The Energon Pub

High Command wrote:The video makes no particularly good points at all besides showing a British politician getting very cross when it's pointed out to him that one of the main problems his nationalistic pet cause has is that it is very attractive to racists.

Ok let's put it another way, the term "white supremacist" is also a not racist term despite being based on a skin colour because it is describing an ideology not a race.
Note that I'm not saying that gammon means white supremacist.
Most gammons are not white supremacists, many white supremacists are gammon.

That's a fair arguement and the reason why I didn't want to make any assumptions. I don't know the exact context in which the name was used here. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's not toeing the line, it's covering it without going over. With the tone and tenor of this thread, I can't see it being taken any other way and I think it's at the very least inappropriate given the discussion we're having here(which we seem to be straying from but I suppose that's unavoidable sometimes). I do want to give the benefit of the doubt which I think is something that needs to be extended a lot more liberally on both sides of this conversation.

As a side note, since you brought up a very interesting "attractive to racists" point from the video, I think this whole thing has been a godsend to the racists on all sides. Everyone is getting what they want. From what I hear, the KKK is recruiting like crazy. I thought they were all but gone but HOO boy was I apparently wrong. I also hear the Black Panthers(New Black Panthers?) are doing the same. The KKK is basicly saying if you're not with us you're with them, and the Panthers are saying the same. The KKK is saying those people hate you, come with us, the Panthers are saying the same. Throw in Riots, Police actions, Civil Unrest and the people in the middle, tha ACTUAL protestors, the ACTUAL good people, the very community and culture we're built on is being pulled on like a blanket and tearing down the middle and no one seems to care. Maybe care is the wrong word. People care but they're powerless to stop it. Both sides seem only concerned at this point whether or not they get more threads than the other side.

Time for a new sig perhaps?

They say if you speak the devils name, he will appear.

Hi!

I made a grevious mistake. I apologized to someone last night. I was wrong to do that. Clearly my initial opinion was valid, and for that, I am deeply sorry.

Now I've been recently called a troll. From a certain point of view, that may be true, but I prefer to think of myself as someone who is willing to engage with people on their own terms. I like to see myself as someone who tries to offer a different opinion and get people to think.

I've also been called a racist against white people. So I thought I would look that up.

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination

Now, I don't have a belief that any race is inherently superior. So 1 doesn't fit. 2a is a doctrine or political program based on the assumption that a race is superior. I have been arguing for black lives matter, but that, contrary to what people may think, does not say that only black lives matter, nor that they matter more. The belief of that is that black lives matter as much as white lives. Is that racist? Sure does not seem to fit the definition. b is a political or social system founded on racism, and I am not a political or social system. 3 would seem to be the hang up, because I used a British slang word "gammon" which as an actual British person explained, wasn't a racist word. So 3 doesn't seem to apply, and also wouldn't as for 3 to work, 1 would as well. And 1 does not.

But let's look at the definition from another source.

Dictionary.com wrote:racism[ rey-siz-uh m ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2: a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3: hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Hmm... 1 looks to read as a combination of 1 and b of Merriam-Webster, so if it didn't fit before, it doesn't fit now. 2 doesn't either, as I'm not a policy, system, or government, and I have repeatedly expressed the belief that black lives should be valued equally. So that leaves 3 again, and I know I do not have hatred or intolerance of another race or races. Gammon isn't a racial term, as was covered above. It refers to specific individuals. As was said, not all white people are gammons. Now if I said cracker, that could have been construed as racist, but I didn't.

The Evil Wikipedia wrote:Reverse racism or reverse discrimination[1][2][3] is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism.[4] The concept is often associated with conservative social movements[4][5] and the belief that social and economic gains by black people in the United States and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people.[6][7]

Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States; however, there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans suffer systemic discrimination.[Note 1] Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group in the U.S.[8] Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.[1][2][5]

Allegations of reverse racism by opponents of affirmative-action policies began to emerge prominently in the 1970s[6] and have formed part of a racial backlash against social gains by people of color.[9] While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa.[10]

Now I know wikipedia, oh my god, anyone can edit that. Valid points. Those numbers link to sources for the information though, so (figurative, non-specific) you can check the validity. I mean, I we all know no one will, but it's still there anyway.

