Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 123: Heather Heyer

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dark Young Link posted...

To speak is to take action.

To not speak is to take action.

To take action is to speak.

To take no action is to speak.

What was that line from that rush song, even if you don't make a choice you still have made a choice?
---

BowserCuffs posted...

(Also, MLK said that riots were the language of the unheard, which is something that white people who say "MLK would hate BLM because of this" don't want to acknowledge)

He also condemned a society that would simultaneously condemn riots without also condemning the causes of riots.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

To speak is to take action.

To not speak is to take action.

To take action is to speak.

To take no action is to speak.

What was that line from that rush song, even if you don't make a choice you still have made a choice?

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74 A+ song btw
---

Wang posted...

That's not quite right. It's not "it all worked out," it's "we actively, over thousands of years, managed to stamp it out of a proper, advanced society." It's not coincidence or something that just happened to be it was actively strived for. Nobody advocates for it not just on moral grounds but because it's also woefully ineffective. The industrial revolution was incredible for creating such a different way to advance society that was far, far better to the old one. Nowadays even in third world countries it's looked down on and international organizations offer new, better ways to be without such a system. We have a better idea and can impart it to you.

...You know slavery's still a thing, right? That it still happens? Even in the United States?

People are not open about it because they know that, if they were, society at large would lynch them because society at large has decided that we ain't tolerating that shit. The same must be true for Nazism.
---

Welp, because the world moves on, now there's been a fatal car attack near Paris

1 dead, 7 injured
---

My point was about the tone and rhetoric being used being comparable. The ideologies themselves are of course not and I said that, but apparently that needed restating because I used them in an example.

I'll give it one more shot even though I'm kind of sick of it now.

If you use ignorant rhetoric when putting your ideas across, your ideas will end up breeding hatred. It doesn't matter what the name of your group is or what your goals apparently are.

Nazis and the KKK are the easiest examples because their ideologies align with the rhetoric. Easy bad guys, it's why they're used so much, there's no nuance.

But (group name) standing for (peace, liberty, love, free food for the homeless etc) and being okay with similar rhetoric being used under their banner, and then attacking anyone that disagrees with them, is also not okay. IS comparable, it's just more insidious because it's not as easy to call them out on their bullshit, because it's backed by (good idea + group). This is how hatred festers and spreads. This is how people like (group) indoctrinate people from (faith).

This is why it angers me because we keep seeing the same stuff go on, and then people go, huh I wonder why that happened? Or why do these people keep getting angry with us? Etc, etc.

That's as simple as I can put it, I already said I wasn't equating them, but apparently mentioning them and their mistakes is the same thing. Because god forbid anything be wrong on (political side) that would mean (viewed as enemy) would be 100 percent right.

It's a circle, and in the centre of it we always find the hatred, always. But we keep doing the same thing anyway.
---

They aren't really comparable, though. Not even in tone and rhetoric.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

They aren't really comparable, though. Not even in tone and rhetoric.

Then we absolutely disagree.
---

MenuWars posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

They aren't really comparable, though. Not even in tone and rhetoric.

Then we absolutely disagree.

Yep.
---

Reg posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Dark Young Link posted...

To speak is to take action.

To not speak is to take action.

To take action is to speak.

To take no action is to speak.

What was that line from that rush song, even if you don't make a choice you still have made a choice?

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74 A+ song btw

Thank you, it was killing me that i couldn't place it
---

the tone and rhetoric of leftists can be nasty, but i don't think that's a bad thing when we're arguing with literal nazis.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Welp, because the world moves on, now there's been a fatal car attack near Paris

1 dead, 7 injured

Same tactics.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Thank you, it was killing me that i couldn't place it

np bro

I would legit consider not posting on gamefaqs ever again in exchange for the chance to see Rush live one more time. They're that awesome.

It's not gonna happen though ~_~
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the tone and rhetoric of leftists can be nasty, but i don't think that's a bad thing when we're arguing with literal nazis.

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis. That was part of my point.
---

MenuWars posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the tone and rhetoric of leftists can be nasty, but i don't think that's a bad thing when we're arguing with literal nazis.

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis. That was part of my point.

