Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[annabenedetti]

Great. Then most of the things I say are objectionable. Much of the stuff that you say is objectionable.

Virtually everything on this website is objectionable.

Practically everything is objectionable to someone.

The definition I'm waiting for isn't for the word "objectionable." It's for the word "racist."

Do you think that homosexual activists have an entitlement mentality? If you believe so strongly in the rights of private businesses, then please, tell me about how Christian bakers have a right to refuse service to homosexuals.

Deflect, deflect, refuse to see how if you break the terms of the agreement, you're likely to pay a penalty.

Then you have no argument.

Oh, but I do. You're just dancing around it.

At that point, we're not having a discussion about the rights of private business owners.

Actually, yes we are. We're talking about how if you post racist material at a site that prohibits racist material, you may get banned.

And then you have the freedom to come back and whine about it.

Again, I grant literally everything you just cited. I would only note that the key words in the above passage are "fundamental rights." It's not evident to me that fundamental rights are at issue in this discussion.

The fundamental rights of a citizen of color to live in this country?

What are you smoking?

 

[kmoney]

Except they literally are!

Check out the Sargon of Akkad video I posted earlier.

:baby:

This should be renamed after you.

 

[Tambora]

For anyone who may be wondering why I was banned for the past several days,

I don't think anyone has been wondering about that.

But I will say that your view is obviously something people want to discuss.
Just look at how many are still responding to this thread.

And I don't see what you say as being any more offensive than some posting that Trump and all his voters or supporters are white supremacist bigoted racists.

But this right here .....

if I haven't been given a public apology for that ridiculous and undue censorship of my speech, within a week, I will GIVE YOU a reason to ban me for racism.

.... is just you stupidly shooting yourself in the foot if you had any intention of actually staying around and discussing.

 

[Town Heretic]

Trying to argue about essential human dignity and right with a racist is a bit like trying to play chess with someone who is mentally unfit. They may move some of the pieces around in ways that suggest the game, but ultimately they're incapable of producing the context within which any real effort is meaningful.

 

[Ktoyou]

Trying to argue about essential human dignity and right with a racist is a bit like trying to play chess with someone who is mentally unfit. They may move some of the pieces around in ways that suggest the game, but ultimately they're incapable of producing the context within which any real effort is meaningful.

Yes, a board-full of queens

 

[Traditio]

And I don't see what you say as being any more offensive than some posting that Trump and all his voters or supporters are white supremacist bigoted racists.

What I've been saying is by definition LESS racist and offensive than the garbage that SJWs spew on a regular basis. The thing that you have to understand about intersectional feminism is that it is a demographic based power politic.

You know why kmoney, Town Heretic, Arthur Brain or Anna Benedetti refuse to take the anti-white racism that I've been bringing up seriously? Because it doesn't fit into the SJW power politic.

[MENTION=4651]kmoney[/MENTION], when I told him to watch the Sargon of Akkad video, essentially told me that I was whining.

Would he say the same thing to a BLM activist? To an hispanic? To a Muslim?

Anna Benedetti told me to stop whining and called me a white boy (which is, for the record, HIGHLY racist), regardless of the anti-white racism in question.

Because that's what the racist intersectional feminist power politic requires.

When I demand a white ethnostate based purely on pragmatic grounds, that is not inherently racist. I am in favor of an ethnostate only under the condition that there is persistent, widespread and irresolvable racial strife.

I am not an ideological racist.

SJWs are ideological racists, and white people are evil by definition in their worldview.

That's why it's not acceptable to post fliers with so harmless a message as "It's OK to be white."

Because in their eyes, it isn't.

White genocide may or may not be happening. But SJWs wouldn't shed a single tear if it did.

But this right here .....



.... is just you stupidly shooting yourself in the foot if you had any intention of actually staying around and discussing.

So far as I can see, she banned me for essentially three things I did in the posting:

1. I wrote (JEW!) next to the names of actual Jewish people.

2. I asserted that Wall Street is infested with Jews.

3. I insinuated that the Democratic party has sold out to Jews.

I am willing to admit that these are all offensive things to say. Here's the thing, though: they aren't inherently objectionable, and they aren't patently untrue. I haven't really done the research, but I am willing to bet that if you look into Wall Street and the donors to the democratic party, you'll find a disproportionate number of Jews.

And really, please note this:

I didn't say that Wall Street is only infested with Jews. Nor did I say that all Jews infest Wall Street. I didn't say that the democratic party has only sold out to Jews, nor did I say that all Jews have tried to purchase the democratic party.

I intentionally phrased things to be both intentionally provocative...and nice and vague.

Because, believe it or not, I'm neither ignorant nor unreasonable. Provocative? Certainly. Ignorant of obvious facts? Nope.

If [MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] would like to dispute the fact that there are Jews in Wall Street, or that there are, in fact, Jewish donors to the democratic party, then by all means, I would love to see her try.

But she can't. Because it's an indisputable fact.

But I get banned for "racism" simply for bringing it up?

No, I'm sorry, but that's unreasonable.

