More protests getting out of hand in Berkeley

[umbrella39]

Lmao! The BetaMax cuck ALT has been triggered from his safe space again? Cry more bitch. It's going to get much, much worse for you and your limp wristed ilk. Count on it...

 

[umbrella39]

That's because you're never able to say anything of substance and just spam YouTube videos, image macros or trite pointless zingers that usually monumentally miss the mark. That combined with your habit of lumping everyone you don't agree with into one big pile and ascribing them whatever motivations or actions that suit your argument at the time make you not worth the effort.

owned. He should tuck tail and log out of this ALT any second now. His snow flake has already melted... not much left to shovel save the endless pile of Bullshit he spams....

 

[1prophet]

They've been programmed to believe that rights are like pie.

Rights are like pie,the ultra rich own most of the pie while we are left with the crumbs, they keep us busy with endless social justice issues so they can continue to enjoy their pie while we are too distracted/tired to see that because of all the fighting among ourselves.

 

[WelshBloke]

Not bad for effort, but pure bullsh!t. Convincingly worded though, props!

I've often peppered a point I've made with a YT video with the info I'd gotten it from, or backs up my opinion, etc. You and your pals have said repeatedly that you never "waste your time" watching them, dismissing them away as "spam". Rather closed-minded... but, hey...

...and the only people who ever get lumped together are you handful of SJW zealots who rarely ever disagree with each other because you're in tune with the Progressive Hive Mind. Your opinions are almost always exactly the same - that of the collective. Your views, same. Your posts and tactics are even much the same, with varying degrees of skill. You make your hatred of the usual wrongthink so very clear to all, no speculation on my part is necessary. We know how you feel, you just screeched it from the rooftops in outrage.

"Not worth the effort" I could understand, except it's very, very rare that a Progressive can even argue their point with hard data in hand. The usual method is to simply screech at any opinions considered WrongThink and punish the culprit in hopes of "quelling" any similar sentiment from anyone else that might dare to have the same hated opinion.

(I use "quelling" in quotes in reference to Motion M-103 in Canada - our dear leader doing the same thing as all other Progressives - stamping out opinions they don't like.)

Go on then. Give us your opinion on the first post in this thread. The one with the white supremacist guy punching the girl in the face and the Jesus loving thug kicking someone on the ground.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Not mean so much as you contribute very little.

You want to be Max's white knight, feel free.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Called on it"? No... you autistically screech at something I might say and CALL it "lies" or "hate speech" -- all without ever being able to say HOW I'm wrong, what the "correct" info is supposed to be, or what your opposing view might be.

We've been through this before dipstick. You never post anything but badly done propaganda and outright lies. And, at times, I simply note that you are once again posting your usual lies and badly done propaganda (often leavened with a bit of straw). In short, you're just another alt-asshole who isn't worth the effort.

Got some more whine and cheez for us?

 

[UglyCasanova]

We've been through this before dipstick. You never post anything but badly done propaganda and outright lies. And, at times, I simply note that you are once again posting your usual lies and badly done propaganda (often leavened with a bit of straw). In short, you're just another alt-asshole who isn't worth the effort.

Got some more whine and cheez for us?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Not bad for effort, but pure bullsh!t. Convincingly worded though, props!

I've often peppered a point I've made with a YT video with the info I'd gotten it from, or backs up my opinion, etc. You and your pals have said repeatedly that you never "waste your time" watching them, dismissing them away as "spam". Rather closed-minded... but, hey...

...and the only people who ever get lumped together are you handful of SJW zealots who rarely ever disagree with each other because you're in tune with the Progressive Hive Mind. Your opinions are almost always exactly the same - that of the collective. Your views, same. Your posts and tactics are even much the same, with varying degrees of skill. You make your hatred of the usual wrongthink so very clear to all, no speculation on my part is necessary. We know how you feel, you just screeched it from the rooftops in outrage.

"Not worth the effort" I could understand, except it's very, very rare that a Progressive can even argue their point with hard data in hand. The usual method is to simply screech at any opinions considered WrongThink and punish the culprit in hopes of "quelling" any similar sentiment from anyone else that might dare to have the same hated opinion.

(I use "quelling" in quotes in reference to Motion M-103 in Canada - our dear leader doing the same thing as all other Progressives - stamping out opinions they don't like.)