So, in closing, it's really hard to actually be racist against white people. Maybe figurative and non-specific you think other wise, but the facts don't support that. One of the main definitions of racism is government, system, or doctrine to specifically suppress a race or races. My view is supporting that system through inaction means you need to take a hard look at figurative non-specific yourself.

Here's a link no one will read also.

This post was not directed towards any individual.

Absolute Zero wrote:This post was not directed toward any individual.

Did anyone else besides me call you out on your racism towards white people? If you're gonna try (and fail) to take a shot at me, at least have the spine to back it up. Mighty keyboard warrior you are. Though since that exchange happened a couple of days ago, it's a small joy to know I've been living rent-free in your head all this time. Now, to your statement in question:

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use any racist and bigoted argument...

Since then you edited the post, and I was willing to take the high road and leave it be, but since you felt like trolling, I'm kinda bored so I'll feed you.

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use any racist and bigoted...

Absolute Zero wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant in human traits and capacities...

You prove me right in your own words/quotes. In your quote, the human trait and capacity to which the definition you quoted refers is using racist and bigoted arguments. The racist part is you using the phrase "white people" which is a phrase collectively labeling all Caucasians, and which you used when referring to a group using "racist and bigoted arguments..." effectively calling all whites racists. Now, if you believe that, it's your choice. But then you need to specify that it's your belief. You can't just state it as fact, especially when you're trying to speak out against that very form of prejudice. If you had said 'some white people' that would have been acceptable. But you decided to label every white person a certain way, based on the actions of some. That's the same as some ignorant non-black person saying all blacks are criminals. You probably knew this already, but like I typed above, I had nothing better to do, so nice try.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:This post was not directed toward any individual.

Did anyone else besides me call you out on your racism towards white people? If you're gonna try (and fail) to take a shot at me, at least have the spine to back it up. Mighty keyboard warrior you are. Though since that exchange happened a couple of days ago, it's a small joy to know I've been living rent-free in your head all this time. Now, to your statement in question:

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use any racist and bigoted argument...

Since then you edited the post, and I was willing to take the high road and leave it be, but since you felt like trolling, I'm kinda bored so I'll feed you.

Absolute Zero wrote:God damn white people. They'll use any racist and bigoted...

Absolute Zero wrote:

Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant in human traits and capacities...

You prove me right in your own words/quotes. In your quote, the human trait and capacity to which the definition you quoted refers is using racist and bigoted arguments. The racist part is you using the phrase "white people" which is a phrase collectively labeling all Caucasians, and which you used when referring to a group using "racist and bigoted arguments..." effectively calling all whites racists. Now, if you believe that, it's your choice. But then you need to specify that it's your belief. You can't just state it as fact, especially when you're trying to speak out against that very form of prejudice. If you had said 'some white people' that would have been acceptable. But you decided to label every white person a certain way, based on the actions of some. That's the same as some ignorant non-black person saying all blacks are criminals. You probably knew this already, but like I typed above, I had nothing better to do, so nice try.

Oh Rodimus, honey, if I was taking a shot at you, you would know. I've never been someone who was afraid to quote someone directly when making a point. But spoiler, people think non-race catch all phrases is racist. Go figure. The reason I specifically said it wasn't directed at any one person was because the last time I posted something that wasn't directed at any one person, someone took it as a personal insult or something.

Actually, that's still not racist. It's stereotyping. The two are often equated, but aren't always the same. But I was willing to see your point, hence why I edited it. Because even if it wasn't racist, it was really trolly on my part. But I do not think all white people are racist, if that was your take away. I apologize to non racist white people and express regret that they got lumped in with the racist white people.

