Here's my thing. I don't think you find anybody on the right embracing or supporting or making excuses for the KKK or Nazis or white nationalism. On the other hand, you find plenty on the left embracing or supporting or making excuses for Antifa. And I find both Antifa and the KKK/Nazis/white nationalists to be equally objectionable.

(05-06-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 02:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re missing my point about some alt-right groups. Those groups proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

There was a very interesting article the other day on Buzzfeed profiling a woman who fit in that category perfectly and has since changed her ways. She basically provided a fascinating perspective into the underbelly of these facades that people like Richard Spencer had been building at great speeds for a while.

But seemingly even when a group denounces racism and white supremacy they are deemed as such no matter.

In your mind any brash group who holds rightist views are 'alt right' *and* therefore racist? This seems precisely what you are implying above.

Beautiful little fishing net to construct to 'pre-damn' any and all groups that might be identified as 'alt right'. And, to hell with what they explicitly say. Nice preformed construct you got yourself there, lad. If that is the case, the SPLC has a nice job for you.......

Notice how I said some and not all?

I also noticed how you changed from 'many' to 'some'? Your numbers seem to drift fairly unpredictably --

You noting 'many' in the first instance tends to tell me that you think the ones that do not are actually few and far between. Which ties in with my comments on your preformed construct as well.

Many is still not all. You really like to split hairs here, huh?

In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:

Quote:proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

(05-06-2019 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 02:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But seemingly even when a group denounces racism and white supremacy they are deemed as such no matter.

In your mind any brash group who holds rightist views are 'alt right' *and* therefore racist? This seems precisely what you are implying above.

Beautiful little fishing net to construct to 'pre-damn' any and all groups that might be identified as 'alt right'. And, to hell with what they explicitly say. Nice preformed construct you got yourself there, lad. If that is the case, the SPLC has a nice job for you.......

Notice how I said some and not all?

I also noticed how you changed from 'many' to 'some'? Your numbers seem to drift fairly unpredictably --

You noting 'many' in the first instance tends to tell me that you think the ones that do not are actually few and far between. Which ties in with my comments on your preformed construct as well.

Many is still not all. You really like to split hairs here, huh?

In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:

Quote:proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

You realize this is your go to move when you have nothing else, right?

You nitpick a phrase that someone uses, typically one that comments on something qualitatively, and then pester the responder into nailing down a quantitative response.

It's quite a nifty move to deflect from the original commentary and focus, as it puts your target on the defensive because they had not been discussing a quantitative topic and you attempt to make it qualitative.

Your other favorite move is attacking someone personally by using made up quotes or positions that people don't take.

What do I believe about alt-right groups? I believe that most alt-right groups (greater than 50% - happy?) were created with the intent to try and mainstream white nationalist/supremacist talking points and positions, under the guise of a respectable, palatable, and false conservative narrative. That does not mean that every rowdy conservative group that has sprung up in the past few years has anything to do with that viewpoint (for example, I don't think the Bundy crew were white nationalist), but there is enough of a stench permeating from alt-right groups that we all should be wary.

The term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer (a white supremacist) and he was leading a movement to try to cloak their racist believes in more palatable words (e.g. western civilization) or ideas (e.g. scientific racism, like focusing on IQs.

By the way, before you denigrate the Buzzfeed article for no reason, you should read it. It was well written and very interesting: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ros...tie-mchugh

(05-06-2019 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 03:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Notice how I said some and not all?

I also noticed how you changed from 'many' to 'some'? Your numbers seem to drift fairly unpredictably --

You noting 'many' in the first instance tends to tell me that you think the ones that do not are actually few and far between. Which ties in with my comments on your preformed construct as well.

Many is still not all. You really like to split hairs here, huh?

In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:

Quote:proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

You realize this is your go to move when you have nothing else, right?

You nitpick a phrase that someone uses, typically one that comments on something qualitatively, and then pester the responder into nailing down a quantitative response.