And the simple fact is that, if I'm going to be censored and banned for saying things that don't involve racial slurs, incitements to violence, statements that are slanderous, libelous, etc., in a word: if she is going to ban me regardless simply because she doesn't like the content of what I am saying:

Then why shouldn't I post youtube links to Johnny Rebel songs just to spite her?

I'll get banned regardless, because, after all, "racists" are bad, right?

Of course, if all of my previous infractions are reversed and she and Ebenz issue an apology...

 

[Traditio]

In a word:

If she wants to ban me for being racist, I might as well give her a good reason to do so. :idunno:

 

[Tambora]

What I've been saying is by definition LESS racist and offensive than the garbage that SJWs spew on a regular basis. The thing that you have to understand about intersectional feminism is that it is a demographic based power politic.

First time I've heard that term.

You know why kmoney, Town Heretic, Arthur Brain or Anna Benedetti refuse to take the anti-white racism that I've been bringing up seriously? Because it doesn't fit into the SJW power politic.

Sure.

@kmoney, when I told him to watch the Sargon of Akkad video, essentially told me that I was whining.

Would he say the same thing to a BLM activist? To an hispanic? To a Muslim?

I don't know.

I am not an ideological racist.

Yeah, I figured that out a while ago.

SJWs are ideological racists, and white people are evil by definition in their worldview.

That does seem to be the latest fad.

That's why it's not acceptable to post fliers with so harmless a message as "It's OK to be white."

I made a thread titled White Lives Matter with pics and videos of Anglo Saxon history and culture, and was immediately the 'racist white supremacist' insinuations began.
But the thread continued and was not closed or removed.
So you may be overreacting a bit here.

So far as I can see, she banned me for essentially three things I did in the posting:

1. I wrote (JEW!) next to the names of actual Jewish people.

2. I asserted that Wall Street is infested with Jews.

3. I insinuated that the Democratic party has sold out to Jews.

1. I doubt that was the reason.

2. OK, could be, but what does that make those Jews 'bad' or suspect of something wrong?

3. OK, could be, but what does that make those Jews 'bad' or suspect of something wrong?

I am willing to admit that these are all offensive things to say. Here's the thing, though: they aren't inherently objectionable, and they aren't patently untrue. I haven't really done the research, but I am willing to bet that if you look into Wall Street and the donors to the democratic party, you'll find a disproportionate number of Jews.

And????

And really, please note this:

I didn't say that Wall Street is only infested with Jews. Nor did I say that all Jews infest Wall Street. I didn't say that the democratic party has only sold out to Jews, nor did I say that all Jews have tried to purchase the democratic party.

I intentionally phrased things to be both intentionally provocative...and nice and vague.

Because, believe it or not, I'm neither ignorant nor unreasonable. Provocative? Certainly. Ignorant of obvious facts? Nope.

Noted.

If @Sherman would like to dispute the fact that there are Jews in Wall Street, or that there are, in fact, Jewish donors to the democratic party, then by all means, I would love to see her try.

But she can't. Because it's an indisputable fact.

But I get banned for "racism" simply for bringing it up?

No, I'm sorry, but that's unreasonable.

And the simple fact is that, if I'm going to be censored and banned for saying things that don't involve racial slurs, incitements to violence, statements that are slanderous, libelous, etc., in a word: if she is going to ban me regardless simply because she doesn't like the content of what I am saying:

Then why shouldn't I post youtube links to Johnny Rebel songs just to spite her?

I'll get banned regardless, because, after all, "racists" are bad, right?

Of course, if all of my previous infractions are reversed and she and Ebenz issue an apology...

forgive me for thinking you might be smart enough to not keep pushing this.

You might need to be informed that TOL doesn't HAVE to have a reason to ban anyone at all, much less a 'good' reason.
So if you persist in just purposely being provocative here, then I'll get my "goodbye and wish you well" in now before it's too late.

 

[Tambora]

In a word:

If she wants to ban me for being racist, I might as well give her a good reason to do so. :idunno:

Either do it or shut up with the empty threats.
Empty threats are just, well, whinny.

 

[Traditio]

First time I've heard that term.

Then you simply don't understand how the far left, the establishment journos and especially the college educated SJWs think!

You have to look into intersectional feminism. Everything will make so much sense when you do.

I don't know.

I can almost guarantee you that he wouldn't. He expressed a positive view of BLM earlier.

1. I doubt that was the reason.

TH apparently had a problem with it. :idunno:

2. OK, could be, but what does that make those Jews 'bad' or suspect of something wrong?

3. OK, could be, but what does that make those Jews 'bad' or suspect of something wrong?

Those Jews in particular? I have a generally poor view of Wall Street in general, and I'm generally against the legalized bribery that is our campaign finance laws, so...

But it's not specifically because they're Jewish.

I just like pointing out the Jew aspect because it's personally entertaining to me to watch people take the bait.

And????

There's no "and."

That's why it was stupid of [MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION] to ban me.

forgive me for thinking you might be smart enough to not keep pushing this.

You might need to be informed that TOL doesn't HAVE to have a reason to ban anyone at all, much less a 'good' reason.
So if you persist in just purposely being provocative here, then I'll get my "goodbye and wish you well" in now before it's too late.

