

To me it's like jostling over whether it was fair to characterize Buckley as a white supremacist/racist in the 50's by arguing it's unfair because his views weren't rooted specifically in a belief of racial genetic superiority. Even though his sociologically rooted arguments produced alliances and prescriptions basically indistinguishable from the full throttle race science segregationists of the day.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

lol

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro, but I have heard him explicitly differentiate between Muslims and Islam. There is a difference between saying all Muslims are the problem and saying there is a problem with Islam.

Like I said, Buckley vs Grantism. Sure, there are categorical, substantive, and rhetorical differences, but at the end of the day both want to keep the south segregated, or in Shapiro's case, bend over backwards to argue in defense or in favor of most of the same policies and prescriptions the Steven Miller's and David Horowitz's of the world advocate.

They're distinctions without much of a difference.

No they are. By that logic for instance there isn't really much difference between what Ben Shapiro thinks about homosexuality and what Isis thinks about homosexuality. Ultimately both believe it is a sin. The difference is, Isis wants to throw homosexuals off buildings and Ben Shapiro believes it is entirely the choice of the individual to live the life they see fit, he just believes it is a sin. That is a big difference in my mind. Sure, there are things I may disagree with Ben Shapiro on, but I can at least acknowledge the significance of that difference.

In the same way, there is a difference in believing all Muslims are the problem and must be deported and being critical about Islam.

[Mandark]

the only thing keeping ben shapiro from chucking muslims off of high places is that other people have made it a criminal liability and also he is too short

[Leadbelly]

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro

you quite clearly do

Lol got em

To try to give a fair and accurate assessment of one's opponents rather than a biased one. You got me!

[Mandark]

a fair and accurate assessment would be that shapiro is a homophobe

arguing otherwise is just bending over backwards to give him the most charitable interpretation, no matter how implausible or at odds with his own years of writing on the subject (ie something shapiro does not do when discussing the motives of those on the left)

[Leadbelly]

a fair and accurate assessment would be that shapiro is a homophobe

arguing otherwise is just bending over backwards to give him the most charitable interpretation, no matter how implausible or at odds with his own years of writing on the subject (ie something shapiro does not do when discussing the motives of those on the left)

No that is not the argument. The argument is that there is no qualitative difference between what Ben Shapiro believes and what the Alt-Right believe. I disagree.

[Leadbelly]

I don't want to be the one to defend Ben Shapiro

you quite clearly do

Lol got em

To try to give a fair and accurate assessment of one's opponents rather than a biased one. You got me!

Lol u got rekt nerd

Mmm Okay.

[Mandark]

as an aside, benji's boy bill buckley is worse than most people remember, even those who don't like him

he wasn't just writing wishy-washy apologetics for jim crow as a temporary necessity, he was floating the idea that the birmingham church bombing was a false flag, blaming mlk for his own assassination, etc. just real comment section level bullshit

[Nola]

No they are. By that logic for instance there isn't really much difference between what Ben Shapiro thinks about homosexuality and what Isis thinks about homosexuality. Ultimately both believe it is a sin. The difference is, Isis wants to throw homosexuals off buildings and Ben Shapiro believes it is entirely the choice of the individual to live the life they see fit, he just believes it is a sin. That is a big difference in my mind. Sure, there are things I may disagree with Ben Shapiro on, but I can at least acknowledge the significance of that difference.

In the same way, there is a difference in believing all Muslims are the problem and must be deported and being critical about Islam.

I mean you certainly have asserted there is a notable and substantive distinction between Shapiro and those on the consensus far/alt right in political public life(to me that's the Steven Millers, Bannon's, Horowitz's etc.), but you haven't really demonstrated that.

Seems to me that so far, any time one of these policies pop up that advance the white nationalist agenda those political figures in those camps support/craft, there is a Shapiro piece close behind that might offer some minor cautions and gnaw at some minor details but generally defends and supports them. From the Muslim ban to Trump's separation of families. Distinctions without much difference imo. In that sense, he is pretty similar to his idol Buckley.

