Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?

[Anonymous]

[englisc]

It's not true. Those who want to push this message only do so because they have an anti-white agenda, and they want to say that white people are the "real" threat because admitting that Islamic terrorists are the biggest threat harms their agenda. It goes against the idea that mass immigration and multi-culturalism are good for Europe and the US.

The way they manipulate statistics is pretty obvious to people who see what's going on. Now in fact often they won't even reveal the identity of people who commit attacks, unless they're white. Sometimes they even go a step further and labels someone white when they really weren't at all. This guy for example:

Khalid Masood, the guy who attacked Westminster in the UK. The BBC described him as a bald, heavy-set white man in their reports. This is what most news outlets do now, avoid describing the race or religion or the perp - unless they're white. In countries like Sweden for example they've even gone a step further and banned the police from giving all descriptions altogether, in case it might make people racist.

www.independent.co.uk/.../...-racist-a6810311.html

Why would they do that? Because the public would notice that the majority of the perpetrators weren't Swedes. When it comes to rape for example, 58% of rapes in Sweden - the rape capital of Europe - were perpetrated by foreign-born men.

https://www.BBC.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764

Here in the UK we had similar events happen, with the cover ups of the Islamic grooming gangs. For 16+ years groups of Pakistani Muslims groomed and predated on thousands of underaged white girls, raping them, pimping them out. As people tried to bring this to light the social services, police and politicians did all they could to cover it up. They even tried to have people jailed for "inciting racial hatred" for trying to expose what was going on. Yet after those 16 years it was impossible to keep it covered up anymore:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

It didn't just happen in Rotherham but in many other towns and cities in the UK. The only reason this came to light was because their attempts to sweep it under the rug and pretend that it wasn't happening failed, or else we still wouldn't know.

And that's the point - the left want to keep up this narrative that white people are the evil ones by pretending that other groups are no threat. They do this by manipulating, lying, and false reporting.

[hellionthesagereborn]

um. . . no. Just no. Also you can't claim things happening in the past ten years is some how Trumps fault who hasn't even been in office for a full term let alone ten years. What is causing a lot of problems is that we have an incredibly dishonest and racist media who try to hype up any violence they see as long as its white inflicted. Currently in the US the group that commits the most hate crimes per population are blacks. The group with the largest hate group in the US are blacks. The group that commits the most mass shootings are blacks followed by Asians. The group that commits the most murders are again, blacks, same goes with violent crimes in general. Just because the media refuses to report this doesn't make it not true. Look for instance in Sweden where they said that its whites who are causing all of these problems that started occurring once they started brining in migrants. They had a report that showed that rape for men and women, murder, assaults etc. all increased with the increase of migrants so the government stated they where no longer allowed to make these surveys and studies any more because they where "racist". If you look at England the same thing was going on but again if you say anything they will arrest you and put you in prison (they have more police monitoring twitter and facebook for "hate speech" then they do actually policing the streets). London has had an increase in migrants and along with it acid attacks, stabbings (so sever that African immigrants are sending their children back to Africa because its safer their then in LONDON), rapes, gun crime etc. We know the source of the problem and it has nothing to do with whites except in that the whites at the top are not holding certain groups to the same rules as others. All of this however has been happening for a lot longer then Trump has been around (also I'd like to point out that Christians are the most discriminated group globally and its orchestrated almost exclusively by muslim extremists yet of course no one wishes to talk about it).

[Starrk]

Surely you can back a lot of those stats particularly the one about hate groups being mostly black, mass shooting offenders being mostly Black and Asian and hate crimes offenders being mostly black.

Also, I would like to see the study where it concluded that Christians are the most discriminated group globally. In my mind, I always assumed it was the group that Muslims, Christians, and so many demographics have a mutual dislike for, which is homosexuals, but apparently, you have some knowledge that proves my initial opinion wrong. I would love to see how the most dominant group in 4 different continents is the victim of the most discrimination globally.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk Obviously and you know that just as you know you will dismiss any and all statements I make because they don't fit your ideological beliefs because as you have demonstrated many times in the past, your beliefs are more important to you then the truth. See when people like you claim its only whites or predominantly whites, you don't take into account population sizes and distributions. See its kind of like claiming Asians are the most inclined towards mass shootings. . . in asia. Well obviously, they are going to commit the most. The question is who is committing the most PER POPULATION SIZE which no one on the left wants to talk about because it would prove how incredibly racist they actually are (by acting as if one, whites are evil (they are not), and two, by downplaying minorities (only minorities because they live in white nations, globally they are the majority and their nations are far less immigrant friendly so they have even more people of their ethnicity/race because of that))). So out of 111 shootings only 62(and this is coming from mother jones a far left sources) where actually white. That's less then the total percentage of whites in the US (about 63-64%), blacks on the other hand are at more then their population size (of about 13%(they commited about 20 of the shootings). In fact here is a source that actually points out that I was in fact wrong, native americans are more likely followed by Asians then blacks then whites then Hispanics (based upon population size): https://archive.org/details/Cmx4pI0UIAEvwZI

[hellionthesagereborn]

Here is the FBI database that shows that blacks commit more crimes in general (which I'm sure your going to claim is racist or not true or some how is all white peoples fault (because you think that blacks are so beneath whites that they cannot be held accountable for their actions like whites can (which is incredibly racist on your part but its almost certainly the argument your going to make as this is the argument that is most frequently made in this regard): ucr.fbi.gov/.../table-21

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk Here are the FBI statistics showing that almost 25% of hate crimes are commited by blacks despite them being only 13% of the population: ucr.fbi.gov/.../offenders_final
Here is one on them having the largest active hate group in the country: economiccollapsenews.com/.../
Here is one showing that Christians are most discriminated against (because despite popular belief Christians don't kill gays generally speaking. In fact gay killings are almost unheard of in the US as in almost every case the motive was completely unrelated to the person being gay (despite media trying to push that narrative (like for the Orlando shooter who actually was unaware that he shot up a gay club as he stated his motivation was to hurt America and kill as many americans just as America has done to the middle east i. e. nothing to do with them being gay)): www.washingtonexaminer.com/christians-are-the-worlds-most-persecuted-religion-heres-how-they-react-under-fire
https://ucs.nd.edu/report/#report

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk As for your claim of being the most dominant here is the racial breakdown:
As you can see white are not the dominant group, Asians are (east Asians and south Asians on their own make up substantially more of the human population then those of European decent do). Whites are only 2% more then Africans (not counting north Africans which if included their are more Africans then Europeans).
As for religious demographics its true that Christianity is slightly more common then Islam, however Christianity doesn't call for the beheading and murder of non believers (yes I'm sure you can point out how over four hundred years ago this was not the case (and ignore the fact that this behavior was common in many cultures and even then far less common in Christianity then in other religions like Islam but because it happened all those centuries ago it still some how holds true today because "reasons")) and as we can see discrimination occurs far far less in Christian nations then in ANY other (for instance we see rampant discrimination in socialist nations like Russia and china however they are fare more atheistic. If we look at the middle east as the data shows they discriminate even more as does Africans (with their past and currently occurring genocides of whites and neighboring tribes etc.). So now I'm sure your going to tell me how all this data is entirely incorrect (and I find it interesting how you act as if being the majority automatically makes some one a bad person, that is logically flawed. Just because a group is dominant doesn't mean they are evil or bad (otherwise you would be far more racist towards Asians then whites so even by your own rational that doesn't make sense (as you have tried to argue that demographics of population determine discrimination which again, as I have pointed out is absolutely not the case (and really, logically that just doesn't make sense).

[Starrk]

Okay, there is a lot to unravel here, but off rip, I see a lot of misconceptions and false information. But first of all, I love how you set the narrative by saying that I'm going to automatically disagree with you in an effort to push my agenda. That is wrong. I'm going to agree where you're right and disagree where you are flat out wrong. As long you provide objective stats then you have nothing to worry about, but if your argument is shit, well I will call you out on it.

First. You claimed that Christians were the most discriminated group globally, however, your sources clearly said that they are the most persecuted RELIGIOUS GROUP. That my friend is a huge distinction between what you said and what your source said. While they are the most persecuted religious group that doesn't mean they are the most discriminated group in general.

Second. Black Americans do not commit the most crimes "in general". They are convicted for the majority of violent crimes but violent crimes does not equal crime in general. When you incorporate all crimes including petty crimes and white-collar crimes then the racial demographics does a 180 with White Americans being the main perpetrator. That FBI crime stat link that you provided even indicated such.
Total arrested = 8,421,481
Whites arrested = 5,858,330
Black arrested = 2,263,112

[Starrk]

Third, you make the claim that the largest active hate group in the nation is perpetrated by blacks. While I can see why you made that claim, your claim is being very disingenuous.

The main reason why Black hate groups account for such a large percentage is that the methodology behind producing these groups combine all-black hate groups under the single moniker of Black Nationalist. Meanwhile, White hate groups such as the KKK, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazi, Skinheads, are given their own separate distinction despite the fact they are all groups that share very similar ideologies behind how they view non-whites.

According to the SPLC in 2018, there are about 264 Black Nationalist hate groups. 51 KKK hate groups, 63 Skinheads hate groups, 148 White Nationalist hate groups, 112 Neo-Nazi hate groups, and 36 Neo-Confederate hate groups. When you combine all these White hate groups together you get a total of 410 Active Hate Groups that are run by whites.