TOL is a private business. They can do whatever they want. What they can do, of course, is quite a different question from what they should do.

And understand that they can do what they do only because their customers are willing to cave in and let them keep doing it. If their customers (people like you) collectively decided to boycott them until they adhered to free speech principles, I imagine that they would be much more hesitant to censor people.

 

[Nihilo]

But it's not specifically because they're Jewish.
. . .TOL is a private business. They can do whatever they want. What they can do, of course, is quite a different question from what they should do.

And understand that they can do what they do only because their customers are willing to cave in and let them keep doing it. If their customers (people like you) collectively decided to boycott them until they adhered to free speech principles, I imagine that they would be much more hesitant to censor people.

They are Knight. Knight's customers pay to play, users and advertisers both. What if advertisers is the bigger upside.

 

[Traditio]

They are Knight. Knight's customers pay to play, users and advertisers both. What if advertisers is the bigger upside.

That would surprise me if true.

My suspicion is that TOL receives the majority of its funding from subscriber payments, and if the subscribers demanded a free speech platform, TOL would be a bastion of free speech.

 

[Tambora]

You have to look into intersectional feminism. Everything will make so much sense when you do.

I'll google.

 

[Nihilo]

That would surprise me if true.

For instance, the Drudge Report is a person with other people working on computers, and they sell ad space, that's enough to pay people to work on computers for the Drudge Report for a living.

My suspicion is that TOL receives the majority of its funding from subscriber payments, and if the subscribers demanded a free speech platform, TOL would be a bastion of free speech.

TOL already is that. There's nothing you can't say, as long as you know how to say it right. And saying it right is sometimes saying it wrong, and sometimes you have to say it wrong in order to say it right, but everything that can be said, can be said, already. TOL cannot become more free wrt speech. It's already 10-out-of-10, all day long, 24/7/365.

 

[Traditio]

TOL already is that. There's nothing you can't say, as long as you know how to say it right. And saying it right is sometimes saying it wrong, and sometimes you have to say it wrong in order to say it right, but everything that can be said, can be said, already. TOL cannot become more free wrt speech. It's already 10-out-of-10, all day long, 24/7/365.

I got banned for noting that individual Jewish people, are, in fact, Jewish, that there are Jews on Wall Street and that there are Jewish donors to the democratic party.

That's not free speech.

 

[Nihilo]

I got banned for noting that individual Jewish people, are, in fact, Jewish, that there are Jews on Wall Street and that there are Jewish donors to the democratic party.

That's not free speech.

Then, give me the benefit of the doubt, and reread my post, and tell me what must therefore be the case, if what I said is in fact true.

 

[Nihilo]

Either do it or shut up with the empty threats.
Empty threats are just, well, whinny.

Someone's got horses on their mind?

 

[Tambora]

Someone's got horses on their mind?

hehe!
Had an extra "n" I needed to use up before it spoiled.

 

[chair]

[MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION]

You've asked me a few times how I would attain a white ethnostate. I've given it some thought, and I think that I have a solution that even liberals can't disagree with:

1. Write into the constitution that only CIS straight white, non-Jewish, non SJW people can be citizens of Western countries.

How are you going to decide for all Western countries?
And good luck changing the constitution. Have you got the support for this?
I gather that Jews get special attention, while Hindus and Muslims don't.

2. Determine who is or is not such a person entirely on the basis of self-identification.

This is interesting. You've decided to sidestep the thorny issue of "who is white?" by having it go by self-identification. Thsi coudl go in one of two ways:
a) everybody self-identifies as white. Would that give you the white ethnostate you are dreaming of?
b) Much more likely: 70 or 80 million blacks refuse to identify themselves as white. Along with millions of Jews who refuse to reject their identity, millions of Hispanics who refuse, and quite likely many many millions of lily pure whites who won't identify themselves as white, because they disapprove of the whole thing. So you have in the ballpark of half the citizens of the USA refusing to identify themselves as "white" in your game.

3. Deport all people who are not eligible for citizenship.

So now you have to deport 100 million people. How are you going to do it?
They're not going to all walk away peacefully.
Nor do they necessarily have where to go.
If you will use force to get them out, and just throw them over the border or into the sea- you better purge your police force and army first. Too many non-whites there.

You literally cannot argue against this.

A silly comment that I haven't heard since grade school. In any case, my point is to show where your thinking leads to.

 

[Traditio]

Then, give me the benefit of the doubt, and reread my post, and tell me what must therefore be the case, if what I said is in fact true.

As I understand you, you are saying that TOL is a bastion of free speech just so long as you know how to frame what you are saying in the correct manner.

But that's not what free speech is.

At any rate, Sherman made it perfectly clear that it's not my framing that she disagrees with. It's specifically the "antisemitic commentary." She doesn't like the fact that I'm talking about Jews.

My anti-black rhetoric was apparently fine.

But lay off the Jews!

Never mind the fact that my "antisemitic" rhetoric wasn't really that objectionable if you think about what I said.