*edited 4 AM spelling errors

Oh Absolute Zero. You love to attack my character via my sig. But here I see yours (punch a Nazi sig) and I see that you have zero self awareness.

Punching nazis is a good thing.

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

High Command wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

High Command wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:LGBTQ adoption? (Unwanted kids need love too)

No as this is deliberately setting them up in sub-optimal environment. Yes, it is better then no parents or one parent, but nothing beats a mother and a father married.

There's no need to be insulting.

Just because you think a church-going hetronormal married couple is the best way to live doesn't make it so. Classy how you slide single parents in as being worse (in your eyes) than a gay couple.

I'd just like to add along with the central message here of Black Lives Matter. That LGBTQ+ lives matter too and it is currently Pride month so please show some respect.

What a lot of people don't like about BLM and Pride is that racism and homophobia are being challenged by those who are not black or LGBTQ+ themselves. Where once those predudices were acceptable they are being driven out of mainstream acceptability as people are called out for them. There are now far fewer safe spaces for bigots which is why they are kicking out and fighting back often by voting them into high office under the guise of bringing back traditional values. The US President and the UK Prime Minister are two such examples to this kind of populist nationalism leading us into the massive splits in society being laid bare for all to see and where we are right now.

It was not meant to be insulting. By most sociological and psychological measurements children do the best with a married mother and father. Not two moms or two dads or one mom or one dad.

Facts are not bigoted nor is it homophobic.

Facts are backed up by sources, studies and references. Opinions are not facts and to claim otherwise is dishonest.

A very brief search provides us with the following.

The majority of research on this topic shows that children or adolescents raised by same-sex parents fare equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents on a wide range of social, emotional, health and academic outcomes.

A paper published for the American Sociological Association in 2014 reviewed 10 years’ of scientific literature on child well-being in same-sex parented families in the US. The literature review covered 40 original published studies, including numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, many of which drew on nationally representative data.

The authors concluded there was clear consensus in scientific literature that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. This applied for a range of well-being measures, including:

academic performance
cognitive development
social development
psychological health
early sexual activity, and
substance abuse.

Source of quote: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-a ... ents-82313

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.

Below are 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. [...]4 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages.

Source of quote: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/

By Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Source of quote: https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting

There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting. Studies suggesting otherwise are skewed.

While in academia anyone should be able to analyse and publish data, it’s unusual that recent papers reporting outlier outcomes have been led by non-expert authors, including an economist, a sociologist with particular interest in religious matters and an academic whose stated expertise is in faith and religion. One can already see the risk of bias in the interpretation of the data, and close analysis does find methodological flaws in the outlier studies.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child is based on four general principles: the right to non-discrimination, the right to the best interest of the child, the right to survival and development, and the right to be heard. The data shows that same-sex parents can provide for these rights at least as well as heterosexual parents. As a paediatrician, I have experience working with children from all kinds of family structures. Young people from same-sex parented families have without fail been among the most wanted, loved, and well raised and cared for children I have seen.

Source of quote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are-skewed


Again I ask that you not be insulting by repeating demonstrably false homophobic claims, which incidentally also insult any single parents or children of single parents here.

Okay so there is one glaring problem with all your evidence.

All the studies compare homosexual couples with all different sex couples (divorced, abusive relationships, separated, living together single, widowed, one mother one father married and stable, and etc. From those comparisons the homosexual children fair almost as well.

Again as I said before yes having two loving people raising a child(ren) will likely always be better than children raised in broken homes or with only one parent. However, the optimal situation and the best way is one mom and one dad married, nuclear family.

Until homosexual parenting is directly compared against stable married mom and dad homes. Then the difference is made apparent, and one sees the children raised by homosexuals fall behind.

Now your article refutes this on the basis of nothing scientific. Simply that, that study and studies like it are bad.

Again as I said before yes having two loving people raising a child(ren) will likely always be better than children raised in broken homes or with only one parent. However, the optimal situation and the best way is one mom and one dad married, nuclear family.