People who collaborate with literal Nazis, then.
---

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346544-dreamhost-claims-doj-requesting-info-on-visitors-to-anti-trump-website

this is not cool
---

BowserCuffs posted...

MenuWars posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the tone and rhetoric of leftists can be nasty, but i don't think that's a bad thing when we're arguing with literal nazis.

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis. That was part of my point.

People who collaborate with literal Nazis, then.

You're not always doing that either. C'mon now.

I'm debating this with you guys because I'm pretty bloody sure you want to actually improve things for people. The nazis are only ever going to want to improve life for nazis, that's what they do. That's why I get angered by the groups opposing them using the same rhetoric.

Gaze too long into the abyss and all that.
---

MenuWars posted...

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis.

ok, it seemed like your point was "the tone and rethoric of extremists on the left is just as nasty as the tone of the extremists on the right they're attacking." to that i would say "correct, but given the ideas of the extremists on the right i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing."

if your point is simply "if you're arguing with regular right-wing people there's no need to be an asshole" i agree. i'd be surprised if anyone in this topic would disagree with that.
---

transience posted...

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346544-dreamhost-claims-doj-requesting-info-on-visitors-to-anti-trump-website

this is not cool

what the fuck
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MenuWars posted...

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis.

ok, it seemed like your point was "the tone and rethoric of extremists on the left is just as nasty as the tone of the extremists on the right they're attacking." to that i would say "correct, but given the ideas of the extremists on the right i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing."

if your point is simply "if you're arguing with regular right-wing people there's no need to be an asshole" i agree. i'd be surprised if anyone in this topic would disagree with that.

I did not think my point so obtuse. Yet people did disagree, I was called a nutjob for it infact... I'm not even right wing.
---

DYL:

it's gonna be easier answering to you like this than it will be to both posts, bit by bit. For the paragraph starting with this:

First off, they were told not to get into any fights? Who told them that exactly? And if cops checked them for weapons, why did they have any weapons in the first place? >_> And why wouldn't they check anifta once they got there? And you're implying that the cops aren't making many arrest because both groups are hated and they're okay with them causing riots in the streets.

first off, you're mixing up way too many things because you don't know any of them. Not meaning that as an insult. yes, the people who went to this rally were told not to get into fights. it's even written on that guide i've mentioned a few times now, the same one jakyl posted a few topics ago. the one you made fun of me for calling the normie guide despite that being their own way to call it. if you read that you'll start to get an idea over who went there, why they did, what they wanted. that was the guide of how they could spread their ideas to the masses, written by people who were organizing/part of the group organizing the event in the first place.

cops checking for weapons was the Berkeley rally i mentioned, not this one. hence... me saying "that was another Berkeley rally" when describing what happened at it. for that rally, antifa didn't join in normally, they just stayed a few blocks away then came in later. that just served as a firm lesson that if you expect them, don't come defenseless anymore. you probably didn't hear much about this one because even without weapons the right uh... still won that exchange. partially because antifa set off a smoke bomb while their group was facing downwind in what was probably the one thing you might've heard because it was honestly pretty funny.

and yes, cops aren't really making arrests for either group. they're told to stand down by chief of police or the mayor of their respective area, this has been outright stated by cops themselves and mayors (Berkeley's at least) have been caught with that. if you're trying to figure out "why," there ain't many answers you're gonna be left with beyond it being intentional, it's similar to the way gang violence is largely ignored by police until someone dies. especially in the one that went on this weekend, they want none of that shit.

finally no, calling someone not human isn't critique anymore. you aren't analyzing them, you're removing the ability to analyze them. you can hate them all you want but you have to be able to continue treating them as people and not simply remove them because you don't like them. the Jews being hated "because they're Jews" is a circular argument that doesn't say anything; they were hated because people were told that it's the Jews who are to blame for their conditions, it's the Jews who aren't willing to treat everyone else as people, the Jews are commiting wrongs against the people to further themselves. it wasn't "convenient scapegoat," it was "purposeful dehumanization." when you do that to a class of people who have not done anything (reminder that this is to you saying that every single one of them should be arrested, not to the guy who committed murder), yes, you are doing the same thing. there's not really a loophole available here.
---

MenuWars posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

MenuWars posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the tone and rhetoric of leftists can be nasty, but i don't think that's a bad thing when we're arguing with literal nazis.

