Board 8 > Nationalist politics topic 15: The "Russian collusion" was a hoax!

(+) Yeah! (+)

i'd like to live in muffin-universe where homosexuality is completely accepted in the western world
---

Remember that time Muffin called homosexuality abnormal, but then was too much of a coward to call Jewish people abnormal, even though, per his own argument as to what qualifies as normal or abnormal, there are more homosexuals than Jewish people as a percentage of the overall world population?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd like to live in muffin-universe where homosexuality is completely accepted in the western world

It's not just accepted, it's favored. Trump, the army, the CIA, every major corporation, every media outlet, every educational institution. They all feel the need to specifically declare it to be awesome. None will ever do that for heterosexuality.
---

yeah, i'll tell my gay friend who got shunned by his uncle after coming out "hey, at least trump thinks you're cool (or so he claims)!" i'm sure that'll make him feel better.
---

Sorry I never responded to your argument a few threads ago, Vlado. I'll try to not drop off the face of the earth next time we debate\
EDIT:
Mr Lasastryke posted...

yeah, i'll tell my gay friend who got shunned by his uncle after coming out "hey, at least trump thinks you're cool (or so he claims)!" i'm sure that'll make him feel better.

Poor friend whose uncle is creeped out! This is making me say "fuck having gender roles and tradition and shit.".
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Poor friend whose uncle is creeped out! This is making me say "fuck having gender roles and tradition and shit.".

i know i should know better than to grant you a response but wtf is this?

muffin's argument was that homosexuality is not only completely and totally accepted in the western world, it's favored. according to him, in the western world there are 0 people who have a problem with homosexuality and a great number of people who think homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality.

i then name an example of a person in the western world who does not accept homosexuality (destroying his argument) and suddenly you're blabbering about "gender roles and tradition and shit"? what?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It's not just accepted, it's favored.

Get back to me when the percentage of people who approve gay marriage exceeds the percentage of people who approve straight marriage and I'll believe you.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Poor friend whose uncle is creeped out! This is making me say "fuck having gender roles and tradition and shit.".

i know i should know better than to grant you a response but wtf is this?

muffin's argument was that homosexuality is not only completely and totally accepted in the western world, it's favored. according to him, in the western world there are 0 people who have a problem with homosexuality and a great number of people who think homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality.

i then name an example of a person in the western world who does not accept homosexuality (destroying his argument) and suddenly you're blabbering about "gender roles and tradition and shit"? what?

Basically I'm making fun of your sob story based off anecdotal evidence. I guess I'll try to make my mockery simpler next time.
---

anecdotal evidence is all i need when the thing i'm arguing against is "in the western world, homosexuality is not just completely accepted, it's favored."

your mockery would have been warranted if i'd used my example as a counterargument to muffin actually saying something reasonable, like "in the western world, homosexuality is more accepted than in saudi arabia."
---

Alright, if you wanna get semantical, let's get semantical. If that's not a word, it is now.
Let's look at the sentence that prompted your baww session: "in the western world, homosexuality is not just completely accepted, it's favored."
The first part is simple, I'd assume, so I won't cover it.
Now, the completely accepted bit? You put words in his mouth. What he said, on post number 455, is as such: "It's not just accepted, it's favored"
He never said completely accepted, he said accepted. I won't deny that there are people who are against gays, but he's saying that the general consensus is acceptance, not rejection. As in, the majority believe nothing is wrong with homosexuality. I know this song and dance is played out, but that is, by definition, a strawman. Sorry to invalidate your argument, but, well, it was never such to begin with.
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

but he's saying that the general consensus is acceptance, not rejection. As in, the majority believe nothing is wrong with homosexuality.

he's not just saying that, though. he's also saying having something like pride in the western world is bullshit, which is what initiated this debate. as long as there's still people in the western world who don't accept homosexuality (which, according to you, he admits - after all, only the "general consensus" is acceptance), something like pride is absolutely necessary.
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Alright, if you wanna get semantical, let's get semantical. If that's not a word, it is now.
Let's look at the sentence that prompted your baww session: "in the western world, homosexuality is not just completely accepted, it's favored."
The first part is simple, I'd assume, so I won't cover it.
Now, the completely accepted bit? You put words in his mouth. What he said, on post number 455, is as such: "It's not just accepted, it's favored"
He never said completely accepted, he said accepted. I won't deny that there are people who are against gays, but he's saying that the general consensus is acceptance, not rejection. As in, the majority believe nothing is wrong with homosexuality. I know this song and dance is played out, but that is, by definition, a strawman. Sorry to invalidate your argument, but, well, it was never such to begin with.