It's quite a nifty move to deflect from the original commentary and focus, as it puts your target on the defensive because they had not been discussing a quantitative topic and you attempt to make it qualitative.

Your other favorite move is attacking someone personally by using made up quotes or positions that people don't take.

What do I believe about alt-right groups? I believe that most alt-right groups (greater than 50% - happy?) were created with the intent to try and mainstream white nationalist/supremacist talking points and positions, under the guise of a respectable, palatable, and false conservative narrative. That does not mean that every rowdy conservative group that has sprung up in the past few years has anything to do with that viewpoint (for example, I don't think the Bundy crew were white nationalist), but there is enough of a stench permeating from alt-right groups that we all should be wary.

The term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer (a white supremacist) and he was leading a movement to try to cloak their racist believes in more palatable words (e.g. western civilization) or ideas (e.g. scientific racism, like focusing on IQs.

By the way, before you denigrate the Buzzfeed article for no reason, you should read it. It was well written and very interesting: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ros...tie-mchugh

The issue is that you try to play 'hide the fing potato' with your comments; thank you for fing confirming my suspicions about your 'analysis' and fairly rock-solid predisposition. And your interesting refusal to even note what the groups might proclaim are their issues and stances.

Looks like it was dead-fing spot on.

Please whine some more.

As for 'nifty move to deflect' your comment that moved from 'most', then 'some', then decided *yourself* to deflect with arguing about 'some' was pretty fing awesome. Yet you whine about 'deflection'. Bravo!

But thank you for gd confirming what your stance is. Too bad I had to gd use fing cross examination to extract that from you. Good grief.....

I am sure that Buzzfeed article is sufficient for your predisposed view on the subject. Kind of short of your typical NY Times gold standard to 'the bestest truth and opinion evaaaaah....' though.

Perhaps if you had just said 'well yes it is a preformed construct and I do believe that most alt-right groups are covers for white nationalists, regardless of what they say', I wouldnt have had to to play 'chase the fing greased pig' with your statements, nor would I have had to actually use this amount of space to actually extract that predisposition from you. But thank you again for confirming that your initial comment of many means most -- as opposed to play hide and go seek with the word 'some' like you did.

So I guess we have cleared up that your 'some' actually means 'most', and that regardless of what a group has to say about their stance on white nationalism, you dont give a flip and wont believe it. Does that sound accurate to you? To be blunt you could have said just that preceding sentence and we wouldnt have had to endure the lad-verbiage tango that just happened.....

(05-06-2019 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 04:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I also noticed how you changed from 'many' to 'some'? Your numbers seem to drift fairly unpredictably --

You noting 'many' in the first instance tends to tell me that you think the ones that do not are actually few and far between. Which ties in with my comments on your preformed construct as well.

Many is still not all. You really like to split hairs here, huh?

In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:

Quote:proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

You realize this is your go to move when you have nothing else, right?

You nitpick a phrase that someone uses, typically one that comments on something qualitatively, and then pester the responder into nailing down a quantitative response.

It's quite a nifty move to deflect from the original commentary and focus, as it puts your target on the defensive because they had not been discussing a quantitative topic and you attempt to make it qualitative.

Your other favorite move is attacking someone personally by using made up quotes or positions that people don't take.

What do I believe about alt-right groups? I believe that most alt-right groups (greater than 50% - happy?) were created with the intent to try and mainstream white nationalist/supremacist talking points and positions, under the guise of a respectable, palatable, and false conservative narrative. That does not mean that every rowdy conservative group that has sprung up in the past few years has anything to do with that viewpoint (for example, I don't think the Bundy crew were white nationalist), but there is enough of a stench permeating from alt-right groups that we all should be wary.

The term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer (a white supremacist) and he was leading a movement to try to cloak their racist believes in more palatable words (e.g. western civilization) or ideas (e.g. scientific racism, like focusing on IQs.