True but you're not usually arguing with literal Nazis. That was part of my point.

People who collaborate with literal Nazis, then.

You're not always doing that either. C'mon now.

I'm debating this with you guys because I'm pretty bloody sure you want to actually improve things for people. The nazis are only ever going to want to improve life for nazis, that's what they do. That's why I get angered by the groups opposing them using the same rhetoric.

Gaze too long into the abyss and all that.

You're not really debating with us, so much as yelling at us and stubbornly sticking to it even when the argument wasn't what you claimed it was.

I know you're probably having a bad day. I'm having a bad day, too.

If you want to equate the tone of BLM, a movement dedicated to defending rights, with the tone of neo-nazis, a movement dedicated to taking them away, be my guest - I can't stop you from being wrong.

You can say that it's only the motivations that are different, but that ignores the fact that the motivations are the defining difference. The sweetest, kindest Nazi is worse than the most violent BLM activist.
---

Admittedly I only took a quick glance at the whole Menu v topic thing, but I don't get how the argument even started. A misunderstanding sure, but all of that?
---

DYL post 2, for the paragraph with this:

So basically, we have to give them a platform to speak(Which ironically goes against the idea of Freedom of Speech/Expression) and that there's apparently no reason to look at history because it was so long ago that the ideas are considered old?

the only thing we give is that everyone has a right to a platform. they aren't given it, they take it when they're big enough. don't know how you inferred that there's no reason to look back at history, of course you look back. so did they. and they've adapted their ideas to a new one, which you're a part of. you're familiar with the old arguments and the old issues but they won't necessarily apply. that said, the basic principles broken down to their core won't be able change ever so that's the main thing you're getting out of your historic lessons, along with a more societal understanding of how different the world is today to back then. we let them talk, we told them to fuck off, cool. they were considered and their points were rejected. that's pretty fair. did i use rejection earlier when i should've said denied instead or something? if so alright that'd be my bad, too many things to reply to on way too wide a spectrum (history, philosophy, the demographics and make up of event, things that occurred at prior events, the way history works, etc) it's a bit dizzying.

and yes, it's going to be generations of rejection. the only way you get rid of an idea is by having other ideas continuously surpass it until it becomes useless or incompatible. other ideas won't actually go away but will lose what made them immoral, allowing for a very different discussion (the current argument of machine labor, where the philosophical arguments are now about man's spirit to work as opposed to the argument of forcing someone to work against their wishes in often terrible conditions).

how many people die for that, i don't know, but i would assume fewer people than simply trying to stamp it out by force and the future that leads to. this is a much wider argument than you think it is because you're asking for a big systematic change to make this occur, at which point you have to judge the two systems and what each of them does.
---

MenuWars posted...

I did not think my point so obtuse. Yet people did disagree, I was called a nutjob for it infact... I'm not even right wing.

pretty sure LTM called you a nutjob because you misunderstood something kenri said and instead of saying "oh whoops, my bad," you doubled down on the misunderstanding and started attacking people. "nutjob" may be a bit harsh, but you weren't acting too reasonably there.
---

Dark Young Link posted...

Admittedly I only took a quick glance at the whole Menu v topic thing, but I don't get how the argument even started. A misunderstanding sure, but all of that?

It's a little hard to clear up a misunderstanding when the person doing the misunderstanding is insisting that his understanding is correct, and that we're the ones who are interpreting it wrong - even the person who did the clarifying.
---

And we're still not discussing the McVeigh admirer who tried to blow up a bomb in OKC, arrested by the FBI over the weekend.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Kinglicious posted...

That's a conversation worth having and I'll agree in part, sure. You've just gotta be specific here - how do you identify who they are? There's no real way to recognize at a glance or a clear group for the most part. I mean look, if you're suggesting the KKK should be considered a domestic terrorist group, that's got legs to it. But I don't think that covers everyone, nor do I think there's a way to really cover them all. But it's a convo worth talking about.

I was thinking to start with "The groups associated with the Unite the Right rally should no longer be granted the right to officially organize on public grounds, because their core message has proven to incite violence."