Even without this is should be some what obvious that if it takes a woman and man to make a baby it takes a woman and a man together to properly raise the child. This is because the child must learn what truly is femininity and masculinity not caricatures of them.

I never said all single parents were bad. I simply said the best,optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married stable loving household.

High Command wrote:
You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

Correction. It's not "my" definition. It the definition of the far-left. "You're either with us, or you're against us. There is no in-between."

Don't take my word for it. Go on YouTube and search #walkaway. Many, many people of all ages, races, genders, and sexual orientation tell their tale on why they cannot be considered to be part of "the Left" anymore. "The Boy Who Cried Nazi" is just one of the many, many reasons.

Burn wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:the necessity of a mother and father for raising a child(ren).

I ain't awake enough for this bullshit but here goes.

My sister has been a single parent from the day she gave birth to her son, my nephew.

That kid is now 14 years old, and he is one hell of a good kid.

He's never (to my knowledge) been in a fight. If someone needs a hand, whether they're another kid, or an elderly person, he does it without asking.

He ain't the brightest bulb, but gosh darn does that kid care, and he has the capability of being a great smartarse if he just embraced it.

He never had a father. He's never known a father.

He is proof that your statement is not 100% accurate.

Yep, I agree there are exceptions. The rule has been proven though repeatedly for centuries.

And again I never said single parents were bad or couldn't raise good kids. I simply said that it's not the best situation for raising children.


I know many a single mom and dad that would agree.

Cliff Jumper wrote:

High Command wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

High Command wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:LGBTQ adoption? (Unwanted kids need love too)

No as this is deliberately setting them up in sub-optimal environment. Yes, it is better then no parents or one parent, but nothing beats a mother and a father married.

There's no need to be insulting.

Just because you think a church-going hetronormal married couple is the best way to live doesn't make it so. Classy how you slide single parents in as being worse (in your eyes) than a gay couple.

I'd just like to add along with the central message here of Black Lives Matter. That LGBTQ+ lives matter too and it is currently Pride month so please show some respect.

What a lot of people don't like about BLM and Pride is that racism and homophobia are being challenged by those who are not black or LGBTQ+ themselves. Where once those predudices were acceptable they are being driven out of mainstream acceptability as people are called out for them. There are now far fewer safe spaces for bigots which is why they are kicking out and fighting back often by voting them into high office under the guise of bringing back traditional values. The US President and the UK Prime Minister are two such examples to this kind of populist nationalism leading us into the massive splits in society being laid bare for all to see and where we are right now.

It was not meant to be insulting. By most sociological and psychological measurements children do the best with a married mother and father. Not two moms or two dads or one mom or one dad.

Facts are not bigoted nor is it homophobic.

Facts are backed up by sources, studies and references. Opinions are not facts and to claim otherwise is dishonest.

A very brief search provides us with the following.

The majority of research on this topic shows that children or adolescents raised by same-sex parents fare equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents on a wide range of social, emotional, health and academic outcomes.

A paper published for the American Sociological Association in 2014 reviewed 10 years’ of scientific literature on child well-being in same-sex parented families in the US. The literature review covered 40 original published studies, including numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, many of which drew on nationally representative data.

The authors concluded there was clear consensus in scientific literature that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. This applied for a range of well-being measures, including:

academic performance
cognitive development
social development
psychological health
early sexual activity, and
substance abuse.

Source of quote: https://theconversation.com/factcheck-a ... ents-82313

Overview: We identified 79 scholarly studies that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about the well-being of children with gay or lesbian parents. Of those studies, 75 concluded that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children.

Below are 75 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents fare no worse than other children. [...]4 studies concluding that children of gay or lesbian parents face added disadvantages.

Source of quote: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.e ... n-parents/

By Charlotte J. Patterson, PhD

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Source of quote: https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting

There is no harm caused by same-sex parenting. Studies suggesting otherwise are skewed.