Uh, I know I should know better than to grant you a response, but wtf is this?

I mean, you even quote the post, so it's not like you missed the second clause of Smuffin's statement. But what part of "favored" is confusing to you when interpreting his post?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd like to live in muffin-universe where homosexuality is completely accepted in the western world

It's not just accepted, it's favored. Trump, the army, the CIA, every major corporation, every media outlet, every educational institution. They all feel the need to specifically declare it to be awesome. None will ever do that for heterosexuality.

no one needs to do it for heterosexuality because theres no public disagreement about whether or not heterosexuality is ok. You dont have to defend something that no one is attacking.

theres a National Disability Day and disabled pride parades, but no equivalent for not disabled people... do you interpret that as society favoring being disabled?
---

Smuffin seems like one of those easily-offended snowflakes who thinks that because Black History Month happens for a single month, once a year, that therefore white people are being oppressed by not having a "White History Month". Speaking of which, "White History Month" is better known as "March 1st to January 31st".
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It does the exact opposite of that. In the western world, at least.

You need to look in the mirror more
---

SmartMuffin posted...

I wonder if the local affiliates of all our lovely global corporations are flying rainbow flags in places like that?

Trump and Kushner are most certainly not encouraging their Saudi friends to do that no
---

Hoo boy, I've got my work cut out for me. Teaches me to play video games and make fun of silly people at the same time.
Mr Lasastryke posted...

he's not just saying that, though. he's also saying having something like pride in the western world is bullshit, which is what initiated this debate. as long as there's still people in the western world who don't accept homosexuality (which, according to you, he admits - after all, only the "general consensus" is acceptance), something like pride is absolutely necessary.

Hm. I will admit I didn't read the whole conversation, and was not aware of this. I suppose I should thank you for giving context.
However, that's where my goodwill ends. Y'see, the very notion of "someone disagrees with us, we have to virtue signal" is kinda creepy and laughable. If you're so insecure about your identity that you need to stomp and huff until you get a month dedicated to your lot, maybe you should do some introspection. Maybe ask yourself, "why do they hate us?" I'll give you a hint: go to a pride parade and look at all the perversion that takes place. No, not in the "girls are kissing girls and that's gross" way, I mean in the "there are guys walking other guys like dogs directly in front of children in a parade" way. I'll even find the picture if you think I'm full of it, even though I'm sure I'm incorrectly remembering the exact act they did.
And before you ask; I don't approve of any sexuality in front of children. Showing love is one thing, displaying lust is another, so spare me the "YoU wOuLdN't CoMpLAiN iF iT wErE a MaN aNd A wOmAn" drivel.
Inviso posted...

Uh, I know I should know better than to grant you a response, but wtf is this?

I mean, you even quote the post, so it's not like you missed the second clause of Smuffin's statement. But what part of "favored" is confusing to you when interpreting his post?

Ignoring your accusation of my being confused, for one. Petty attempts at low blows aside, there's nothing difficult about second clause. You can't deny that, in an age of diversity hires and affirmative action, that there's at least SOME favoring of LGBT opportunities. That'd just be crazy talk.
MoogleKupo141 posted...

no one needs to do it for heterosexuality because theres no public disagreement about whether or not heterosexuality is ok. You dont have to defend something that no one is attacking.

theres a National Disability Day and disabled pride parades, but no equivalent for not disabled people... do you interpret that as society favoring being disabled?

Do you really, really, really want me to shut you down on that first part? It's okay, you can drop this argument and I won't think less of you for it.
As for the second part, damn, i could drop one hell of a redpill right now with the comparison between homosexuality and disabilities you did. You should feel bad, tempting me like this.
P.S.: This is the first I've heard of disabled pride parades. Thank you telling me, I'll have to see how they go about it.
Inviso posted...