So while your post is partially correct that Black Nationalist account for a large number of hate groups, please understand that such stat is attributed to how the SPLC splits white hate groups into smaller splinter groups.

www.splcenter.org/hate-map

[Starrk]

Fourth, it seems you misinterpreted my "most dominant group" comment. That was not related to race. I was talking about Christianity. Christantinity is the most dominate religion on 4 continents (Europe, North/South America, Australia).

But anyway, since you brought it up, that chart is wrong or at least how you are interpreting it is wrong. That chart does not distinguish race despite what the title of it says. East Asian, Middle Eastern, North African, European, Latino, Amerindian are not racial terminology. Those are Demonym with some of them such as Latino being a term to demonstrate ethnicity, not race. If we were talking about race, Middle Easterns, North Africans, some Latinos, Europeans, and Amerindian would all fall under the racial category of Caucasian.

[Starrk]

Now to your claim about mass shootings. After looking over the data, you are actually correct in this regard. When looking purely in relation to population size, White Americans commit mass shootings at a lesser rate than their racial minority counterpart. While they are indeed responsible for most mass shootings in the nation, like you already touched on that is to be expected since the US is composed mostly of white Americans.

The same also applies to hate crime stats. White Americans account for the majority of hate crimes in general. But when that stat takes into account population size, White Americans commit fewer hate crimes than what you would expect.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk I've not set a "narrative", I stated exactly what will happen and you have proceeded to do just that (as you always do). Now for your claims of blacks sepratists, again, you are ignoring population which was my point, they are a massive group despite the tiny population size. As always you attempt to misconstrue and misrepresent information. Now I cannot say whether or not its included all the different black hate groups, all I can state is what the data says and the population size (which was my primary point) and again, the data shows they are far more likely to commit hate crimes etc. etc. So as I said, your going to ignore every single piece of data you don't like, spin it when you can't ignore it, and then play it off like some how your ideological narrative is some how proven (its not.). This is what you do, every single time. Its rather tiring.

[Starrk]

No, you did set up a narrative. What you did is no different from when kids say "Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or gay" after they said something clearly wrong.

This comment that you made here...

"Obviously and you know that you will dismiss any and all statements I make because they don't fit your ideological beliefs"

Is no different from the kid analogy accept that your way of setting the narrative is more subtle, but it still follows the same format. You make an argument that you know is going to be challenged so before anyone can challenge your wrong argument, you foreshadow by inserting little snarky comments in your original argument that essentially attacks anyone who would potentially challenge your argument.

So like I said before, you were setting the narrative. But it's all good. I was actually expecting such from you.

[Starrk]

"Now for your claims of blacks sepratists, again, you are ignoring population which was my point, they are a massive group despite the tiny population size."

Now you're moving the goalpost. Your argument regarding population size was in regard to crime stats such as hate crimes and violent crimes/mass shootings ONLY. Your previous post said Black separatist is the largest hate group in the nation. Not once did you mention Population size in regard to that specific comment until now. It's clear as day that you were going by the raw numbers provided by your source. And it wasn't until NOW that you realized your comment was trash so now you're trying to backpedal by moving the goalpost and then lecturing me about how I'm in wrong.

Also, I don't see how I spin or ignore data I disagree with when I actually agreed with you on several key points. Stop being such a sensitive snowflake who gets offended when someone doesn't agree with you on everything you say.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk Their you go again, making things up. No, what was stated was that this is statistical data, you ignore statistical data all the time, I pointed this out in order to just hammer home the pointlessness of speaking to you as you will ALWAYS choose narrative over truth, no exception. You then proceeded to claim this is a narrative then do EXACTLY as I said you would. I never said your not allowed to disagree or your stupid, I stated this is the objective fact backed by empirical evidence beyond that you can do what ever you want. The fact is if it was opinion, your more then welcome to disagree, but its not opinion its fact. So you complaining that I'm creating a "narrative" by stating that the sky is observably blue and its scientifically verifiable is nothing more then an attempt to cover for your own bias's. We are done here, as I stated very clearly and concisely and provided all the evidence to back it, blacks commit more hate crimes, they have the fastest growing hate group they have (arguably as I can neither disprove or prove your claim) the largest hate group in the US, they (provably) commit twice as many hate crimes per capita as any other group etc. etc. You can make believe all you want, I don't particularly care, but you will be wrong when you try to ignore the truth in favor of ideology. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

[Starrk]

My god can you stop crying for one second. I swear this is your shtick every single time someone tries to engage you in a discussion. You always accuse them of ignoring data when in actuality you're the one whose misinterpreting the data and inferring far more from the data then what is present. When that doesn't work then you start to insult them by ranting about how their character is flawed instead of defending your stance. Stop crying all the time. It wasn't cute then and it damn sure isn't cute now.

As for your argument once again you are using stats to create a narrative that was never confirmed by your source. You claimed Blacks have the fastest growing hate group. Where in your source was this stated? Because I'm currently scanning all those links you posted and I don't see anything about the rate of growth of these hate groups.

You claimed they have the largest active hate group. That may be true when you separate the various white nationalist groups into splinter groups as your source did, but when you combine all the white hate groups, this argument falls right on its face as the number of white hate groups combine far outnumber any other hate group in this country.

You claimed that Blacks (probably) commit twice as many hate crimes as other groups. Now please explain to me what mathematical equation did you use to come to the conclusion that they commit twice as many hate crimes or is that just some trash you created? Even when you factor in their population size that logic still does not stand to scrutiny.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk Yeah your right I'm the one who doesn't read the data, not you, "Black Separatist is most active hate group in U. S., KKK is second" title of the article. it then goes on to say they are most active. Listen your an idiot. I don't know how else to get through to you, the data is their your ignoring and I'm done speaking to some one who just refuses to think. Blacks make up 13% of the population, they are responsible for 26% of hate crimes ergo they commit twice as many hate crimes per capita, more so in fact as whites commit only about 50% despite being 63% of the population. Your an ideolog that refuse to listen refuses to accept data, refuses to acknowledge your own ignorance. We are done talking, you don't listen, you ignore the FBI data, CDC/NCVS, you ignore what CNN and Mother Jones says both of which are on the extreme left (I actively sought out neutral or left leaning sources because I know you would dismiss them otherwise and even then you dismiss them). So again, we are done because you are intellectually dishonest and completely absorbed into your own ideological beliefs. Any questions you have, you can look at the sources and get your answers to ignore their.

[Starrk]

First of all. I love how you low key dropped your previous stance on Black Supremacist groups having the fastest growth rate. I guess you realize that argument had no substance behind it.

Second. Re-read my post and show me where I said you were wrong on Black supremacist groups being the largest. I never said you were wrong, but I did say you were being disingenuous in how you were presenting that fact.

While what you are saying about Black Supremacist groups is a fact, it is also a fact that the only reason why they are the largest active hate group is because the various white hate groups are separated amongst 4-5 different groups thus diminishing their overall number. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while Black Supremacists makes up the largest singular group. MOST hate groups in the US are white hate groups.

"Blacks make up 13% of the population, they are responsible for 26% of hate crimes ergo"

First of all, how did it go to 26% when in your previous post you clearly said it was "ALMOST 25%? Did you seriously just fabricate data in front of me simply so you could prove your false stance on Blacks accounting for twice the hate number? And you have the audacity to call someone else an idiot.

Anyway, your numbers are wrong. I noticed this on one of your previous links. You were using FBI data from 2013 which put the number 24.3%. The most recent stats from the FBI is from 2017 and it puts the percentage of hate crimes perpetrated by Black Americans at 21%. So once again you're wrong and being dishonest with this data.

ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/offenders

"So again, we are done because you are intellectually dishonest and completely absorbed into your own ideological beliefs. "

This means a lot coming from the guy who fabricated data simply so it could agree with his prejudice. :)

[MzAsh]

Civilians feel more threatened by domestic terrorism by shopping at their local retail store than anything else.

[1truekhaleesi]

Whether people like it or not, statistically speaking white people are a bigger threat.

[Stoner710]

Whites are not tourists just like not all Arabs are terrorists just like not all black people are terrorists. People murder each other on a daily basis and we just don’t hear about it it’s spans all races and all sexes in every country in the world shall we get into how many people Islam has killed over the years shall I get into what antifa does I destroying cars and buildings are not letting people speak freely.

True terrace are people who are a part of with antifa the KKK isis alkida the Chinese government

[Thatsamazing]

..."tourists?" "terrace?"

[Stoner710]

@Thatsamazing that’s what I get for using the voice talk to type. Terrorist

[Asker]

Stoner-Dude: terrorists are terrorists, regardless of race, but the reality is, here's now a large % of whites who are terrorists. Check out this link, fool (https://www. vox. com/a/mass-shootings-america-sandy-hook-gun-violence). Just keep smoking that ganja, dude; pot's known to chill out one's white rage so it's likely you'll be too stoned to pick up a gun and become another white terrorist. (Here's thanks, ahead of time)!

[Stoner710]

I have multiple guns never killed any human (killed a few coyotes who were after my chickens ).
Yes anyone from any race can be a terrorist however we arrest and put terrorist in jail if all whites were terrorist every white person on earth would be prosecuted and set to prison, however since unlike you people don’t generalize so your average white guy drinking a beer on his porch isn’t arrested

[Starrk]

Now to your claim about mass shootings. After looking over the data, you are actually correct in this regard. When looking purely in relation to population size, White Americans commit mass shootings at a lesser rate than their racial minority counterpart. While they are indeed responsible for most mass shootings in the nation, like you already touched on that is to be expected since the US is composed mostly of white Americans.