Yes, M103. The motion that does absolutely nothing. See, this is an example of what a fucking maroon you are.

 

[desura]

Rights are like pie,the ultra rich own most of the pie while we are left with the crumbs, they keep us busy with endless social justice issues so they can continue to enjoy their pie while we are too distracted/tired to see that because of all the fighting among ourselves.

That is very true.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No, not really. Are you?

 

[UglyCasanova]

No, not really. Are you?

Nah, I'm laid back on my couch after mowing the yard watching the outside and drinking chocolate milk. I'm good.

Yes, M103. The motion that does absolutely nothing. See, this is an example of what a fucking maroon you are.

That sounds pretty mad though, no?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nah, I'm laid back on my couch after mowing the yard watching the outside and drinking chocolate milk. I'm good.



That sounds pretty mad though, no?

No. That's called derision.

de·ri·sion
dəˈriZHən/
noun
noun: derision
contemptuous ridicule or mockery.

 

[Commodus]

And by that logic, anyone who supports Bernie Sanders wants to destroy the wealthy because that's what's required for democratic socialism. That's gulag, serfdom, theft of property by the state. End of story?

What Spencer is arguing is in line with what Pat Buchanan and Samuel Huntington have argued in the past. There is much human nature that simply is and diversity dogma is admirable in many ways but it runs counter to actual human nature and making policy based on diversity dogma is operating in ignorance of the actual facts. I view it as something that politicians and policy makers should be aware of as a reality. Spencer is simply putting into words what a lot of white people in America believe and act on, and any policy-maker when thinking about the policy he is going to implement has to take this into account and not act with moral bias.

If you ask me, there is a causative relationship between the Left delegitimizing America as racist, colonialist, etc within the elite academy, and the deindustrialization and destruction of middle America by the corporate decision-makers. The Left broke the emotional connection that the elite have towards the people in the country, and this affected their decision-making which affected the lives of common people in America.

You still make no goddamn sense. There is no extrapolation involved with Spencer's ideas; you just can't have a whites-only country if there are still non-white people in it. You can have a social democracy with wealthy people, even if there won't be as many of them.

And need I remind you that Pat Buchanan is also a piece of shit? He thinks black people should be thankful for having been forced into slavery because it turned them Christian and supposedly made them more prosperous. He denies basic climate and evolutionary science. Oh, and get this: Buchanan's publication, The American Conservative, fired Spencer because his views were considered too radical.

Huntington is better, but that's not a very high bar to clear.

I don't see how the hell acknowledging the US' racist and colonialist tendencies leads to corporate leaders eroding the middle class. Are you not going to buy products from a company because its leaders support diversity, compassion and tolerance? Are employees going to leave in droves? No. And besides, what good is holding an emotional connection with people who pretend US history doesn't have a dark side, and treat minorities like alien invaders instead of offering compassion and respect? You don't make things right by embracing someone else's lie, you stand up for the truth at all costs. And the truth is that us humans need to get along with people who look and act differently -- we're never going to succeed as a species if we hide from each other.

 

[greatnoob]

You still make no goddamn sense. There is no extrapolation involved with Spencer's ideas; you just can't have a whites-only country if there are still non-white people in it. You can have a social democracy with wealthy people, even if there won't be as many of them

He's arguing for the sake of arguing because he has no real leg to stand on.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, it is not. Societies have unwritten norms which people follow, and on aggregate that makes life easier for everyone. There are numerous 3rd world countries which on paper have the most beautiful egalitarian laws but in reality are anything but.

Trade is not the same as immigration. Trade and the other society is at arms length. Immigration and they live among you. When they live among you...how do you think the 7/7 London bombings came about? Or the Brussels bombing? Or Paris attacks?

Yeh, Mutual respect & common decency for our fellow citizens are such values. It's unfortunate that the kind of FUD you're spreading can often overrule such things.

Montana is one of those places in this country where white folks can get really, really stupid about minorties because interaction is scarce. There aren't enough ethnic minorities in Montana, other than Native Americans, for people living there to know much about them other than what they get from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter & a long, long line of white racist ancestors who shaped their world. They can afford to be stupid & ignorant about it. The rest of us can't.