Smuffin seems like one of those easily-offended snowflakes who thinks that because Black History Month happens for a single month, once a year, that therefore white people are being oppressed by not having a "White History Month". Speaking of which, "White History Month" is better known as "March 1st to January 31st".

Well yeah, one month ain't enough for our list of achievements.
Gentle banter aside, I'm curious; how do you mentally justify your fellow leftists using a right-wing-originated insult like snowflake? Isn't that cultural appropriation? Asking in half good faith, half wanting to see how you'll go at this.
---

Wow Moogle. Your post was absolutely perfect if he's going the "oh, I have such a good response to this, but I won't say it because it'd just make you look bad" route.
---

I know in my heart that I have been owned even though I can see the owning.
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Maybe ask yourself, "why do they hate us?" I'll give you a hint: go to a pride parade and look at all the perversion that takes place. No, not in the "girls are kissing girls and that's gross" way, I mean in the "there are guys walking other guys like dogs directly in front of children in a parade" way. I'll even find the picture if you think I'm full of it, even though I'm sure I'm incorrectly remembering the exact act they did.

don't bother, i live near amsterdam so i'm well aware of shit like this happening.

anyway, i don't approve of this but to hate gay people because of it is quite bigoted. it's similar to hating muslims because some of them fly planes into buildings. or hating christians because some of them shoot up abortion clinics.
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Hoo boy, I've got my work cut out for me.

You typed so many words and said basically nothing in response to your quotes. Learn more from your Vlado sensei before trying a multi quote post again

1. Homosexuality is not hated because of dudes walking like dogs
2. Heterosexual relationships are the most encouraged things in modern society (see: low birth rate)
3. Almost everything straight white men have accomplished actually came from some minority person
4. Snowflake is an insult from Fight Club, a classic SJW movie
5. Redpill is a term invented by 2 trans women

So at the least you should use Pride month for LGBT people for coming up with your favorite words which currently define your sad life.
---

FYI this is what it comes down to y'all. No need to have super dumb semantics or "logic" arguments about this
SmartMuffin posted...

They all feel the need to specifically declare it to be awesome. None will ever do that for heterosexuality.

Gays are at -5, straights at +5
Then society decides, hey we should give +2 to gays
Gays are then at -3, straights at +0

But Muffin doesn't see that. He only sees gays +2, straights +0. How is that not giving massive favors to gay people, simply for existing? Anyone who challenges this fact literally can't even count to 2 on their fingers. Their SJW indoctrination is so strong.

This requires Muffin to be blind to the gays -3, straights +5 fact, which his indoctrination handles super well, even if he actually talked to some LGBT people (which he doesn't).

It is the exact same elementary school argument used against affirmative action, rape victims, etc.
---

This sure is something. Sports talk radio host suspended from his own show for suggesting that the winner of the womens US open would be "some Korean named Lee" because "there's like six of them on the tour, so the odds are good."

The eventual winner? Shown on ESPN as "Jeongeun Lee6." The 6 being there, you know, to distinguish her from the other five Lees...

https://twitter.com/ClayTravis/status/1135353827249594369
---

Use a content warning on that kind of thing next time please
---

It should be noted that Lee6 is a nickname she embraced and uses even if none of the other Lees are playing.

In this case only four competed, only two other Lee's even made the cut and neither was in a position to compete to win.

So it was a super dumb take if nothing else.
---

muffin omitting context to make an argument? why i never.
---

L'enfant D'Orange is back flying over London today.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DcYmY_f7s" data-time="

ok, probably nobody cares about this but i'm going to talk about it anyway because it does interest me. this is a perfect example of what happens when stefan molyneux debates an eloquent person who has a background in philosophy, knows what he's talking about and isn't intimidated by molyneux's aggressive way of arguing. you don't have to watch the whole 1:45 hour video but the final 10 minutes are highly interesting. up until that point, molyneux and the caller had been discussing some abstract hypotheticals (but not THAT abstract - they don't even scratch the surface of some of the shit i had to read when i took philosophy in uni in terms of abstraction and complexity). then molyneux gets incredibly frustrated and condescending (calling the debate "absurd" and accusing the caller of "wasting two hours of his life") and states that "philosophy is about practical realities in the world and processing choices that we have to make in the real world" and even that the argument they were having is "disrespectful to philosophy." of course, anyone with a very basic understanding of philosophy knows that it's complete and total bullshit to state that philosophy is ONLY about what goes on in "the real world."

so yeah, anyone who is still taking this idiot the slightest bit seriously should immediately stop doing this. beyond any doubt, molyneux's "philosophy show" is nothing more than a thinly-veiled excuse to utterly vituperate leftists.
---

ZXAdvent_Lucian posted...