The same also applies to hate crime stats. White Americans account for the majority of hate crimes in general. But when that stat takes into account population size, White Americans commit fewer hate crimes than what you would expect.

[goaded]

Christ on a stick. What a stupid framing!

"Since Trump, white people are the new form of terrorists & "officially", whites are now a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners?"

It's before Trump, as well, he's just making it worse, and of course white nationalist terrorists are "a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners" BECAUSE THEY ARE DOMESTIC (not from abroad)!

There is no doubt that US domestic terrorists are mostly white nationalists, and the diskhead yesterday was no exception.

[FakeName123]

Plenty of muslims shoot up or bomb a place or bring a truck of peace and it's only single individuals doing bad things.

A handful of white people do something similar bad and white people are now the new form of terrorists.

Can't make this shit up.

[Anonymous]

But all those terrorists acted way before Trump went to power.
And Anders Breivik and Brenton Tarrant aren't even US citizens.
Please stop being so Americentric, what happens in the USA doesn't concern us anymore and the USA should stay out of European and Asian affairs.

[Asker]

You should simply stay off our American Made Website!

[Opinion Owner]

Founder is actually Turkish

[Opinion Owner]

Rude and ignorant American, your President represents you very well!

[Asker]

[Opinion Owner]

Troll and Trumper confirmed, you are an altrightist. Disgusting.

[Opinion Owner]

You are actually a Nazi and white supremacist, so your opinion is invalid.

[Opinion Owner]

Reported for trolling and racism.

[Opinion Owner]

I know who you are.
I had you pre-emptively blocked because you kept posting your disgusting perversions and political bullshit on my posts, thinking you were funny or something while you are just a pervert and an harasser.

[mattdzz]

No, Muslims are still the most dangerous terrorist demographic. White only have a higher number of crimes because they're 60 plus percent of the population, and commit proportionally far less crime than blacks.

[goaded]

Learn the difference between foreign and domestic.

[mattdzz]

@goaded The line gets blurred with refugees and their children. Still, my point stands.

[goaded]

Are you suggesting that refugees and their children are committing terrorist acts in the US?

[mattdzz]

@goaded Are you pretending that Sharia Law is not practiced in my home-state of Michigan, or that Somali refugees didn't volunteer en masse for Alqaeda, ISIS, and Al Shabab? Or that their communities didn't donate huge amounts of money for jihad?

[goaded]

No. I've no idea of any of those things. Why don't you show me some evidence of it.

[mattdzz]

@goaded www.cnn.com/.../index.html
www.foxnews.com/.../how-rep-ilhan-omars-minnesota-district-became-the-terrorist-recruitment-capital-of-the-us-officials-highly-concerned
Dearborn is well known for practicing Sharia law, has had several FGM cases brought up, as well as supporting morality police, none of which the media will admit to, but you can go down for an afternoon and see Sharia readily on display.

[goaded]

You need to look up the meaning of "en masse", 45 from a comunity of 100,000 over 12 years isn't that.

I wonder, do you feel the same way about the Amish; that they shouldn't be allowed to stay apart and follow their own traditions as long as they don't break secular laws?

I agree that it's unfortunate that they're not better integrating into society, but I don't think treating them all as suspected terrorists, rather than just the 0.05% of them who have become radicalised, will help with that.

[mattdzz]

@goaded Only a small percentage of the US population is an active military personnel; doesn't mean that a majority don't support them. Same with the IRA.

[Wolframium]

Well…yeah… :-D Because those people live there! Any fanatical extremist muslim would most likely have to get there first. But…he already has enemies where he is.
And…to be honest, cars are way worse. Cars kill way more people. Or poverty. But „nobody“ talks about this, because it's too abstract, I guess, no big singular event with lots of dead.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Technically this has been true since well before Trump. It just got a little more in the public eye after DJT, since all the basement-dwelling misanthropes now feel like it's okay to come out of hiding.

[Guanfei]

Lol. Muslims killed more people in terrorists attacks since 2015 than "white people" in 20. American leftists are just completely nuts, they want to point the "white man" as a threat while totally ignoring the rest.

[Asker]

When you wake up retard, read the statistics regarding white terrorists, this will include the klan, skinheads, a large % of the police force, our current government & your mama!

[Guanfei]

Sure thing, they also include people from the future and other dimensions too. Go back sucking islamist dicks, that's all you're good for.

[IreallyhateGAG]

Report this post let's get it removed because it is completely filled with lies.

[mateynine]

@IreallyhateGAG Oy vey, someone is saying something I don't like! SHUT IT DOWN. #wrongthink

[Asker]

@IreallyhateGAG / My posts should scare little boys like you... (or I'm not doing my job)!

[YHL6965]

Maybe it's because there are way more whites that Muslims, don't you think? Besides, as long as the USA don't take mental health seriously, mass shootings will never stop. I don't see what Trump has to do with all of this. Also, first guy in the video is not even American nor did he perpetrated his attack on American soil.

[Thatsamazing]

1) "Since Trump" is irrelevant since they've been more dangerous in the U. S. since far before Trump got into office. Like, for the last twenty years.
2) You didn't actually ask a question in your post title. Try harder next time.

[Thatsamazing]

@RobLovesDemi1234 Here, I think this may help you out, since you seem to be missing things from previous comments, somehow. proliteracy.org/Get-Involved/Find-a-Program

I suppose another issue would be rather than an inability to read, that you just need glasses? There should be an optometrist near you that can offer you services. Really, where are you from? We should always try to help people in life... and you, clearly, are in desperate need of help.

Oh, and also relevant to your situation now: Blocking someone who disagrees with you means you're stupid. ↗

[Asker]

No shit, Sherlock. There's" no question" regarding how dangerous & out of control white people have become. Your dad should've tried harder to become a more attractive queen; this would've prevented his semen, (your birth) from taking root.

[Asker]

Sorry, but I stopped reading after - "Here, I think this may help you"...

[Thatsamazing]

Oh it's you! Ahahah oh man you're hilarious. I like you. Anyway, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to the @RobLovesDemi1234 moron, which is pretty obvious since I have that at the beginning of the comment. The initial comment was indeed for your benefit, since your post is rather dumb.

[IreallyhateGAG]

No because there is not even a little bit of truth in what you said. 911, San Bernadino shooting and Pulse Nightclub combined 3 events all done by Muslims took way more lives than any white person ever did.

[Asker]

Check the stats, cowboy!

www.salon.com/.../

[IreallyhateGAG]

And I am still right because Muslims have killed more innocent people than anyone else in the US since I been alive. People like you wanna post stupid things like this and what is that doing other than creating more right wing nuts to go out and do something crazy?

[ManOnFire]

Whites were the biggest threat even before Trump and Muslims. Hell, look at what they did to the native Americans. The Spanish were a major threat over here to the natives too.

[mateynine]

Throughout history every race has done terrible things to others so I guess everyone should be considered a threat.

[White-American89]

Good which proves Trump's immigration policy works.
Statistically going by incarceration figures young black males are the biggest domestic terror groups

[Asker]

Uhm, shit-head; whities implement mass murders, thus creating the "terrorist" effect. Stop thinking about trump's (minus) 1-inch dick; it's clearly interfering with your thought process, hoss.

[_baresecret_]

Told you you were racists 😂😂

[White-American89]

The few mass murders can't match the murder rate in the hood.
https://youtu.be/ZXBMQKnpj6s

[_baresecret_]

Can't believe a person can be that stupid💀💀

[White-American89]

@_baresecret_ exactly, and his momma cried (In the ghetto)😥

[_baresecret_]

lmao I don't know what you're taking about

[White-American89]

@_baresecret_ in the ghetto

[Miristheiss]

?
Leftists and all of their race baiting, group identity crap.
What miserable oeople.

[Miristheiss]

"People"

[clonesclone]

This isn't a "leftist", retard. It's a Muslim.

[Metallsturm]

> 10 years of white terror
> 1400 years of islamic terror

top kek

[Anonymous]

Only true if you don’t count the major terror attacks and on a per capita basis completely false as well at a rate of roughly 10x worse for self identifying Muslims.

[Asker]

Mom, please stay off this website... it's really embarrassing.

[Opinion Owner]

What’s embarrassing is having an obsession with Trump

She doth protest too much.

[Asker]

Mom,,, just stop, like totally stop now!

[Asker]

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah. I think that pretty accurately depicts you , well done

[Asker]

[Opinion Owner]

I like your persistence

[Asker]

[purplepoppy]

Oh great now we're competing on who's got the better terrorists

[Asker]

White people do, hands down.

[RationalMale]

Liberals love to quote figures about how so few Americans have been killed by islamic terrorists in the last ten years... it's easy to do when you just assign the Ford Hood shooting, or San Bernadino, or Pulse Nightclub, all under other categories.

[RolandCuthbert]

This could be an interesting discussion if you weren't anonymous.

[Asker]

For you, I'll un-anonymous myself. (below, that's me!)

[RolandCuthbert]

It is interesting that the only person you found time to respond to is me.

[slatyb]

Now? Same as it ever was. White domestic terrorists have killed many more people in the US than foreign terrorists.

[IreallyhateGAG]

911, San Bernadino and Pulse Nightclub more innocents killed by Muslims than any race in recent times,

[0112358]

@IreallyhateGAG 9/11 is the biggest. Second biggest with Timothy McVeigh.

Anti-government right wing has been running a strong second to islamofascists for a few decades.

[IreallyhateGAG]

@0112358 If that is true Muslims still got the top spot so this fucking post is irrelevant.