 

[Atreus21]

Ah, the front lines. Where everything becomes simple - find the enemy and beat the hell out of him.

No wonder it attracts the products of our fine system of higher education. I don't know why they even maintain the "protest" charade. Why can't the two sides just work out the battleground ahead of time, Outsiders-style, and go straight to the death-match?

What a bunch of fucking idiots.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ah, the front lines. Where everything becomes simple - find the enemy and beat the hell out of him.

No wonder it attracts the products of our fine system of higher education. I don't know why they even maintain the "protest" charade. Why can't the two sides just work out the battleground ahead of time, Outsiders-style, and go straight to the death-match?

What a bunch of fucking idiots.

Yep. Trumpsters drove from Montana & all over the country, to Berkeley, so they could do just that. But they're the victims, obviously.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

In other words, you have no idea of any legitimate reason for their being there or why they picked that location. Think about this carefully. You're suggesting that they're there to legitimately protest, yet you don't know what they're supposed to be protesting or why they picked that location. The whole point of a protest is to bring public/media attention to a topic, as part of some overall objective. Did they somehow forget that bit when they thought about protesting?

With a bit of googling, I found this:

https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/853430943239086080

"March for Trump"? Was he stripped of his election win or something? Is Berkeley at the centre of this rotten conspiracy against Trump? The most bizarre thing was the nearest thing I found to any kind of legitimate reason was that Milo's chance to speak at Berkeley was cancelled, yet from what I've seen they haven't mentioned him at all.

Christ, 'Britain First' are a bunch of comical amateurs, but at least when they remember the 'protest' bit (even if it's just a preliminary troll for the main event) before they get with a bit of old-fashioned "hope to beat the shit out of a few brown people".

That's a whole lot of disagreement without any actual counter-argument. Berkeley is seen as a Mecca of the American left. It makes it an obvious target for pro-Trump people to demonstrate at. You tell me what you think they were protesting, and once you've established that, you tell me how the message of their protest (irrespective of any and all violence by some participants) is even relevant.

Ah yes, I was waiting for you to tell your usual lie and insist that Trump supporters are pacifist saints while the liberals are evil monsters who only want to beat people up. Because, of course, what you really object to is the idea that people are protesting Divine Leader Trump in any way. We know you have open contempt for free speech and the right to protest.

The reality: both sides are guilty of using violence, but the "alt-right" has an inherently violent ideology (it is, after all, rooted in bigotry) and a tendency to provoke violence. As people have already pointed out: notice how the many recent anti-Trump protests where the alt-right wasn't involved were peaceful? Funny that.

ANTIFA's brand of communism/anarchism are inherently violent as well.

The difference here is ALL the Trump thugs traveled from far away specifically looking for trouble. They found it. And from the looks of them, they are all alt-right white power thugs.

Interesting bullshit reverse example you give. Seems to me the racists are still looking to beat up minorities and those who stand up for them.

How is traveling relevant? If liberal minorities traveled to, say, South Carolina to protest the murderous cop that enjoyed a mistrial, would you say they were "specifically looking for trouble"?

And what minorities? Both ANTIFA and Trumpers are overwhelmingly white.

To be honest, I consider white supremacists to be a direct threat to the safety and human rights of others. Anyone who advocates and attempts to strip others of their human rights deserves to lose their own. It is a completely indefensible and historically dangerous position and I have no problem with any of it as I see it as no less than self defense.

Cool, I feel the same way about virtue signalling posers that think pissing on the 1st Amendment is a-OK. Hope you end up in one of the gulags you so dearly want to be created.

 

[Blackjack200]

Montana is one of those places in this country where white folks can get really, really stupid about minorties because interaction is scarce. There aren't enough ethnic minorities in Montana, other than Native Americans, for people living there to know much about them other than what they get from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter & a long, long line of white racist ancestors who shaped their world. They can afford to be stupid & ignorant about it. The rest of us can't.

Andrew Sullivan just wrote an article in NY Magazine about how the success of the Asian and Jewish populations in the US undermines the view that the black community continues to suffer from the effects of racism, and the New York Times just hired a columnist that wrote about the "disease of the Arab mind". So it ain't just Montana, but I get your point.