You'd need a lawyer probably to make the case that the car attack was not a perversion of their message but in fact an extension of it, otherwise anyone who killed someone at any rally could get that cause shuttered.

Yes it's very easy to subvert that but it's a start.

You'd need more than a lawyer, you'd need a Supreme Court willing to overturn a century of jurisprudence on the First Amendment. Or to repeal the First Amendment.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

And we're still not discussing the McVeigh admirer who tried to blow up a bomb in OKC, arrested by the FBI over the weekend.

I must've missed the starter for this one.
---

finally Trump calls out the bad people

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/897223558073602049
---

That said, we do have extremely broad laws for felony murder and conspiracy on the books.
---

3 days to decide nazis are bad
6 hours to decide media is bad
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

And we're still not discussing the McVeigh admirer who tried to blow up a bomb in OKC, arrested by the FBI over the weekend.

I must've missed the starter for this one.

Maybe i forgot to click the post button idk


From wapo:

The FBI has arrested an Oklahoma man on charges that he tried to detonate what he thought was a 1,000-pound bomb, acting out of a hatred for the U.S. government and an admiration for Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, according to court papers.

Jerry Drake Varnell was arrested shortly after an early Saturday morning attempt to detonate a fake bomb packed into what he believed was a stolen cargo van outside a bank in Oklahoma City, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court. He was charged with attempted destruction of a building by means of an explosive.

According to the complaint, over the course of a months-long undercover investigation by the FBI, Varnell made repeated statements about the extent of his hatred of the federal government.

It goes on to discuss his links with the 3 percenter group, which I'm not familiar with.
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

finally Trump calls out the bad people

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/897223558073602049

I dunno why I read the comments.

There's someone bringing up ex-KKK leader Byrd, someone who renounced the KKK, and tried to imply that Clinton is the true white supremacist because she looks up to him.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MenuWars posted...

I did not think my point so obtuse. Yet people did disagree, I was called a nutjob for it infact... I'm not even right wing.

pretty sure LTM called you a nutjob because you misunderstood something kenri said and instead of saying "oh whoops, my bad," you doubled down on the misunderstanding and started attacking people. "nutjob" may be a bit harsh, but you weren't acting too reasonably there.

If you can't see the problem with what was said, I can't help you. So I'll wear my nutjob tag cus it proves my point.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

finally Trump calls out the bad people

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/897223558073602049

I dunno why I read the comments.

There's someone bringing up ex-KKK leader Byrd, someone who renounced the KKK, and tried to imply that Clinton is the true white supremacist because she looks up to him.

Butliberalsism
---

Kinglicious posted...

the people who went to this rally were told not to get into fights. it's even written on that guide i've mentioned a few times now, the same one jakyl posted a few topics ago. the one you made fun of me for calling the normie guide despite that being their own way to call it.

I wasn't making fun of you. I was mocking the usage of the term "normie". >_>

Is... there a place I can read said guide btw? Did you link it in the last topic?


That said, I'm not convinced that they brought those weapons merely for their protection. I mean, it's not like they could even stop a second smoke bomb for being thrown. So what good would the weapon be in that case? If anifta came armed and they didn't, the police would surely step in before things got too unpleasant right?

Kinglicious posted...

and yes, it's going to be generations of rejection. the only way you get rid of an idea is by having other ideas continuously surpass it until it becomes useless or incompatible. other ideas won't actually go away but will lose what made them immoral, allowing for a very different discussion (the current argument of machine labor, where the philosophical arguments are now about man's spirit to work as opposed to the argument of forcing someone to work against their wishes in often terrible conditions).

Except we already are rejecting them. But apparently we're rejecting them in the "wrong" way. Nazism is already incompatible with what are the basic set of morals. Are you suggesting we can only "get rid" of the ideas of Nazis is when it becomes too inconvenient or irrelevant to them? Hate is never too inconvenient. Hate isn't a fad that goes away because people got bored of it.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Is it seriously being argued that ideas are a thing that would somehow exist on their own in a vacuum with nobody to actually... Have them?