[0112358]

@IreallyhateGAG I don't know what the last 2-3 years look like, but for quite a while it's been islamist 1 white nationalist/anti government 2. The ratio was maybe 2:1. After that a big drop off before any other group.

Trump's right to say that islamist terror shouldn't be swept under the rug. What's unfortunate is that he absolute has encouraged security agencies to ignore right wing terror.

Agencies should be able to cover both. And need to. Nobody wants another Oklahoma city bombing, or worse, just like we don't want to see another 9/11.

[Anonymous]

They always have been. Dating back to when they formed armies and tried to conquer lands. And slaughtered people. There has been no bigger terrorist threat to make kind than white people

[Anonymous]

WOW Killing people is now a competition. Congrats , you're no different that people that hate Muslims.

Can't wait for the clever meme or gif

[Asker]

Service with a "smile".

[clonesclone]

Social media made it more difficult for them to cover up Islamic terrorist attacks, so they just tried to rebrand terrorism as yet another tool to attack European people with.

[Asker]

Yeah, because Euros are so fucking innocent! They only started mass-slavery, the genocide of the Native American race, plagued & exploited every resource of Mother Nature and worst of all, fucking Bluegrass & Western Music! Can't white-wash your flat-ass out of this one, Howdy Doody!

[clonesclone]

Not an argument.

[Asker]

It's beyond an argument, Boss Hog; it's the rude awakening truth!

[IreallyhateGAG]

The worst is these PC idiots saying that if Muslims commit a terrorist attack that the fact that they were Muslim should be told to the public. I mean these people are out of their minds.

[IreallyhateGAG]

should not be told to the public*

[IreallyhateGAG]

@supercutebutt I know you are the anon. You give yourself away.

[Asker]

@IreallyhateGAG

[IreallyhateGAG]

I know it is you

[supercutebutt]

@IreallyhateGAG You do?

[IreallyhateGAG]

@supercutebutt You have 2 accounts then because I know this is you.

[supercutebutt]

@IreallyhateGAG Well you are wrong. Good try, though.

[Asker]

@IreallyhateGAG

[IreallyhateGAG]

Even if it isn't you it is still some left wing extremist who is wasting their life dedicating it to the wrong things in the world so same difference.

[supercutebutt]

@IreallyhateGAG Hahaha, you are so stupid. The only "extremists" here are the Trumptards like yourself. I'm a moderate who sees Trump for what he is: a dope who panders to the poorly educated community for his own personal gain.

[WTFever]

You mean like the Antifa dumbass that died in a shootout with police while trying to firebomb a federal facility in Washington state?

[Waffles731]

the vast majority of domestic terror attacks have been perpertrated by Right Wingers...

[goaded]

Did he kill anyone?

[WTFever]

@goaded Just myself in the firefight he had with the police that stopped the attack.

[goaded]

So, no, he was killed by the police.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@Waffles731 So that makes firebombing an ICE facility okay?

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz Of course not, just a hell of a lot better than shooting random innocent people out shopping or at prayer.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded Not really. If he had succeeded in blowing up the propane tanks he was aiming for he could have done much more damage, our saving grace was that he was old and sucked. But that's not even the point.

*It's all bad, you dunce*

Don't give us that what-about-ism. Both extremes are awful, so don't make it about the nebulous evil "right-wingers". Both left and right extremes are fully of utterly cancerous identitarians. Whether it's low-grade frequent terrorism like antifa or high-grade infrequent terrorism like shooting or bombings from a well equipped white supremacist or Islamist, it all sucks. You don't get to commit political violence full stop.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz I think you're ignoring some important details.

A Neo-Nazi or White Supremacist rally is low-grade terrorism; ask any Jew or person of colour if they feel safe around people whose stated purpose is to subjugate them, if not outright exterminate them.

When people protest them, it's the protesters who are the ones who get shot, or stabbed, or run over.

You're right, it all sucks, but in this round of political violence, not a single right-winger has been killed unless they were in the process of killing other people. And if you can't see that that's a huge difference, there's something wrong with you.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded "ask any Jew or person of colour if they feel safe around people whose stated purpose is to subjugate them"
You're not entitled to *feel* safe. You're entitled to standards of safety and here that means civility and law-abiding.
Similarly, anything Jews or non-whites do could be considered terrorism by these people and they're entitled to the same things. And again, none of that would excuse antifa. So even if you considered a nazi rally (of which are few and far between) to be terrorism, antifa is *at least* equally bad.

"When people protest them, it's the protesters who are the ones who get shot, or stabbed, or run over."
Only in the sense that they start fights and then can't finish them. Antifa, have been very well documented as instigators and aggressors in most of these violent situations. You see more random attacks against Trump supporters than from them. You see antifa beating people with crowbars for carrying an American flag or cracking random people over the head with bike locks. They call anyone who doesn't agree with them a Nazi and then throw punches then get rolled if they don't have overwhelming numbers.

They turn up in black bloc ffs. The whole point of that is to facilitate doing illegal shit.

"not a single right-winger has been killed unless they were in the process of killing other people"
So you're just assuming that people who these lone wolf attackers kill are all leftists? No. Think before you type.
No *organization* has killed anyone on either side. Even including the recent shooting at Dayton. That's one dude, not antifa.
But it's primarily, if not almost entirely antifa who organize to attack people and destroy things.
So do *you* see the difference when it's a widespread, organized, concerted effort to hurt and silence people? Antifa's stated purpose is to subjugate, if not outright exterminate and they *actually* try to do those things -- that's the difference.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz "You're entitled to standards of safety and here that means civility and law-abiding."
Civility? You think claiming the Jews/(((You))) "will not replace us" is civil? How about surrounding and threatening counter-protesters who are holding hands and chanting? You should probably also look at what constitutes assault - "An assault is an act that causes a person to fear a battery, an offensive, unwanted touching. The normal elements of assault are:

An intentional act that puts another person in reasonable fear of offensive contact; where
The act was intentionally committed by the defendant."
www.expertlaw.com/.../assault-and-battery

Did you see this video from Charlottesville, the night before the rally?

cdn.theguardian.tv/.../...harlottesville3_desk.mp4

"they start fights and then can't finish them."
It wasn't Antifa got run over at Charlottesville, it was a bunch of innocent protesters, they weren't part of any fight.

"Antifa, have been very well documented as instigators and aggressors in most of these violent situations."
This documentation I'd like to see. Where was this terrorist organisation before Trump came into office, before the rise of the Alt-Right?

"You see more random attacks against Trump supporters than from them."
No, *you* see more random attacks against Trump supporters because that's what Google and YouTube show you, because that's what you want to see. And, again, not one of those attacks has been fatal. How about we both try to find some real research on the subject?

"Think before you type."
OK, fair enough. I'm pretty sure you understood my point, though, meaning they were somewhere in their capacity as a right-winger, not as a Walmart shopper or church-goer.

People have recently killed other people, in the US, based on the killer's political beliefs. Those killers have all been right-wing (so far), there has been, afaik, one non-fatal shooting in the other direction.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded "reasonable fear"
The fear here is not reasonable and any argument that you want to give to suggesst that is is will also have to apply to antifa, so... no.
It's not directed at anyone or intended to harm, it *does not* cause *reasonable fear* take offensive contact will take place.
And that's a really fkn ironic position to argue from in defense of antifa.

"Charlottesville"
You mean basically the single actual nazi rally we've seen?
I'm not defending nazis.
I'm talking about the thousand other times antifa have attacked people, virtually all of them not nazis.

"It wasn't Antifa got run over at Charlottesville, it was a bunch of innocent protesters, they weren't part of any fight."
And who started the violence? And even IF it was nazis, what does that matter? Yes, we have no problem condemning nazis. So why does it cause a short circuit when it comes time to condemn the years of antifa violence?

"This documentation I'd like to see."
It's called google. Even with a biased media it's not that hard to find stuff. Professor bike lock is a classic example, more recently there was the Andy Ngo attack in Portland, there was using a crowbar to beat an old dude with a flag, beating people because they were holding a US flag hass happened a number of time, even to their own people who held up a flag. There's the endless milkshakings and just many, many examples of antifa being aggressive (especially toward people who try film them). Weird how they have to use black bloc and cover their faces as a bunch of peaceful protesters, hmm?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"Where was this terrorist organisation before Trump came into office, before the rise of the Alt-Right?"
Why. In. The. World. Would. That. Matter?
It's the violence that's the problem.
Furthermore, of course they're going to show up when Trump does. Because it's the rise of socialist and progressive rhetoric bringing about Trump and it's the losing to Trump then intensified that. Tensions flared, sides polarized, antifa swelled.

" that's what Google and YouTube show you"
They can't show me anything if it didn't happen.
Compare that to these supposed nazi attacks. Nazis groups aren't attacking shit, because they're a tiny fraction of the population and seem to be able to obey the law better than antifa. Even if nazis were attacking people in the manner than antifa do, we have no problem condemning that. So again, why does antifa get a pass? Especially when most of the time they're protesting and attacking people who are not nazis or fascists and indeed they act like fascists themselves.

"How about we both try to find some real research on the subject?"
I've been following these events since 2014. I feel pretty well informed, thanks.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"meaning they were somewhere in their capacity as a right-winger"
How many leftist have died in their capacity as leftists?
The killers may have had political motivations, but they go after people just out and about, not specifically politically aligned people.
But again, that doesn't even matter. Political violence is bad, whether it's killing people or bashing people, it's all beyond what it acceptable and all needs to be dealt with -- and here these problems relate to each other. It's the fringe wacko socialist and progressive rhetoric that antifa espouse that inflame the fringe right-wing wackos. They're all bad, none of them get a pass.