By the way, before you denigrate the Buzzfeed article for no reason, you should read it. It was well written and very interesting: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ros...tie-mchugh

The issue is that you try to play 'hide the fing potato' with your comments; thank you for fing confirming my suspicions about your 'analysis'.

Looks like it was dead-fing spot on.

Please whine some more.

As for 'nifty move to deflect' your comment that moved from 'most', then 'some', then decided *yourself* to deflect with arguing about 'some' was pretty fing awesome. Yet you whine about 'deflection'. Bravo!

But thank you for gd confirming what your stance is. Too bad I had to gd use fing cross examination to extract that from you. Good grief.....

I am sure that Buzzfeed article is sufficient for your predisposed view on the subject.

Perhaps if you had just said 'well yes it is a preformed construct and I do believe that most alt-right groups are covers for white nationalists, regardless of what they say', I wouldnt have had to to play 'chase the fing greased pig' with your statements, nor would I have had to actually use this amount of space to actually extract that predisposition from you. But thank you again for confirming that your initial comment of many means most -- as opposed to play hide and go seek with the word 'some' like you did, and refusing to admit that your 'some' actually means 'most'.

I always thought a predisposition would be a position not based on evidence or analysis. I’ve come to my opinion on the alt-right based on reading articles and analyses about groups in the alt right.

Does your response mean you think there aren’t white supremacist in the alt right and that your disagree with my comments?

(05-06-2019 09:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 05:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Many is still not all. You really like to split hairs here, huh?

In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:

Quote:proclaim to be conservative, for causes X, Y, and Z, and do not explicitly spout overt racism. And because of that, they appear benign on the surface and provide safe harbor for racists and white supremacists who are gaming the system.

Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

You realize this is your go to move when you have nothing else, right?

You nitpick a phrase that someone uses, typically one that comments on something qualitatively, and then pester the responder into nailing down a quantitative response.

It's quite a nifty move to deflect from the original commentary and focus, as it puts your target on the defensive because they had not been discussing a quantitative topic and you attempt to make it qualitative.

Your other favorite move is attacking someone personally by using made up quotes or positions that people don't take.

What do I believe about alt-right groups? I believe that most alt-right groups (greater than 50% - happy?) were created with the intent to try and mainstream white nationalist/supremacist talking points and positions, under the guise of a respectable, palatable, and false conservative narrative. That does not mean that every rowdy conservative group that has sprung up in the past few years has anything to do with that viewpoint (for example, I don't think the Bundy crew were white nationalist), but there is enough of a stench permeating from alt-right groups that we all should be wary.

The term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer (a white supremacist) and he was leading a movement to try to cloak their racist believes in more palatable words (e.g. western civilization) or ideas (e.g. scientific racism, like focusing on IQs.

By the way, before you denigrate the Buzzfeed article for no reason, you should read it. It was well written and very interesting: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ros...tie-mchugh

The issue is that you try to play 'hide the fing potato' with your comments; thank you for fing confirming my suspicions about your 'analysis'.

Looks like it was dead-fing spot on.

Please whine some more.

As for 'nifty move to deflect' your comment that moved from 'most', then 'some', then decided *yourself* to deflect with arguing about 'some' was pretty fing awesome. Yet you whine about 'deflection'. Bravo!

But thank you for gd confirming what your stance is. Too bad I had to gd use fing cross examination to extract that from you. Good grief.....

I am sure that Buzzfeed article is sufficient for your predisposed view on the subject.

Perhaps if you had just said 'well yes it is a preformed construct and I do believe that most alt-right groups are covers for white nationalists, regardless of what they say', I wouldnt have had to to play 'chase the fing greased pig' with your statements, nor would I have had to actually use this amount of space to actually extract that predisposition from you. But thank you again for confirming that your initial comment of many means most -- as opposed to play hide and go seek with the word 'some' like you did, and refusing to admit that your 'some' actually means 'most'.

I always thought a predisposition would be a position not based on evidence or analysis. I’ve come to my opinion on the alt-right based on reading articles and analyses about groups in the alt right.