But really, I don't honestly care to waste much more of the night on this. I just think the idea of going out of the way to save the dignity of a negative label on a brain pill hustler that delivers intellectual snake oil to an audience looking for simplistic academic sounding arguments to reinforce their casual racism through a soothing helium voice is kind of amusing and was worth pushing back a bit on.

[agrajag]

but he's the good kind of homophobe! 

[Mandark]

shapiro and farrakhan share something in that they are both reactionaries but are opposed by some other reactionaries because they still ride for their own minority ethnic groups

for shapiro that means feuding with pepes, for farrakhan it's being persona non grata to pretty much all american movement conservatism (intermittent praise from robert novak and clarence thomas aside), cause zionism has a sympathetic audience on the right that black nationalism doesn't, for obvious reasons

[Leadbelly]

No they are. By that logic for instance there isn't really much difference between what Ben Shapiro thinks about homosexuality and what Isis thinks about homosexuality. Ultimately both believe it is a sin. The difference is, Isis wants to throw homosexuals off buildings and Ben Shapiro believes it is entirely the choice of the individual to live the life they see fit, he just believes it is a sin. That is a big difference in my mind. Sure, there are things I may disagree with Ben Shapiro on, but I can at least acknowledge the significance of that difference.

In the same way, there is a difference in believing all Muslims are the problem and must be deported and being critical about Islam.

Those would be distinctions with big differences.

I mean you certainly have asserted there is a notable and substantive distinction between Shapiro and those on the consensus far/alt right in political public life(The Steven Millers, Bannon's, Horowitz's etc.), but you haven't really demonstrated that.

Seems to me that so far, anytime one of these policies pop up that advance the white nationalist agenda those political figures in those camps support/craft, there is a Shapiro piece close behind that might offer some minor cautions and gnaw at some minor details but generally defends and supports them. From the Muslim ban to Trump's separation of families. Distinctions without much difference imo.

But really, I don't honestly care to waste much more of the night on this. I just think the idea of going to bat to save the dignity of a label on a brain pill hustler that delivers intellectual snake oil to an audience looking for simplistic academic sounding arguments to reinforce their casual racism through a soothing helium voice is kind of amusing.

Well, I would need a specfic thing for me to comment. Listen, if you posted something that showed me there isn't much difference between Ben Shapiro and white supremacists, then I would concede I am wrong.

If Ben Shapiro for instance argued that homosexuality should be made illegal, then I would argue against that. However, based on what I have watched, interviews, etc, he is not arguing for anything like that.

[Oblivion]

Will never get tired of the fact that some people think that not throwing gays off of buildings is something that's worthy of praise.

[jakefromstatefarm]

benji's boy bill buckley

i need receipts on this one

also: https://mobile.twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1123967542874333186

and the whole threads useful too

[Oblivion]

Leadbelly, just curious. Do you think Trump can be considered "far right"?

[team filler]

https://twitter.com/ArmchairEgghead/status/1111987542100975623

[Leadbelly]

Will never get tired of the fact that some people think that not throwing gays off of buildings is something to worthy of praise.

Who said that?

Funny, again, I thought the argument being made was that throwing gays off buildings is not basically the same as personally believing being gay is a sin. It's the throwing gays off buildings bit that is the significant difference here. It is the extreme aspect of it that makes it different.

Reminds me of an argument Douglas Murray made.

[Oblivion]

Also, RE: Alex Jones.

It's true the guy was always a conspiracy theorist (and still is), but he's also categorically different now than he was under either Obama or Bush. He would criticize both of them, but he is firmly up Trump's ass and only spends time on right-wing conspiracy theories.

He is unquestionably far-right.

[Oblivion]

Will never get tired of the fact that some people think that not throwing gays off of buildings is something to worthy of praise.

Who said that?

Funny, again, I thought the argument being made was that throwing gays of buildings is not basically the same as personally believing being gay is a sin. It's the throwing gays of buildings bit that is the significant difference here. It is the extreme aspect of it that makes it different.

Reminds me of an argument Douglas Murray made.

There are two things you don't seem to understand:

1) Not throwing gays off of buildings doesn't mean you can't still be a shitty person
2) As Mandark pointed out, people like Ben don't throw gay people off of buildings because it's, um, illegal to do so.