Yeah. This is all firmly in the realm of philosophy of ideas and thoughts. Is it two people coming up - that is, creating - with the same idea or is it two people who reached the same idea based on a set of other parameters? If so the idea already existed, it just had not been found yet. This is generally a philosophical take of scientific discovery mind you: we have ideas and they build up on each other to create certain rules (e.g., our society). New ideas will come in and be held against them, old ones will be tested again too. When an idea fails we look into why, and using the knowledge we have, strive to improve it or find a new one. In other words we're constantly looking to find what's there, not create what's there.

At best you get the concept of "we create ideas but once they're made, they now forever exist." That still doesn't establish control but does have us be their creators, they just work independently.
---

MenuWars posted...

If you can't see the problem with what was said, I can't help you. So I'll wear my nutjob tag cus it proves my point.

i can see the problem - i just said calling you a nutjob was "a bit harsh." i don't approve that. i just pointed out that "i was called a nutjob because people disagreed with my point" wasn't exactly what happened.

plus i don't think this happening is emblematic of the behavior of the leftists in this topic. you seriously think we constantly insult people for no good reason? that's pretty unfair.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

finally Trump calls out the bad people

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/897223558073602049

I dunno why I read the comments.

There's someone bringing up ex-KKK leader Byrd, someone who renounced the KKK, and tried to imply that Clinton is the true white supremacist because she looks up to him.

Yeah I've seen that used a lot. Admittedly I'm not a fan of anyone who was KKK at some point, renouncing it is good. But I'd never trust them.

Had to get rid of someone I've gamed with for years on SM today cus they tried to basically ignore the fact it was a nazi rally and then blame the black lives matter protesters for what happened. If they hadn't been there noone would've got hurt, we had a permit they didn't (note this was a video im quoting not the person posting it.), so yes it was a legally organised rally which is why the police showed such restraint there. But that doesn't change the fact that it was organised by white supremacists and people were killed for showing up to counter it. It disgusted me so much I didn't even want to debate with them I just fucked em off. Kinda regretting that now.

Idk who made the video, but im still staggered anyone's trying to defend that shit, 3 days must be the requisite amount of time to work up a bullshit excuse.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MenuWars posted...

If you can't see the problem with what was said, I can't help you. So I'll wear my nutjob tag cus it proves my point.

i can see the problem - i just said calling you a nutjob was "a bit harsh." i don't approve that. i just pointed out that "i was called a nutjob because people disagreed with my point" wasn't exactly what happened.

plus i don't think this happening is emblematic of the behavior of the leftists in this topic. you seriously think we constantly insult people for no good reason? that's pretty unfair.

See this kind of goes with my point, see how you're feeling because I made that point? See how you assume I meant more than that by it? It goes both ways.

I wouldn't be spending my time here if I thought you were bad people or idiots.
---

MenuWars posted...

See this kind of goes with my point, see how you're feeling because I made that point? See how you assume I meant more than that by it?

uh yeah, i thought you were trying to explain some problem you have with this topic series in general and the regulars in it.

if your point was simply "LTM's insult was uncalled for" then sure, i agree. we can drop the argument now if that's all you wanted to bring up.
---

Kinglicious posted...

the only thing we give is that everyone has a right to a platform. they aren't given it, they take it when they're big enough. don't know how you inferred that there's no reason to look back at history, of course you look back. so did they. and they've adapted their ideas to a new one, which you're a part of. you're familiar with the old arguments and the old issues but they won't necessarily apply. that said, the basic principles broken down to their core won't be able change ever so that's the main thing you're getting out of your historic lessons, along with a more societal understanding of how different the world is today to back then. we let them talk, we told them to fuck off, cool. they were considered and their points were rejected. that's pretty fair. did i use rejection earlier when i should've said denied instead or something? if so alright that'd be my bad, too many things to reply to on way too wide a spectrum (history, philosophy, the demographics and make up of event, things that occurred at prior events, the way history works, etc) it's a bit dizzying.

They were given a platform. So were the people who were against them. You keep bringing up "old arguments", implying these neo-nazis have "new" ideas. Why don't you share them with the class? What makes neo-nazis different from their genocidal predecessors?



Oh and I skipped over this somehow.

Kinglicious posted...

finally no, calling someone not human isn't critique anymore. you aren't analyzing them, you're removing the ability to analyze them.