"one non-fatal shooting "
So we're not counting the Dayton guy then?

I'm surprised there's been no deaths attributed directly to antifa as yet. It's essentially luck that cracking open someone's head with a bike lock doesn't kill them. Andy Ngo ended up with a brain bleed when he got punched in the back of the head. Apparently antifa have also taken to wearing tactical gloves to maximize damage when going for a punch.
None of that is acceptable.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

The "right-wing" (I should be putting in quotes this whole times because I'm not even sure their beliefs strictly constitute right wing) shooters are dangerous, but they strike like lightning we don't know where or when, they act alone and many come with a connection to mental illness and we should do our best to deal with all that -- and part of that is not letting antifa get away with their BS. It's not killing people (yet), but we know where they are and what they do, we watch them commit crimes, but they're given leniency and not condemned despite that. If it were nazis attacking people, we wouldn't hear the end of it.

There's a MINDS event on Aug 17 in Chicago with a bunch of speakers going. Antifa don't like free speech for their opposition or speaking with opposition. It's anticipated they will have a presence there. Keep an eye out for that.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz That's a lot. Let's see. By the way, I'm not saying Antifa's actions are all good, but I am saying that in comparison, they're better.

It was not an unreasonable fear, there were physical assaults and at least one conviction.

Not the only Nazi rally unless you want to really split hairs over the title. (https://www. girlsaskguys. com/social-relationships/a57909-why-i-might-call-someone-a-nazi)

I've heard of all three of your examples, I thought you might have more. For comparison: 20 people run down by a car, one dead, two firearms discharged, with one person shot, eight people stabbed in Portland (plus one in the other direction).

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz Why does it matter that Antifa wasn't a thing until the right wing started to come out in force? Because it implies that they will disappear again when the threat they're countering does.

Google, YouTube, and feeling informed: Try using a public computer somewhere without logging into social networks, and see if the search results you watch come up the same as on your own device. If you have time, always choose videos or stories about alt-Right violence (or kittens!), and watch as you get more of the same. Not everyone's online experiences are the same, and they try to give you what you want to see, not a balanced view. (As an aside, do you think the viewer is more likely to be told *not* to punch the opposition on left-wing or right-wing shows? "I'll pay your legal fees" is not a thing, on the left.)

"The killers may have had political motivations," Yes! And the point is that all the killers' political motivations were right-wing. I don't see why you don't accept that it's worse than beatings and orders of magnitude worse than milkshaking. And the shooters don't go after "people just out and about", they go to cities with lots of Mexicans, or into black churches, or into mosques; they're targetted attacks. Then you get this guy coming armed to a migrant's centre with latex gloves on (don't worry, he was allowed to go free after questioning).

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz I'm not counting the Dayton guy, because there is no indication it was remotely politically motivated; he shot up a bar with his sister in it. The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters explicitly said why they were doing it.

As for the tactical gloves, the person starting that claim, afaics, is Ngo, who, in the same article, claimed that it was a police lieutenant that reported cement milkshakes, when the report was, in fact, that the police "had received reports", and asking for anyone suspicious to collect the cups. (Do you think a policeman would have noticed something like that and, and then just thrown the evidence away?)

I did find one report of a person being turned away from an event for having tactical gloves (and a paintball mask). He was also wearing a MAGA hat, though.

www.latimes.com/.../...ifa-20170925-htmlstory.html

There is condemnation of Antifa violence from the left, but it is tempered by people who believe they were saved from violence by them.

One simple way to reduce Antifa's actions would be for the Republicans to repudiate the white supremacists (like everyone used to); to say that their actions and beliefs are not acceptable. But there's a reason Google, Facebook, and Twitter can't block people saying those things without affecting political office holders and candidates.

And finally...
I'm guessing you don't mean Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/MINDS)? I can't find anything about what you're talking about.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded I'm not sure if this on is longer... that's how long it is, sorry.

“but I am saying that in comparison, they're better.”
By comparison, “the right-wing” (if it even makes sense to call it that) is generally less violent. Even people who self-identify as Nazis or White supremacists are less violent than antifa. It’s only when you count bodies that things look bad, but those killings aren’t the actions of a organisation like antifa, it’s individuals. Depending of what metrics you’re using I think antifa can be considered worse in general, but the issue is that you and others go straight to body count like it’s the only thing that matters and if it’s redeeming defence of antifa; it’s not, just don’t defend them at all because obviously you shouldn’t.

“It was not an unreasonable fear”
This was the only important detail.

“Not the only Nazi rally unless you want to really split hairs over the title.”
It takes a very broad definition of Nazi to be able to say that even half the people antifa have protested are tangentially related to nazis or fascists (other than antifa themselves). Indeed, they do take a very broad definition and that’s why anyone who advocates for free speech or supports Trump or is just generally “conservative” is considered a “nazi” and all the other mean words; racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

“20 people run down by a car, one dead, two firearms discharged, with one person shot, eight people stabbed in Portland”
In other words, very little by comparison to antifa’s violence – and are we just going to assume that antifa was totally reasonable and played no negative role in any of that?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“Because it implies that they will disappear again when the threat they're countering does.”
And that’s a silly conclusion to come to. Flip it around, the nazis only “came out in force” around the same time antifa did, how about we stop antifa and the nazis will go away too. It’s a ridiculous conclusion. The fact is that both extremes are authoritarian, their gripe with each other is that they think they and not the other should be the ones who get to control people and put boots on necks.
The thing “they're countering” is capitalism and liberalism. These are not “threats” we would want to go away, and even if they did, I don’t think that means the end of antifa. It would mean the opposite. They would then be in control and could act will even less repercussions.

By “YouTube” I mean journalists and commentators who actually appear honest and accurate, so yes YouTube. Where else?
I’ve search for alt-right violence and other than Charlottesville there doesn’t seem like anything comparable to antifa. Charlottesville was the one time we might actually be able to attribute violence to a group of nazis. However, that’s what makes Charlottesville unique. The issue is that nearly every other instance of antifa getting violent is not toward nazis (not that being violent toward nazis is okay). They don’t fight fascism, they don’t even fight other fascists for control, they fight for control, they fight against dissidence in the way a fascist does.

“do you think the viewer is more likely to be told *not* to punch the opposition on left-wing or right-wing shows?”
Not to punch? The right-wing.
And if we count the center-moderates, then definitely the center more than the left as well.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“And the point is that all the killers' political motivations were right-wing”
They are not acting together, nor are they condoned by the “right.” The “right” has no problem condemning “right-wing” violence, yet the left seems to think they should be defending antifa. I have to use “right-wing” in quotes all the time because really, it’s not a clear term at all. The El Paso guy wanted things like UBI and some other “lefty” things iirc. “Right-wing” is a demonization label spread by *these* leftists. Boxing the killers into “right-wing” is just part of the game. Things are not so easily categorised I that way.

“I don't see why you don't accept that it's worse than beatings and orders of magnitude worse than milkshaking.”
Killing is worse than beatings. Both are unacceptable.
But these killings are not the result of an entity “coming out in force”. Despite having political motivations some of the time, the more common element of these killers have in their motivation is personal. They’re often downright psychotic or just exceedingly sad and mad -- this gives them anger which colours their politics and so we see their motivation as political. They are individuals acting on their own and no one supports them. The “right” doesn’t support mass shooters.
Antifa, on the other hand, act as part of an entity with goals and change in mind, they support each other, they are supported by many more. The press is lenient. The left establishment is lenient.
Society damns the killers in no uncertain terms, we can’t come down any harder on them. But Antifa? We find people looking the other way too often.
Killing is worse than beatings. We don’t tolerate killings, but too many tolerate beatings, that’s the issue.

"people just out and about"
Those people are out and about. Again, politically charged, but not without personal motivation and again-again we have no problem condemning it.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“because there is no indication it was remotely politically motivated”
Nothing directly related to the attack, but he was obviously far-left, angry and vocal about it. But if a “right-wing” person shooters a bunch of people then I think it’s safe to assume that the media is going to look at the person’s social media or whatever and see the rhetoric they don’t like, then add that to the list of killers and the body count as evidence of how it’s all “the right’s” fault.

“The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters explicitly said why they were doing it.”
And was it just because “right wing”? Or just out of racism or something else? What about it makes it specifically “right-wing”?
What about it makes all other right-wingers implicitly guilty or worthy of scorn? Nothing, because they don’t support it.

“claimed that it was a police lieutenant that reported cement milkshakes”
That’s true a police lieutenant did report what he believed to be quick-crete in a milkshake. That’s why they put the warning out on twitter. It might have been literally just the one woman he supposedly spoke to that had the quick-crete. Whatever, that’s the really not the interesting point for me. They beat and robbed a reporter completely without justification. The fact that they would throw milkshakes at all is crossing the line for me and adding things like quick-crete is secondary to that, it’s just a measure of how far it’s escalating beyond something that’s already unacceptable.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“There is condemnation of Antifa violence from the left”
Some. But they have the kid gloves on. I think it’s the game of labels; ‘they’re “anti-fascist” so they must by definition *only* fight fascists and it *must* be those fascists who are violent, because we’ve defined them as the bad people…’ No.
But it’s only now that people are drawing the line with antifa as things escalate. So I do expect to see more condemnation going forward, but even so I think there’s been enough time to radicalize a lot of leftists. I think it’s too late to prevent a major attack. There’s been a fair bit of talk about leftists arming themselves. Sooner or later one of these protests is going to erupt with a proper gunfight or there’s going to be insurgency. At best, I give it a year, and if Trump gets re-elected in 2020 then shits going to kick off.