[Leadbelly]

Also, RE: Alex Jones.

It's true the guy was always a conspiracy theorist (and still is), but he's also categorically different now than he was under either Obama or Bush. He would criticize both of them, but he is firmly up Trump's ass and only spends time on right-wing conspiracy theories.

He is unquestionably far-right.

Define far-right. That's the problem.

[Leadbelly]

Will never get tired of the fact that some people think that not throwing gays off of buildings is something to worthy of praise.

Who said that?

Funny, again, I thought the argument being made was that throwing gays of buildings is not basically the same as personally believing being gay is a sin. It's the throwing gays of buildings bit that is the significant difference here. It is the extreme aspect of it that makes it different.

Reminds me of an argument Douglas Murray made.

There are two things you don't seem to understand:

1) Not throwing gays off of buildings doesn't mean you can't still be a shitty person
2) As Mandark pointed out, people like Ben don't throw gay people off of buildings because it's, um, illegal to do so.

Ah well then I refer you to a previous post:
http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=45681.msg2618038#msg2618038

[Oblivion]

Also, RE: Alex Jones.

It's true the guy was always a conspiracy theorist (and still is), but he's also categorically different now than he was under either Obama or Bush. He would criticize both of them, but he is firmly up Trump's ass and only spends time on right-wing conspiracy theories.

He is unquestionably far-right.

Define far-right. That's the problem.

Well, it's not the only thing, by any means, but as a start, how about: someone who supports putting immigrant children in baby jails?

[Leadbelly]

Also, RE: Alex Jones.

It's true the guy was always a conspiracy theorist (and still is), but he's also categorically different now than he was under either Obama or Bush. He would criticize both of them, but he is firmly up Trump's ass and only spends time on right-wing conspiracy theories.

He is unquestionably far-right.

Define far-right. That's the problem.

Well, it's not the only thing, by any means, but how about: someone who supports putting immigrant children in baby jails?

I would need context. I am tired of this now though.

The term is often used to describe Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[9]

Which I would say the average person thinks when someone is described as far-right. I don't believe Alex Jones is a neo-Nazi, I don't believe he is a fascist and I don't believe he beieves white people are the master race. So no, I don't think Alex Jones is far-right. Another term I hear used nowadays is 'hard-right'. Maybe that is more fitting i don't know.

[agrajag]

are alt-right throwing gays off buildings?

see: milo yanapolous

[Leadbelly]

are alt-right throwing gays off buildings?

see: milo yanapolous

They're not, but it is the same logic. Both Ben Shapiro and Isis believe homosexuality is a sin, so ultimately they believe the same thing. However, the throwing gays off buildings bit is a big difference. I said it to make a point.

I don't actually know how the Alt-Right would deal with the people who do not belog in their ethnostate, but one might assume it would not involve leaving them alone to live freely. And that is the difference.

[Oblivion]

Also, RE: Alex Jones.

It's true the guy was always a conspiracy theorist (and still is), but he's also categorically different now than he was under either Obama or Bush. He would criticize both of them, but he is firmly up Trump's ass and only spends time on right-wing conspiracy theories.

He is unquestionably far-right.

Define far-right. That's the problem.

Well, it's not the only thing, by any means, but how about: someone who supports putting immigrant children in baby jails?

I would need context.

Well, for example - and I'm just spitballing here -  the policy Trump has recently been enacting.

..for the past 3 years.

The term is often used to describe Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[9]

Which I would say the average person thinks when someone is described as far-right. I don't believe Alex Jones is a neo-Nazi, I don't believe he is a fascist and I don't believe he beieves white people are the master race. So no, I don't think Alex Jones is far-right. Another term I hear used nowadays is 'hard-right'. Maybe that is more fitting i don't know.

So like, unless someone is a literal nazi, white nationalist/supremacist, or admits in their own words that they're a capital R racist, then they can't be "far right"?

What's really weird is that usually this kind of hair splitting occurs when libs call people nazis or fascists, but I don't see this complaint as much when it comes to calling someone "far right". And your distinction between that and "hard right" is also weird because one sounds just as bad as the other.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Is Trump someone you'd consider "far right"?