While in academia anyone should be able to analyse and publish data, it’s unusual that recent papers reporting outlier outcomes have been led by non-expert authors, including an economist, a sociologist with particular interest in religious matters and an academic whose stated expertise is in faith and religion. One can already see the risk of bias in the interpretation of the data, and close analysis does find methodological flaws in the outlier studies.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child is based on four general principles: the right to non-discrimination, the right to the best interest of the child, the right to survival and development, and the right to be heard. The data shows that same-sex parents can provide for these rights at least as well as heterosexual parents. As a paediatrician, I have experience working with children from all kinds of family structures. Young people from same-sex parented families have without fail been among the most wanted, loved, and well raised and cared for children I have seen.

Source of quote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are-skewed


Again I ask that you not be insulting by repeating demonstrably false homophobic claims, which incidentally also insult any single parents or children of single parents here.

Okay so there is one glaring problem with all your evidence.

All the studies compare homosexual couples with all different sex couples (divorced, abusive relationships, separated, living together single, widowed, one mother one father married and stable, and etc. From those comparisons the homosexual children fair almost as well.

Again as I said before yes having two loving people raising a child(ren) will likely always be better than children raised in broken homes or with only one parent. However, the optimal situation and the best way is one mom and one dad married, nuclear family.

Until homosexual parenting is directly compared against stable married mom and dad homes. Then the difference is made apparent, and one sees the children raised by homosexuals fall behind.

Now your article refutes this on the basis of nothing scientific. Simply that, that study and studies like it are bad.

Again as I said before yes having two loving people raising a child(ren) will likely always be better than children raised in broken homes or with only one parent. However, the optimal situation and the best way is one mom and one dad married, nuclear family.

Even without this is should be some what obvious that if it takes a woman and man to make a baby it takes a woman and a man together to properly raise the child. This is because the child must learn what truly is femininity and masculinity not caricatures of them.

I never said all single parents were bad. I simply said the best,optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married stable loving household.

Opinions are not facts. If my evidence has a glaring problem, where is yours?

Kindly stop trying to present your bias as factual or common sense, particularly when as pointed out twice already, it's just plain rude.

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:
You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

Correction. It's not "my" definition. It the definition of the far-left. "You're either with us, or you're against us. There is no in-between."

Don't take my word for it. Go on YouTube and search #walkaway. Many, many people of all ages, races, genders, and sexual orientation tell their tale on why they cannot be considered to be part of "the Left" anymore. "The Boy Who Cried Nazi" is just one of the many, many reasons.

I have an idea: how about you focus on making an actual argument based on factual information rather than trying to send people down a well-documented far-right YouTube rabbit hole?

YouTube =/= reality.

Also, you have to realize that using the far-right's definition of how the far-left defines 'Nazi' isn't going to get you very far.

I'm just confused where telling someone to buy Karen a new hentai figurine as a gift is an insult to their character and what that has to do with Captain America/Indiana Jones punching nazis...

Because CNN and MSNBC is "reality", right?

Anyway, you and your little friends said that "violence and riots is the voice of the unheard".

Well, guess what? The "far right" have now begun to finally speak.
The footages is all over the internet. Just look outside your bubble if you want to know what's really happening.

Keep dancing and keep signing, little Grasshopper.
Winter is coming.

Cliff Jumper wrote:the best, optimal place to raise children is in the nuclear family, one mom, one dad married raising children.

This is the 2nd time I've seen this. Are you saying this as an opinion, or a fact?

Because I have to disagree somewhat. While I believe that a family with 2 parents is a more optimal situation for children, especially younger ones, there are exceptions (such as Burn's example). However, I believe that the 2 parents in question can be just as good at providing for children emotionally and financially if they're the same sex. As long as those children know the situation and the reasons why their parents are not in the same familial setting as some of their friends. Same sex couples can raise children just as well as married heterosexual couples. A family does not depend on a piece of paper issued by a church or even a government agency. Yeah, legally they have to have a piece of paper saying they're together, and it's for the benefit of medical insurance and some other things, so it might give them an advantage financially, but it all comes down to the personalities of said parents. How responsible they are, emotionally, financially and socially.