“repudiate the white supremacists (like everyone used to); to say that their actions and beliefs are not acceptable.”
They obviously don’t accept the white supremacists. Trump came out such groups in no uncertain terms and I don’t see the rest of the republican party objecting to that. But last I heard, AOC and friends hasn’t condemned antifa, but continues to fan the flames of conflict which incites the “right-wing” shooters, by saying “concentration camps and shit like that.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“Google, Facebook, and Twitter”
They block that shit all the time. They just can’t to it *with an algorithm* without effecting loads of people. But that has another issue in itself that it frames the people they want to block as bad, which I’m not even sure is the case. I don’t trust them to decide what is racist or whatever else, even if they could pull it off. And that’s another problem with these companies, even when they do enforce rules manually, they still can’t be consistent. You don’t even need to be “right-wing”, as long as you’re saying anything bad about the progressive left it seems like you’re fair game to get reprimanded. The most recent example I can think of is not a huge one, it’s Lindsey Shepard responding to mean words (from the trans-woman who wants women to shave her balls) with mean words of her own, but only Lindsey gets suspended. It seems not a huge deal, but it’s interesting how Shaun King can encourage violence, then we see an attack on an ICE facility, then he celebrates the attacker as a martyr, and he doesn’t even get a mild punishment like Lindsey got. Twitter is fucked.

By MINDS I mean, minds. com. This is the event I was thinking of
https://irl.minds.com/event-dates
But I got my events mixed up.
There’s two events on the 31st that I’m keeping my eye on. The International conference for men’s issues – that’s where I got Chicago from – and the minds event in new jersey. Then there’s a planned antifa event that I was thinking of – the “Border Resistance” thing in El Paso, which I thought was on the 17th , but I’m getting all this stuff jumbled. I think the El Paso thing is meant to be on the 1st and something else on the 17th. I forget. Basically the point was that on one or more of these dates I’m anticipating to hear about antifa throwing milkshakes of peace at “white supremacists/misogynists/whatever” who are being “violent” with their civil discussion about current affairs – if not something worse than milkshakes.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I also just happened to run into an article that had a photo of an antifa dude with tac gloves while looking up the dates.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz I should probably stop at "It’s only when you count bodies that things look bad". Why don't you think killing people is more important than beating people?

I've got something to do, so I'll look at the rest in a couple of hours.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded "Why don't you think killing people is more important than beating people?"
In a vaccuum, killing is worse. But consider a context where killing is illegal and all of society agrees that it's bad, but where beatings are not and are tolerated. Therein, a killing is "worse", but we address it and reject that behaviour, then beatings being common and not dealt with like they should make beatings a problem worthy of attention. Killing is worse than tax loopholes for corporations as well, yet people still talk about that for some reason. And there's even more context in that these beatings being tolerated reflects the tolerance of violent socialists, whom I don't want to have any influence over people. These killers are not winning hearts and minds, but the beatings do have a lot of support and that can lead to a conflict that will dwarf the damage the lone shooters will have done. That's the ultimate danger and I don't think it's unrealistic. It seems like we're on that path.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz The killings, though, are taking place in the context of the violence. It's not something unrelated, like tax loopholes and murder - if some company had killed off IRS agents to protect their profits, you'd have made a fair analogy, and the headlines would not be about carried interest loopholes.

We're both half right about the milkshakes report: www.oregonlive.com/.../...me-form-of-concrete.html
According to the police lieutenant, a woman told him there was quikrete in the milkshakes and disappeared without leaving a statement or any evidence. He supposedly believed it, hence the tweet, but there has been no evidence to back it up (which is odd, you'd think there would be lumps of concrete lying about the place afterwards).

I still think that bringing a milkshake to a potential gun fight is pretty brave.

Antifa's violence: can you point to 20 cases of people being run-down-by-a-car injured by them? I still need to be convinced that most of the violence isn't in response to provocation. There's a long history of usually peaceful people standing up to fascists. (And they *will* go away when there's nothing to fight, the clue's in the name.)


"What about [The El Paso (and Christchurch) shooters' manifestos] makes it specifically “right-wing”?"
The fact that they killed people based on right-wing language conflating everyone in a group with something terrible (Mexican-looking people are invaders, Muslims are terrorists), and that language is coming from the top.

"right-wingers [...] don’t support it."
They've been supporting the same othering techniques for decades, but at least (for example) Bush explicitly differentiated between Muslims and terrorists. That's no longer the case, and supporting Trump is supporting these beliefs.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“It's not something unrelated, like tax loopholes and murder”
The point was that they are not related in that way but people still care about these things and recognise problems. The context being that one problem is addressed and the other is not, but the one that is not addressed doesn’t stop being a problem. Between killings, oppressive authoritarian governments, and severe economic decline resulting in widespread poverty, I don’t know how to weight those things up against each other. They all seem bad and we should tackle all of them appropriately. Returning to my point; murder is not condoned, that is appropriate, but too often the criminal elements of antifa are tolerated, that is not appropriate.

“We're both half right about the milkshakes report”
I had seen that report before, I didn’t say anything that was contradicted in that report, but okay whatever. Like I said, it’s not the cement that makes it cross the line for me.

“you'd think there would be lumps of concrete lying about the place afterwards”
Assuming it just gets splattered around I don’t think it’s going to “clump”. Maybe it basically just becomes like dust. The sugar in a milkshake would stop part of the reaction, so I don’t know how that would end up when left to dry.

“I still think that bringing a milkshake to a potential gun fight is pretty brave.”
I don’t think they expect guns. I also think that they would perceive any opposition having a gun to make them worthy of attacking. I think they’re fully capable of attacking people with milkshakes, fists and clubs and then turning around and being entirely indignant about getting shot at in response.

“can you point to 20 cases of people being run-down-by-a-car injured by them?”
It wouldn’t surprise me if there were 20 cases of people being physically attacked in Portland on the 17th. That was pretty bad and I’m not at all surprised about how it turned out. That should also suffice that it’s not in response to provocation.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“There's a long history of usually peaceful people standing up to fascists”
Yes, but that doesn’t include antfia.

“And they *will* go away when there's nothing to fight, the clue's in the name”
That’s not a necessity at all. It’s a blind hope. There’s always mission creep. But as it stands I don’t think the things they fight should go away. If we flip it around, let’s say a group called antilib (anti-liberals) oppose liberalism, so when there’s nothing left to fight they go away and that’s good, right? No. We don’t want that. So then it’s just about the label; why does calling yourself anti-fascist exclude you from being utterly awful or even worse? People hunted witches and witches were bad right? Everything must have been on the level there.
Who was on the other side of cable street? The communists? I don’t want them to succeed either. Furthermore, that was then, this is now. Now, antifa are the only blackshirts we see.

“right-wing language”
What right-wing language?
Advocating for UBI? Environmentalism?
At the very least there’s left-wing language in there too. But we don’t say it has anything to do with the left…

“conflating everyone in a group with something terrible”
And that’s not what do antifa…?

“Mexican-looking people are invaders, Muslims are terrorists”
Not that’s not “right-wing language.” That’s left-wing language to characterise people who are against no borders and want Islamic terrorism addressed as racists. It’s disingenuous to characterise all of the right as people who just don’t like “Mexican-looking people” or think Muslim = Terrorist. But the media portrays the killers as not just “right-wing” but *so fiercely right-wing that that’s why they killed people*. Not only should we not just accept at their word that it’s the case, even if it was the case, it doesn’t reflect on people who *don’t share their beliefs*.
The same reason antifa don’t reflect on liberals – because they don’t share beliefs, especially when it comes to political violence.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“supporting Trump is supporting these beliefs.”
Firstly, I don’t agree that Trump reflects those beliefs. Second, I don’t think the left is in anyway above whatever tactics you’re accusing the “right” of. And third, it’s that exactly “language conflating everyone in a group with something terrible”. Tsk, tsk.

So what do you think about all that’s happened over the last week? Threats of arson made to the minds. com event forcing them to find a new date and venue, iirc. Antifa once again being giant wonglords in Portland, but smears levelled at proud boys anyway, despite no instances of violence from them and them packing up and going home to a barbecue. What would happen if antifa didn’t show up to such things? “Right-wingers” would wave their flags around for a while then go to a bar or go to a barbecue.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Turns out it was fake news that the minds. com event was rescheduled and relocated. The threats seem to be real, but minds. com and the venue didn't back out.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz 6 people were injured in Portland at the weekend, one went to hospital. Of the 20 hit by the car at Charlottesville, 1 died, five were in critical condition, you can't point to anything equivalent from Antifa.

I expect you've heard of the hammer incident, for example, but I doubt you've bothered to look further, to see the video of the guy on the bus who brought and used the hammer before having it taken off him. Have a look through this article (yes, I expect it's a left-wing source), and tell me where it's wrong. www.dailydot.com/.../ (And, yes, the antifa guy is wearing tactical gloves, while being threated with a hammer.)