 

[desura]

You still make no goddamn sense. There is no extrapolation involved with Spencer's ideas; you just can't have a whites-only country if there are still non-white people in it. You can have a social democracy with wealthy people, even if there won't be as many of them.

And need I remind you that Pat Buchanan is also a piece of shit? He thinks black people should be thankful for having been forced into slavery because it turned them Christian and supposedly made them more prosperous. He denies basic climate and evolutionary science. Oh, and get this: Buchanan's publication, The American Conservative, fired Spencer because his views were considered too radical.

Huntington is better, but that's not a very high bar to clear.

I don't see how the hell acknowledging the US' racist and colonialist tendencies leads to corporate leaders eroding the middle class. Are you not going to buy products from a company because its leaders support diversity, compassion and tolerance? Are employees going to leave in droves? No. And besides, what good is holding an emotional connection with people who pretend US history doesn't have a dark side, and treat minorities like alien invaders instead of offering compassion and respect? You don't make things right by embracing someone else's lie, you stand up for the truth at all costs. And the truth is that us humans need to get along with people who look and act differently -- we're never going to succeed as a species if we hide from each other.

You don't see that? You just demonstrated it right there in expressing derision towards people who hold the "wrong" interpretation of history. All societies are racist in one way or another, and it is a good thing that the pinnacles of society challenge us to become better people who get along with each other...but on the extremes you get Puritan excess, witch hunts, judgmental attitudes, and such. The Left inherits this Puritan tradition, and if anyone has ever noticed, most of the race screeds are coming out of New England area school grads.

A sort of loyal opposition is always necessary, but on the extremes it becomes unhealthy and self-destructive. I'd argue that it has gone self-destructive in recent years, is no longer the underdog opposition but is the establishment which sets the tone. Kinda like how Jon Stewart's Daily Show and alumni pretty much dominates tv political commentary right now.

It isn't hard to imagine how a social democracy would over time as the ideologues took over looking to push it more and more towards the ideal state set maximum income levels, greatly increased subsidies to make up for accidents of birth, as the perfect equality lies just out of reach and needing more youthful energy to push it through...you simply have an emotional belief that "social democracy" means a certain sort of person who is educated, comfortable, and yet edgy enough to be interesting and you can't imagine such good people ever making awful choices, and when they do make awful choices you rationalize that they were right in doing so and their victims deserved their fates.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't see that? You just demonstrated it right there in expressing derision towards people who hold the "wrong" interpretation of history. All societies are racist in one way or another, and it is a good thing that the pinnacles of society challenge us to become better people who get along with each other...but on the extremes you get Puritan excess, witch hunts, judgmental attitudes, and such. The Left inherits this Puritan tradition, and if anyone has ever noticed, most of the race screeds are coming out of New England area school grads.

A sort of loyal opposition is always necessary, but on the extremes it becomes unhealthy and self-destructive. I'd argue that it has gone self-destructive in recent years, is no longer the underdog opposition but is the establishment which sets the tone. Kinda like how Jon Stewart's Daily Show and alumni pretty much dominates tv political commentary right now.

It isn't hard to imagine how a social democracy would over time as the ideologues took over looking to push it more and more towards the ideal state set maximum income levels, greatly increased subsidies to make up for accidents of birth, as the perfect equality lies just out of reach and needing more youthful energy to push it through...you simply have an emotional belief that "social democracy" means a certain sort of person who is educated, comfortable, and yet edgy enough to be interesting and you can't imagine such good people ever making awful choices, and when they do make awful choices you rationalize that they were right in doing so and their victims deserved their fates.

Yeh, people who decry racism are the real racists, obviously.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yeh, people who decry racism are the real racists, obviously.

Assault doesn't fit under the definition of decrying.

 

[desura]

Yeh, people who decry racism are the real racists, obviously.

More like going full ideologue trying to eliminate the factor of racism out of society leaves a lot of collatoral damage.

 

[Jhhnn]

Assault doesn't fit under the definition of decrying.

That was wrt the "race screed" remark.

 

[Jhhnn]

More like going full ideologue trying to eliminate the factor of racism out of society leaves a lot of collatoral damage.

It's a cancer that this polyglot nation can't afford to keep. What is this damage you speak of, anyway? Are you making some claim of cultural superiority for the most backward people in the country, or what?