Maybe ask yourself, "why do they hate us?"

Do you ever do this regarding yourself?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

So not only are they amoral, sub-human, scum. They're also dumb.

Calling other people sub-human is maybe the least libertarian thing you could do as a private citizen
---

Wait so Muffins argument was that we no longer have need for LGBT Pride in America, while at the same time claiming that the enormous base of people who successfully elected the President of the United States dont approve of LGBT Pride?

Am I getting that right?
---

No he's saying that the SMALL base of nationalists will be turned off by that because they are all homophobes (it's ok for them to say it but not us I guess). Everyone else (including most people who vote Trump) loves LGBT people more than straight people already.

A true nationalist cares more about eradicating homosexuality than building a nation.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

So not only are they amoral, sub-human, scum. They're also dumb.

Calling other people sub-human is maybe the least libertarian thing you could do as a private citizen

Calling people names is not aggression.
---

Maniac64 posted...

It should be noted that Lee6 is a nickname she embraced and uses even if none of the other Lees are playing.

In this case only four competed, only two other Lee's even made the cut and neither was in a position to compete to win.

So it was a super dumb take if nothing else.

The "Lee6" nickname is really just an added icing on the cake.

The point is that the prediction was right, and the logic was sound.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

SmartMuffin posted...

So not only are they amoral, sub-human, scum. They're also dumb.

Calling other people sub-human is maybe the least libertarian thing you could do as a private citizen

Calling people names is not aggression.

Classifying people as sub-human implies they dont deserve the same rights as humans
---

And?

I can think whatever I want about what various people deserve, so long as I don't commit aggression against them.
---

I will never understand libertarians I guess
---

Im not going against my beliefs as long as I dont infringe on these peoples rights which I dont believe they deserve
---

SmartMuffin posted...

The point is that the prediction was right, and the logic was sound.

just because the prediction was right doesn't mean the logic was sound. which it wasn't, as there weren't actually "six lees" participating.

this is like if a guy predicts that draven will win a gamefaqs contests because "gamefaqs users just love league of legends that much," he wins, and you go "SEE? HIS LOGIC WAS SOUND!" no, it wasn't. he just got a prediction right by being lucky.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I will never understand libertarians I guess

muffin isn't a libertarian
---

I mean if you want a classic "consistent with libertarian views" position, how about this one?

The loser sheriff in Florida should not be charged with a crime. He did not commit an act of aggression. Failing to perform your job should be a private dispute, not a criminal offense.
---

I think youve said it before about Kim Davis; if you choose to work for the state, its tough to feel bad for you
---

https://twitter.com/hbdchick/status/1136057907043295234

I knew it was just a matter of time before western europe adopted the same policy of "what to do with rape victims" as Afghanistan...
---

I figured you would be for the freedom to choose to die
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I figured you would be for the freedom to choose to die

Muffin only cares about articles and news stories if he can link them to how awful the Middle East is. Unless it involves talking about how ISIS and Islamic terrorism is nationalist by nature.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And?

I can think whatever I want about what various people deserve, so long as I don't commit aggression against them.

As long as you remain powerless in society you can call yourself an optimal libertarian despite having tons of aggressive thoughts/wishes/ideas.

It's an interesting gambit, especially if you've resigned yourself to being a loser for life already. But unfortunately it doesn't work. Your support of aggression against real people definitely has a blame-worthy (and easily arguably fault-worthy) effect, no matter how insignificant you feel you are.
---

Welp now Muffin has to wait another 450 posts before bringing out his true self in these topics again.

I wonder if ZX will show up again too. Apparently he's an asset to the nationalist movement somehow?
---

vlado is trans
---