As I said, single parents can also achieve this, but it is more difficult. It is better to have 2 parents for children, but they don't have to be a male and female pair.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Because CNN and MSNBC is "reality", right?

Anyway, you and your little friends said that "violence and riots is the voice of the unheard".

Well, guess what? The "far right" have now begun to finally speak.
The footages is all over the internet. Just look outside your bubble if you want to know what's really happening.

Keep dancing and keep signing, little Grasshopper.
Winter is coming.

Winter is always coming. See, when the round earth orbits on it's plane around the sun, with it's axis and eliptical orbit, we get seasons. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. In that order.

High Command wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

This might be presumptuous of me, but I'm going to try and correct someone elses post.

I think what he means to say is that when it comes to "punching a nazi", it might not always be your definition of what a nazi is. The era we are in right now is so atomized and reference dependant that one persons nazi is another persons antifascist. The people on the left call the right Nazis. The people on the right call the left Communists. If punching anyone is a good thing, then we may as well all gather in the street to slug it out. The barrier to action here is literally just call someone whatever name you want and then you're justified in doing whatever you please to them.

That has two frightening implications. First off, where does it start? Does someone simply accuse you of being [insert extremist prejorative here] and then it's on? And then we ask where it ends because one person gets punched. Next time their out they bring a knife or a gun in case they get punched again. The FIRST TIME that happens(and it's already happened, it's not even a hypothetical anymore) the other side arms up and now it's not gathering to slug it out, you have armed people on both sides looking for a fight.

That's not helpful. That doesn't resolve anything unless your end goal IS to punch Nazis. Then I have to ask what that is supposed to resolve, frightening them into staying home? That doesn't do anything either. You're not changing minds, you're breeding intolerance and fostering hatred while they sit and stew in their own resentment. The same would be true for the other side if they were the ones chased off and run back home.

The point, overly verbose as it was, is that punching anyone is not a good thing. I find it ironic that in a thread, promoting a group protesting again the excess of violence you would make a statement saying that violence of any kind is good. Maybe ironic is the wrong word, but I'd rather not use the others I could think of, they'd be a little accusatory.

-Kanrabat- wrote:Keep dancing and keep signing, little Grasshopper.
Winter is coming.

You know that's not helping, right? Snark undercuts even the best arguements.

ShadowKatt wrote:

High Command wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

This might be presumptuous of me, but I'm going to try and correct someone elses post.

I think what he means to say is that when it comes to "punching a nazi", it might not always be your definition of what a nazi is. The era we are in right now is so atomized and reference dependant that one persons nazi is another persons antifascist. The people on the left call the right Nazis. The people on the right call the left Communists. If punching anyone is a good thing, then we may as well all gather in the street to slug it out. The barrier to action here is literally just call someone whatever name you want and then you're justified in doing whatever you please to them.

Anti Fascist Action started in German and Italy against the Nazi/Fascist movements, and was originally a combination of Socialists and Communists. So Antifascists literally can not be Nazis. They can be commies and socialists and whatever derogatory terms you have for those two factions, but they can not be Nazis. Not to invalidate the rest of your argument, but just to insert a fact. You can generally be from any center or left group ideaology, but not a far right as those are typically founded in fascism and racism. Two things Anti Fascists oppose.

Presumably the reason the orange furher hates antifa is because, typically, they will get in your face and challenge you. So while Karen up there is posting threats, Antifa would be in his face daring him to try. And if there's one thing the dear leader hates, it's being challenged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articl ... out-antifa

https://time.com/5437204/antifa-history-comic/

ShadowKatt wrote:

High Command wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

This might be presumptuous of me, but I'm going to try and correct someone elses post.