When I said they will go away, I was talking about the "usually peaceful people standing up to fascists". Some of the people that make up Antifa won't totally stop being activists, anachists, or even assholes, but what support they have from decent people will disappear well before then. They aren't going to take over anything without popular support.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded “6 people were injured in Portland at the weekend, one went to hospital. Of the 20 hits by the car at Charlottesville, 1 died, five were in critical condition, you can't point to anything equivalent from Antifa.”
1. That’s just one protest. I can point to years of protests getting violent and people getting injured. You can’t point to anything equivalent from another active group.
2. Charlottesville doesn’t represent the people antifa are attacking. Charlottesville was unique in that it was the only time we’ve really seen anyone close to nazis come out.
3. Again, no one has a problem saying Charlottesville was bad. It in no way *even in the slightest* excuses antifa from being awful… so why the hell are you talking about it? The whole point is that when antifa does wrong people turn the other cheek and make excuses for them like you’re doing. Can you say *that* happens for any other group? Didn’t think so.

“the hammer incident”
I’m aware.
“Threatened” with a hammer. Interesting language. I suppose antifa weren’t threatening? But okay whatever, doesn’t matter. I don’t care what the people on the bus might have done. If they did anything wrong, then they should be left to embarrass themselves and everyone not interested in thuggery should just stay out of the whole thing. I don’t see why not fucking with the bus in the first place is such a big ask.
See but now, I get to make the same nonsense argument: If antifa went away then so would the other side, that’s how that works right?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

“usually peaceful people standing up to fascists”
Well, what fascists? That’s the issue. Free speech is fascism apparently. Enforcing immigration laws and borders is apparently fascist. Capitalism is fascist. Everyone is apparently a fascist. They don’t need popular support; it only takes a fraction of the population to act to seriously stir things up.
I think we’re still not seeing these so-called fascists that are everywhere, but we are seeing people not interested in violence moving away from it and people who are interested in it are seeking each other out. We will see only the worst people out there and that will make everyone want to fight more.
“tell me where it's wrong”
The tone that antifa did nothing wrong and painting everyone in opposition to them as “fascists” and “right-wing” and the conflation of terms as if these things are uniquely related.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz Considering there are multiple violent right-wing groups, and one left-wing one, it's wouldn't be surprising that the injuries from Antifa would be more than the others, but I don't think you can even show that (and dead bodies count way more than people being hurt). I would probably look at the "Proud Boys" for a roughly equivalent number of injuries.

"The Proud Boys event was billed as a Demand Free Speech rally and featured alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who spoke in drag with fake breasts and a black wig and inspired waves of applause. "The left must be made to fear you," he said. "Massive brutal retaliation for the slightest of perceived insults must be the way from now on. ... If they tear down your idols, burn down their cathedrals"" www.newser.com/.../...ff-against-antifa-again.html

Charlottesville was unique? The "only time we’ve really seen anyone close to nazis come out."?


Also, to be clear, running people over with a car = bad, not killing anyone = awful (=very bad)?

"“Threatened” with a hammer. Interesting language." Yeah, he actually threw it at someone, and someone threw it back, but look on YouTube, and there's a dozen videos of the latter part, for every one that shows the whole thing.

"If antifa went away then so would the other side, that’s how that works right?"
No, it's not. If you've got a bacterial infection, and you don't have antibiotics, does the infection go away? If you have indigestion, does not taking antacid make it go away?

Once the cause goes away, there's no need for the cure.

I don't believe you can find an incident where AntiFa attacked someone for just approving of capitalism without saying something bigoted. (A possible exception being the poor guy with the American flag.)

"“tell me where it's wrong”
The tone..."
So, not in any factual details?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded "multiple violent right-wing groups"
No there aren't and even in combined total injuries as a result of violence they initiated they don't match antifa. Then there's the issue of "right-wing", it's not their defining feature, so isn't it curious how the narrative has to be about how awful "the right wing" is, even though that doessn't define then? At the very least it shows they're no monolith, but it it's "the right wing" that's the issue for some reason.

"dead bodies count way more than people being hurt"
And what's the count? One? And everyone condemned it, just like they where supposed to. HMMMMMMM. It's almost like people don’t have blinders when it comes to these characters.

"The Proud Boys event was billed as a Demand Free Speech rally and featured alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos"
You realise none of that is a problem, right?

"Massive brutal retaliation for the slightest of perceived insults must be the way from now on. ... If they tear down your idols, burn down their cathedrals"
That's how milo talks. But even if I take him 100% literally, okay we can say it's dangerous language if their is someone who takes it literally. Still doesn't mean the proud boys are violence, their whole thing is that they don't start fights.

"Charlottesville was unique"
Yes. You don't see nazis starting fights like antifa do, or going to other groups events and hurting people.

"unning people over with a car = bad, not killing anyone = awful"
"Not killing anyone" is actually fosstering widespread violence and cultural tensions that do cause harm and ultimately lead to far greater violence.
Also, notice how it's always "the car, the car"? One unique incident that is treated like a blanket statement for literally all of the right.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"Yeah, he actually threw it at someone"
And was he being attacked by violent thugs or not, hmm?
So it's bad when they do it, but when antifa brings a cement brick in a case and throws it at people, or beats people with weapons are we going to call that self-defense?

"If you've got a bacterial infection"
My point was, who is the infection and who's the antibotics?
The answer is they both are, one is swine flu and one is bird flu. Framing one as if it's the cure for the other isn't doing anything. The antibotic is to stop defending them.

"Once the cause goes away, there's no need for the cure."
Right... so antifa should go away?

"The tone"
Yes.
"It's the difference between violence breaks out at another far-right rally" and "pro-censorship protestors attack free speech advocates."
There's no lie, but it's abound with bendy words meant to demonize the right and prop up antifa.

"I don't believe you can find an incident where AntiFa attacked someone for just approving of capitalism"
Other than all those protests, right?

"without saying something bigoted"
No no no. That doesn't qualify anything. That's exactly kind of toxic bullshit that is wrong with antifa. If you think it justifies anything then fork you.

I can call antifa far-left thugs, am I lying?
Nope. But you seem to respond to it as if antifa is worth defending -- as if they're not every bit as bigoted as the people they claim are this nebulous and undefined "far-right".

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz I'll start with your first and last points, I might read the rest later.

""multiple violent right-wing groups"
No there aren't..."
Of course there are. Just look at the list of groups who attended the "Unite the Right" rally. And think about the name of the rally before saying "right-wing [is] not their defining feature". en.wikipedia.org/.../Unite_the_Right_rally

Your last point:
"I can call antifa far-left thugs, am I lying?
Nope. But you seem to respond to it as if antifa is worth defending -- as if they're not every bit as bigoted as the people they claim are this nebulous and undefined "far-right"."

Do you think intolerence should be tolerated? ↗

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded “Of course there are.”
*Violent* groups.
Few to none and they don’t hold enough sway to be considered a threat to the nation, certainly not worthy of a terrorist organisation meant to combat them. Furthermore, it doesn’t justify anything they do against these groups, and above all that, it’s not even these groups that they target. It’s the free speech crowd, moderate liberals and conservatives.

“think about the name of the rally before saying "right-wing [is] not their defining feature".”
Try not getting hung up on names so often. The national socialists are socialists yet they’re at a “right-wing” rally.
Also, it’s wasn’t “the right”, it was primarily white identitarian groups, that was their defining feature.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I don’t agree with this interpretation of Popper here.
I don't think tolerance is a virtue society directly aspires to.
Of course it is to a progressive, I think that’s one of their defining characteristics. But here we get into the essence of progressive and liberal ideology. I’m not progressive, I’m a liberal. In liberalism, tolerance is a consequence, not something that is in itself aspired to. Liberalism affords individual rights and insists despite differences that we maintain civility. The consequence is tolerance.
So I don’t care about a “tolerance society”. The framing of the question is wrong from the start. I would ask if a society protects individual rights and if the answer is yes, then the Nazi gets a voice and I agree with that right. The violent communist revolutionary’s get a voice too.
When you restrict “intolerance”, you restrict dissidence. And after the fact it seems obviously bad, but why isn’t “the jew is intolerant of us” perfectly valid in that framework? Well it is. And if you’re intolerant of the communist utopia then shouldn’t you get the guillotine too? You can justify anything as intolerant and you end up with purity spirals. As I understand it, Popper was a classical liberal and the same quote can be interpreted as a criticism of progressivism.

[goaded]

@AllThatSweetJazz "*Violent* groups."

"Since 2017, [Atomwaffen Division] organization has been linked to five killings and several violent hate crimes, including assaults, rape and multiple cases of kidnapping and torture."
The leader of the Traditionalist Worker Party assaulted a woman at a Trump rally.
James Alex Fields marched with Vanguard America before running a load of people over.
The El Paso shooter wasn't part of a group, afaik, but nor are AntiFa, and you lump them all together.
They ALL want to get rid of, or otherwise marginalise, non-white minorities and Jews, how do you suppose they intend to do that without violence? By asking nicely?

"Try not getting hung up on names so often. The national socialists are socialists yet they’re at a “right-wing” rally."

1. They self-identify as right wing, it's not a label I'm putting on them.
2. The Nazis were no more socialist than the DRNK is Democratic. (They literally killed the few members who were socialist, in 1934.)

"Also, it’s wasn’t “the right”, it was primarily white identitarian groups, that was their defining feature."
It wasn't all of the right, but it's certainly part of it, and has been for decades.

"In liberalism, tolerance is a consequence, not something that is in itself aspired to. Liberalism affords individual rights and insists despite differences that we maintain civility. The consequence is tolerance."
Do these rights include the right to live free from violence? To be tolerated?

"why isn’t “the jew is intolerant of us” perfectly valid in that framework?"
That's the whole point of the paradox. It's reasonable to be intolerant of people saying you should be gassed. It's not reasonable to be intolerant of people who are tolerating you.