I critiqued them and I analyzed them. I've came to the conclusion that their beliefs are incompatible with humanity as a whole.

Kinglicious posted...

the Jews being hated "because they're Jews" is a circular argument that doesn't say anything; they were hated because people were told that it's the Jews who are to blame for their conditions, it's the Jews who aren't willing to treat everyone else as people, the Jews are commiting wrongs against the people to further themselves. it wasn't "convenient scapegoat," it was "purposeful dehumanization." when you do that to a class of people who have not done anything (reminder that this is to you saying that every single one of them should be arrested, not to the guy who committed murder), yes, you are doing the same thing. there's not really a loophole available here.

"Just following orders." is the natural conclusion of that. If people believed these things without seeing proof of it for themselves, then yes they're essentially scapegoats. They wanted an excuse for their own failing, and accepted it just like that.

Meanwhile history itself demonstrates what the Nazi mentality is, and what happens when you ignore it. Every single member of that side is part of the riot, every single person should be held responsible. Every single person there decided the spreading hate was "okay" if a statue was being taken down. Not a single innocent person exists on their side. Not a single one.

What I'm suggesting is not the same thing. Not unless you'd like to refute what is in the history books. Not unless you'd like tell that every single living surviving veteran of WWII was wrong for opposing this group the first time.
---

Would bet large sums of money that this is true:

https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/897227275984281600
---

Dark Young Link posted...

That said, I'm not convinced that they brought those weapons merely for their protection. I mean, it's not like they could even stop a second smoke bomb for being thrown. So what good would the weapon be in that case? If anifta came armed and they didn't, the police would surely step in before things got too unpleasant right?

Honestly I don't think it's "merely" for that either for no small amount of them but it's a valid reason for the rest. And it's a valid reason of right wing rallies that aren't made by and for Nazis. And no, cops wouldn't. It's basically just gang violence at this point, something they traditionally back off from until it's safe or use extreme amounts of force, with no in between. They step in only for certain extreme cases like imminent risk of severe harm/death. Brawls? Ehh... not so much.

Dark Young Link posted...

Except we already are rejecting them. But apparently we're rejecting them in the "wrong" way. Nazism is already incompatible with what are the basic set of morals. Are you suggesting we can only "get rid" of the ideas of Nazis is when it becomes too inconvenient or irrelevant to them?

Nah, the current trend of hard rejection by right and left is good. Policies that can lead to may be bad (e.g., giving more power to the state) but that's a different argument. Yeah, it is incompatible. We've spent generations with a society that fully cannot work with a supremacist view of any kind, that's great. They took their platform and now are being rejected so hard, stormfront is having issues. They'll probably be pushed underground again or focus efforts in other places where supremacists are having more success, like Sweden ironically (if unfamiliar, Nazis there have grown due to the more open policies with migrants over the decades). And yes, only when it's so impossible to work will it be stamped out as much as possible.

dowolf posted...

...You know slavery's still a thing, right? That it still happens? Even in the United States?

Where in the US? Is this a prison system thing you're talking about?
---

Oh without a doubt
---

It's called sex trafficking, Wang.
---

Kinglicious posted...

Where in the US? Is this a prison system thing you're talking about?

Are you aware that there is an enormous amount of sex trafficking that occurs in the US, primarily of women from third world countries?

But yes, the prison industrial complex that you bring up is nothing but a modern form of slavery with a hashtag aesthetic veneer.
---

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/897224542283759617
---

I mean Wang's point about the dehumanisation of the Jews is emblematic of what I'm arguing against. The same way immigrants are described as "tides, swarms, hordes" is what's happening via the left toward white people in general... and what's worse is that's absolutely not what they're about, but they use the same rhetoric.


For example, people go on and on about the amount of black people in poverty in the US because it's a disgustingly high percentage I agree with that. Then the argument goes further, it's the white peoples fault even though there's actually a far larger number of impoverished white families in the US.

Percentage wise it's lesser, but if you're living in shit and people are blaming you for others living in shit, and because you make up much larger numbers, all you can see is how that isn't true... and yet you're supposed to eat it up, because of things your forefathers probably had nothing to do with, and that you yourself have taken no benefit from.

Especially now with pretty much everyone having access to social media, language is more important than ever.
---