I think what he means to say is that when it comes to "punching a nazi", it might not always be your definition of what a nazi is. The era we are in right now is so atomized and reference dependant that one persons nazi is another persons antifascist. The people on the left call the right Nazis. The people on the right call the left Communists. If punching anyone is a good thing, then we may as well all gather in the street to slug it out. The barrier to action here is literally just call someone whatever name you want and then you're justified in doing whatever you please to them.

That has two frightening implications. First off, where does it start? Does someone simply accuse you of being [insert extremist prejorative here] and then it's on? And then we ask where it ends because one person gets punched. Next time their out they bring a knife or a gun in case they get punched again. The FIRST TIME that happens(and it's already happened, it's not even a hypothetical anymore) the other side arms up and now it's not gathering to slug it out, you have armed people on both sides looking for a fight.

That's not helpful. That doesn't resolve anything unless your end goal IS to punch Nazis. Then I have to ask what that is supposed to resolve, frightening them into staying home? That doesn't do anything either. You're not changing minds, you're breeding intolerance and fostering hatred while they sit and stew in their own resentment. The same would be true for the other side if they were the ones chased off and run back home.

The point, overly verbose as it was, is that punching anyone is not a good thing. I find it ironic that in a thread, promoting a group protesting again the excess of violence you would make a statement saying that violence of any kind is good. Maybe ironic is the wrong word, but I'd rather not use the others I could think of, they'd be a little accusatory.

AZ's sig is rotating images.
Two one these images are of nazis being punched.
One of them is a screengrab from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Indy is fighting a man in nazi uniform with a swastika on his arm.
The other features Captain America punching Adolph Hitler.
The nazis are arguably the worst evil humanity has ever produced.
Today there are still people in this world who choose to idolise and copy nazi ideology, rhetoric, symbolism and methods.
People who go around waving flags with swastikas on them yelling "seig heil" are nazis and deserve punching.
If they are then frightened and don't want to do this anymore, it is a good thing.

High Command wrote:

ShadowKatt wrote:

High Command wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:

High Command wrote:Punching nazis is a good thing.

Until YOU are accused of being a "Nazi" and YOU are punched.


You may not be aware of this fact, but everyone who don't tow the far-left line is a "Nazi". Classic Liberals like me, centrist, conservative, to more right wing. Even Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, have been accused of being a "Nazi".

How convenient that it's so easy to accuse others of being witches. It's the perfect excuse to burn at the stake any and all opposition.

Before accusing others of being a fascist, take a big long and hard look into a mirror.

You're definition of what constitutes a nazi is much broader than mine.

This might be presumptuous of me, but I'm going to try and correct someone elses post.

I think what he means to say is that when it comes to "punching a nazi", it might not always be your definition of what a nazi is. The era we are in right now is so atomized and reference dependant that one persons nazi is another persons antifascist. The people on the left call the right Nazis. The people on the right call the left Communists. If punching anyone is a good thing, then we may as well all gather in the street to slug it out. The barrier to action here is literally just call someone whatever name you want and then you're justified in doing whatever you please to them.

That has two frightening implications. First off, where does it start? Does someone simply accuse you of being [insert extremist prejorative here] and then it's on? And then we ask where it ends because one person gets punched. Next time their out they bring a knife or a gun in case they get punched again. The FIRST TIME that happens(and it's already happened, it's not even a hypothetical anymore) the other side arms up and now it's not gathering to slug it out, you have armed people on both sides looking for a fight.

That's not helpful. That doesn't resolve anything unless your end goal IS to punch Nazis. Then I have to ask what that is supposed to resolve, frightening them into staying home? That doesn't do anything either. You're not changing minds, you're breeding intolerance and fostering hatred while they sit and stew in their own resentment. The same would be true for the other side if they were the ones chased off and run back home.