"As I understand it, Popper was a classical liberal and the same quote can be interpreted as a criticism of progressivism."
I think you misunderstand it. What progressive policies are intolerant of tolerant people?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

@goaded Man, we really fucked this guy's thread. I assume we're muted by now.

"Atomwaffen Division"
They're obviously not "the right". They're anti-constitution, pro-flag burning. They're in the same vein as antifa, just more extreme. Like I said, this isn't some noble fight antifa is engaged in, this is just different groups of fascists who hate each other because they want to be the ones in charge. As I've said many times, no one has a problem condemning such people, so if they commit crimes then investigate them and lock them up. Why then would antifa need to exist? ... it doesn't.

Adding to the reasons it doesn't need to exist is because Atomwaffen Division are not the people who antifa go after. Most of the time antifa goes after free speech rallies and entirely reasonable things and people who aren't a threat. And again, if they are a threat... let the damn cops deal with it.

"The El Paso shooter wasn't part of a group, afaik, but nor are AntiFa"
What? How in the world are they not a group? I can't even rant in response to that, it's just nonsense.

"By asking nicely?"
If they commit violence then they can go to jail. Otherwise, yes, they are limited to asking nicely and we're just going to tell them no. Same goes for the black clad communists, they want to get rid of the rich or otherwise rob them of their wealth and "redistribute" it. How do you suppose they intend to do that without violence? They're already attacking people in the street. We should be telling them no and arresting them, but instead, for some ridiculous reason, people defend them. That's the *only* difference between them and whatever truly violent groups you think they fight, and that's the problem.

"They self-identify as right wing, it's not a label I'm putting on them."
Again, so the nazi's were socialists yeah?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"The Nazis were no more socialist than the DRNK is Democratic."
HMMMMMMMM, what was that you *literally* just said about labels people put on themselves? FFS, listen to yourself. So why is it that all that can be true, but you think antifa calling themselves "anti-fascist" means ANYTHING in the slightest?
What better label to be a fascist under?

"It wasn't all of the right, but it's certainly part of it, and has been for decades."
Literally no. This is some caricature of the right you've built. The progressive left is openly identitarian. So again, even if these "right-wing" identitarian groups can even be considered "right-wing" again you still basically admitted that it's the identitarianism that defined them. Yet, you have to link it to the nebulous and mysterious force of pure evil that is "the right". Give it a rest.
Say nazis are bad like a normal person would and lets move on.

"Do these rights include the right to live free from violence? To be tolerated?"
You have the right to live free from violence; the *consequence* of that right is tolerance. It was the endeavour to protect individual rights and freedoms that brought that tolerance. Seeking out tolerance in itself leads to that degenerate perspective where you have to silence people you *perceive* to be "intolerance." Progressivism seems superficially similar but the essence of it is that they come at it from the other direction. Tolerance is their starting point and the consequence is sacrificing individual rights in order to be "tolerant".

"It's not reasonable to be intolerant of people who are tolerating you."
Hence, antifa are unreasonable.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

"It's reasonable to be intolerant of people saying you should be gassed."
And what does "intolerant" mean in this context. Notice how when it's what your ingroup does, the terminology is vague, but when it's the opposition you go for "gassed"?
"intolerance" is perfectly within reach of saying you should gas them, so then you're just being intolerant of each other and there is no moral high ground.
The whole problem is that you're thinking in terms of tolerance.
Here's what you do: afford people individual rights and protect them. There, done. That's the thinking. Yet, without even trying I've inadvertently produced tolerance.
When tolerance is your goal, you end up in this retard fight just trying to gas each other.

"What progressive policies are intolerant of tolerant people?"
The very essence of it. Tolerance and intolerance are subjective. If you through any stretch of the imagination can be pointed at as intolerant, then you can be taken down. You purity sprial out of control. You see what we already see from progressives now; with every change there is a new oppressed group that you're being intolerant of and need to adjust your behaviour to cater to. The march toward tolerance always needs to find new "intolerance" to fight.

Rights on the other hand are more straightforward. As an example, don't physically attack other people. And just like that I've barred any violent revolutionaries -- be they communist or fascist or whatever -- from committing their violent bullshit, whilst at the same time I've not invited the ironic toxicity of purity spirals and the likes of McCarthyism.

[mateynine]

And yet blacks are the majority of the prison population despite only being about 13% of the total USA population

[Anonymous]

Even if that's true. Did you bother to think that it could be a response to something?
Perhaps Trump and white supremacists are symptoms of mass immigration.

[markscott]

Anon: Or perhaps Trump and white supremacy, are just the hate and racism that feeds those who hate and think they are better than anyone else. And they find an easy target in immigrants. When racists and white supremacists hanged blacks in the old south, it wasn't because they were immigrants. They forced the black people to come here.

[Opinion Owner]

@markscott Your assuming then and now are the same things. They aren't hanging people and times have changed. What happened then and what happens now are not the same. Again, even if it's true that the small pockets of white supremacy go after immigrants because they're "easy targets" (which I don't accept btw) that still doesn't mean there isn't a problem with mass immigration.

When you bring in metric shit-tons of people and it fucks everything up naturally people are going to be mad, and often anger will latch onto something. Properly placed it latches on the idea of mass immigration being bad, but you can't expect everyone to handle it perfectly. Others will stir with animosity toward immigrants in general as a sort of inaccurate identification of the problem. Others will have feelings out outright racism that will have festered in them as a result of mass immigration -- feelings that would otherwise not have existed. Then the actual die hard racists of course, they're few and far between, but you give them the tools to spread and the veneer of legitimacy when you go be crazy in the polar opposite direction.

Thankfully Trump is actually on point a lot of the time and isn't racist or anything like that and does a decent job of supporting values that clearly delineate from racists.

The spark of hate is from progressives who see mustache twirling white supremacists everywhere they look. Seems quite common for the white "liberals"(they're not liberal, they're progressive) to be just guilty white supremacists and so can't help but see it everywhere.

[Waffles731]

The Irish, Italians, Polish, and Jewish people have generally only been considered 'white' in the U. S since the 1950s.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

No but right wing terror is a bigger threat than left wing.

[SkipStop]

And what makes you think that? Oh, because you're a racist leftist.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

@SkipStop No, because more terror attacks have been committed by the right you moron
www.start.umd.edu/.../...TerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf

[TheFlak38]

I feel sorry for all you libtards when Trump will win the next elections.

[Anonymous]

That’s not true and I have never felt like that about other races since Trump, the world is just a crazy place

[RobLovesDemi1234]

Do us all a favor on here and quit spreading bullshit and hate for white people and for all ethnic groups

[RobLovesDemi1234]

and learn to be more tolerant of other people rather than spread horseshit like this on the internet

[Thatsamazing]

Are you an idiot? This isn't about "hate for white people." Get your head out of your ass.

[RobLovesDemi1234]

@Thatsamazing Go fuck yourself asswipe and quit being a SJW retard

[RobLovesDemi1234]

@Thatsamazing You stupid millenial little twat. Quit acting like a liberal retard

[Thatsamazing]

Mmm... yes that's all tremendously interesting; you must be very highly educated. Tell us more.

[RobLovesDemi1234]

@Thatsamazing What are you some fucking weirdo

[Thatsamazing]

What are you some fucking illiterate? I said tell us more. You clearly know what you're talking about, right?

[Thatsamazing]

"actually I do" ... you do... what. You doing something was never at issue. Can you actually not read? I'm sorry, if so. There are classes you can take to help you with that, probably.

You people are truly fascinating creatures. Where do you come from? We should study you further.

[RobLovesDemi1234]

@Thatsamazing God you're a fucking jackass

[Asker]

I'll stop when you do!

[ThisDudeHere]

Nice bait

[Anonymous]

Did your mom drop you on your head?

[Asker]

[Opinion Owner]

I'll take that as a yes.

[Asker]

[bangyourhead]

Blacks commit half the murders in this country

[Asker]

Blacks commit 25 times more violent crimes against whites than whites against blacks: in reference to slavery, I simply call that poetic justice.

[bangyourhead]

Of course you do... because you’re not very bright.

[Asker]

Neither when your kind implemented slavery. It's called Karma, good-buddy. A little something from the universe that you should get ready for...

[bangyourhead]

Moron, I’m not Islamic.

[Asker]

"No Shit!"

[Blightly]

but the African tribe leaders sold their own people to be slaves for money. Technically everyone was in on it except the people who turned out to be slaves

[Waffles731]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbUbEnm-mh4
Teachable moment @bangyourhead
Let Beau of the Fifth Column explain just why you are wrong

[bangyourhead]

@Waffles731 lol. Ok dude. The FBI is making up the numbers.

[Waffles731]

And you didn't watch the video.
You know why?
Because he addresses that point and its both an extremely incomplete dataset and how right of the gate that dataset is 40 to 55 percent incomplete, and then you add in deaths ruled as accidents, missing persons who were murdered.
And now we simply don't know the numbers of the latter too, but from all the True Crime I watch, I thinks its fair to say that at most, the data set you are quote is at most 35 percent complete

[Waffles731]

You know by that same dataset, people with Brown Eyes commit the vast majority of murders, like 80 percent

[bangyourhead]

@Waffles731 Considering people with brown eyes make up 90% of the country, that makes sense.

[StupidIntellect]

This ain’t even a reach.

[Kiran_Yagami]

What a load of horse shit.

[Anonymous]

Sorry I don't think that is entirely accurate.