Conservative Internet Idiots Mega Thread
- Thread starter Berniewood Hogan
- Start date
All the pawgs in michigan in this bish was Ms Michigan. Who dikk she sucked
Extremely racist
So you have to be "violently inclined" to be a Nazi, Confederate, or KKK?
No, of course not,
as I read it, it's saying if you are a conservative, even a hard line conservative, a Trump supporter, but aren't condoning, approving, of violence, like El Paso, Tree of Life, Poway, Gilroy, speak up, in the case that they are in those circles, digitally or otherwise.
So then you agree with @Gus Money 's post that the times has called for Nazi's (hard line conservative, a Trump supporter, but aren't condoning, approving, of violence, like El Paso, Tree of Life, Poway, Gilroy) to police (speak up) Nazi's
Unless you would like to redefine Nazi's as intending to cause violence or approving of violence, I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. You're trying to play both sides with hate groups.
I guess I am not seeing where we wouldn't want that. I agree, the entire demographic is nauseating, I agree whomever put that editorial together probably isn't on the front lines of progressive policies. I am not going to tirelessly defend an editorial, I just don't see where the red flag is. You want someone who is maybe on those message boards, or on those Facebook groups, who thinks someone is going to commit a massacre to call the FBI. That's all it was saying. Of course those people are all trash, it goes without saying.
how about those people on those message boards a) not participate in those message boards b) change their ideologies c) become better people d) learn from others who aren't shytheads like them e) help other shytheads no longer be shytheads THEN f) call the copsThe issue is that the editorial thinks being a Confederate is ok up until the point you blow someone's brains out. The ideology is disgusting and morally barren from it's inception. Calling the cops on a mass shooter is not a solution for the root cause of the problem.
For me that goes without saying, I don't expect an editorial to deep dive into how we can "change" those people infected, honestly I don't think it's possible, and the editorial board of the NY Times is probably not going to have those conversations. But, Charles Blow's column said as much.
Dorian Breh
Veteran
First off someone needs to go see about this clown @ Jack 
He better stay the fukk out west because I'm rolling up to Provoc with the timbs laced if I hear he's trying to have a good time in the city
Second, @tru_m.a.c and @re'up you guys just going back and forth about the value of "dialogue".
White moderates like the Times seem to think that we can shame people who are "WS-adjacent" into standing up for morality. On the other hand, there's certainly a question about how you can be "WS-adjacent" and not just a part of the movement.
The model is fighting Islamic terrorism. Many followers of Islam are dismayed at the bad reputation created for their faith by the acts of extremists. The feds got these highly observant but not extremist Islamic people to start snitching on funny style extremists at their mosques.
But I also question whether you can apply a similar model to white supremacy. To me, white supremacy is significantly more toxic than radical islam because it is a truly nihilistic and baseless faith. Caliphate's have existed in the past, some of them actually did an okay job.
But there has never been a successful "white ethnostate". Successful European countries have always required the culture and learning of more advanced cultures as the foundation for their success, whether we are talking about Opium trading or the Pruthenian Tablets or even just horsemanship.
So while you can be a deeply observant follower of Islam who does not support extremist terrorism, it's harder to imagine someone who dabbles in white suoremacy but isn't with all the shooting. That just sounds like being scary.
He better stay the fukk out west because I'm rolling up to Provoc with the timbs laced if I hear he's trying to have a good time in the city
Second, @tru_m.a.c and @re'up you guys just going back and forth about the value of "dialogue".
White moderates like the Times seem to think that we can shame people who are "WS-adjacent" into standing up for morality. On the other hand, there's certainly a question about how you can be "WS-adjacent" and not just a part of the movement.
The model is fighting Islamic terrorism. Many followers of Islam are dismayed at the bad reputation created for their faith by the acts of extremists. The feds got these highly observant but not extremist Islamic people to start snitching on funny style extremists at their mosques.
But I also question whether you can apply a similar model to white supremacy. To me, white supremacy is significantly more toxic than radical islam because it is a truly nihilistic and baseless faith. Caliphate's have existed in the past, some of them actually did an okay job.
But there has never been a successful "white ethnostate". Successful European countries have always required the culture and learning of more advanced cultures as the foundation for their success, whether we are talking about Opium trading or the Pruthenian Tablets or even just horsemanship.
So while you can be a deeply observant follower of Islam who does not support extremist terrorism, it's harder to imagine someone who dabbles in white suoremacy but isn't with all the shooting. That just sounds like being scary.
I interpreted the response as saying that people who sympathize with white nationalists have presumably approved of the violence of white nationalism, so it's pointless to ask them to be the ones to then police that violence when it's acted out. White nationalism is inherently violent from what I've seen/read.
Basically saying if someone like a poster on here who is known for his extreme anti immigration beliefs, found himself chatting with someone who had decided to take that into his hands by killing immigrants, you want the former to step forward, and call the FBI. That poster is a lot of things, but I think he is not in favor of massacres.
@Gus Money
@Gus Money
I understand your sentiment but people with extremely anti immigration views usually have other other far right beliefs too, and the far right is inherently linked with violence. How much sympathy did you see for immigrants after the El Paso shooting from those on the far right?
Plus, the NYT article concluded by saying:
It can't be both ways. You can't sympathize with an inherently violent ideology and be asked or expected to call those people out for being violent. If someone has such extreme beliefs to the point that they sympathize with white nationalism then it's not worth it to even hope for them to come forward like that (unless they've changed their views for the better). They've already cosigned the violence.
There's a few guys trying.
Former neo-Nazi who gets others out: NPR Choice page
Black blues musician who converts KKK members: NPR Choice page
How David Duke's godson, the heir apparent to st0rmfr0nt, was pulled out of the movement by a Jew https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...5f906a-8f3b-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html