The point, overly verbose as it was, is that punching anyone is not a good thing. I find it ironic that in a thread, promoting a group protesting again the excess of violence you would make a statement saying that violence of any kind is good. Maybe ironic is the wrong word, but I'd rather not use the others I could think of, they'd be a little accusatory.

AZ's sig is rotating images.
Two one these images are of nazis being punched.
One of them is a screengrab from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Indy is fighting a man in nazi uniform with a swastika on his arm.
The other features Captain America punching Adolph Hitler.
The nazis are arguably the worst evil humanity has ever produced.
Today there are still people in this world who choose to idolise and copy nazi ideology, rhetoric, symbolism and methods.
People who go around waving flags with swastikas on them yelling "seig heil" are nazis and deserve punching.
If they are then frightened and don't want to do this anymore, it is a good thing.

Except for Germany, where the Nazi flags are outlawed, so they fly Confederate flags apparently.

ShadowKatt wrote:

-Kanrabat- wrote:Keep dancing and keep signing, little Grasshopper.
Winter is coming.

You know that's not helping, right? Snark undercuts even the best arguments.

Well, it was in the spirit to keep repeating to a child "stop playing with fire, you'll get burned" but the child keep laughing and juggling lit torches and buckets of gazoline. So I'm just going "fine, do as you will."

As it's core, BLM is an anti-violence movement. But their ranks and supporters are filled with violent psychos who just enjoy chaos. Right here right now, there's posters who are actually enjoying people getting their business burned, being beaten up, and even killed.

I even shown videos showing witnesses telling what they have lived through. Black people that were BLM rioters victims. Videos that were promptly ignored. They keep laughing, they keep spewing their hate, and they keep demanding for more.

Those "leftists" posters who want more violence will just get what they deserves when the chaos come knocking at their door. Like for this fine gentleman below:



Karma is a b!tch.

Violence call for violence. And the average joe see the chaos unfolding on TV. They see them tearing down Tomas Jefferson's statue. They see the burnings. They see the killings. And when the BLM protesters come to their town, they no longer care about the message. They come out, guns in hands, and they say NO. ENOUGH.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sters.html

Was this overkill? Well, maybe. But Like the saying goes, "you reap what you sow."
Now, look like it's harvest season.

I now no longer care about the "what", the "why" and the "who" of the BLM "protests". All I see is the ACTIONS made by people. Even though I gave my warnings to the Wall, at least I gave them. Whenever they get out of the burning building instead of just sitting there, coffee mug in hand saying "This is fine" is up to them.

High Command wrote:People who go around waving flags with swastikas on them yelling "seig heil" are nazis and deserve punching.
If they are then frightened and don't want to do this anymore, it is a good thing.

I feel like the entire point I was trying to make just went completely unheard, but I think that was intentional. If that's the way you feel then, then that's your choice. I just want you to be fully aware that if that method of thinking spreads someday, somewhere, someone could identify you from a place you work, a comment on social media, or just random accusation, call you a communist, and then proceed to beat you. Say what you will about Kanrabat, he is right about one thing. Your enemies are mobilizing. Just recently there was a BLM march in some podunk town in Ohio. It was less than 100 people. It was met by over 700 counterprotesters armed with everything from baseball bats to rifles that didn't want them there and the BLM march was run out of town. If punching Nazi's is good, what about shooting them on site? And if you can do it to them, it'll come back at you. Those 100 protesters are alive now because that mob stopped. If they had wanted to, the police couldn't have stopped that. National guard weren't present. If you want to hold to your ideology, then you're supporting a system in which these people, who were likely convinced this group was at best protestors but at worst rioters and vandals, would have justified wiping them all out.

THIS is the end of that line of thought. I can't make it much more clear than that. The end of this ideology is the holocaust, not based on race or sexuality but instead every person that you deem a nazi, either because they wear an armband or someone simply believes they have proof. it will be genocide based on ideology. Unless the other side gets there first. Antifa has flags too. They have ideas and positions too. They can be rounded up as well.

I'd rather not see that.