To the effect that you have noted that you would refuse to listen to the statements of the groups themselves, apparently. Good for you.

Quote:Does your response mean you think there aren’t white supremacist in the alt right and that your disagree with my comments?

I am positive there are elements of white supremacy in the alt-right 'universe'. I fail to see where you or any basic English reader would or could take my comments as a disavowal of that pretty much certain state.

I have already noted one or more of them, and dont think I have stated that the alt-right is 'pure as the driven snow' --- in any way, shape, or form.

Criminy, I have represented people in alt-right groups who are that mindset. I believe I noted that two or three years ago, in fact.

And, I have represented individuals in 'alt-right' groups that are not, nor are the groups they are associated with. But that isnt in a pretty chart in a Buzzfeed or HuffPo article so fell free to ignore that as 'exemplary' in nature, I guess. Perhaps I am a moron deplorable and believe the 'staged line' that they conveyed to me over the course of those representations -- because one should *never* trust *any* alt-right that has the temerity to note that they are not white supremacists (sneaky and smart..... good enough for intentionally dense people like me, eh?)

As for '[me] disagree with [your] comments', I dont have a clue in hell which 'comments' you are referring to, to be honest.

(05-06-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 09:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 08:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 06:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In your opinion, does 'many' mean 75 per cent? 80 per cent? 99 per cent?

When you say 'many' it tends to imply a big percentage. So lad, how fing few of the groups that you label as 'alt-right' dont also fit the 'overt white nationalist' or the 'white nationalists that dress pretty'?

How 'many' "of the alt-right groups .... provide a public, acceptable face, for white nationalists"? You know that 'many' number that you whip out and throw around with impunity. You know, that 'many' who you went to great lengths to respond to with a couple of paragraphs whom:


Yes, 'some' is 'some' and can be 'many' -- which you equate. But it is pretty fing obvious that you think that 'many' means 'most' or 'almost all' by brandishing your buzzfeed article about like a ninja weapon.

Dude, just accept what your combined posts say -- they say that you think most if not nearly all do this. At least have the backbone to stick by the conviction that your posts indicate. Good grief.

And to repeat the question: what does 'many' mean? 70 percent or more? Just say that you believe that most, if not nearly all, fit the paradigm that you took three paragraphs to delineate. That is very much what you imply with that effort, coupled with the 'many' that you so conveniently forgot about. But at least be honest about it....

You realize this is your go to move when you have nothing else, right?

You nitpick a phrase that someone uses, typically one that comments on something qualitatively, and then pester the responder into nailing down a quantitative response.

It's quite a nifty move to deflect from the original commentary and focus, as it puts your target on the defensive because they had not been discussing a quantitative topic and you attempt to make it qualitative.

Your other favorite move is attacking someone personally by using made up quotes or positions that people don't take.

What do I believe about alt-right groups? I believe that most alt-right groups (greater than 50% - happy?) were created with the intent to try and mainstream white nationalist/supremacist talking points and positions, under the guise of a respectable, palatable, and false conservative narrative. That does not mean that every rowdy conservative group that has sprung up in the past few years has anything to do with that viewpoint (for example, I don't think the Bundy crew were white nationalist), but there is enough of a stench permeating from alt-right groups that we all should be wary.

The term "alt right" was coined by Richard Spencer (a white supremacist) and he was leading a movement to try to cloak their racist believes in more palatable words (e.g. western civilization) or ideas (e.g. scientific racism, like focusing on IQs.

By the way, before you denigrate the Buzzfeed article for no reason, you should read it. It was well written and very interesting: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ros...tie-mchugh

The issue is that you try to play 'hide the fing potato' with your comments; thank you for fing confirming my suspicions about your 'analysis'.

Looks like it was dead-fing spot on.

Please whine some more.

As for 'nifty move to deflect' your comment that moved from 'most', then 'some', then decided *yourself* to deflect with arguing about 'some' was pretty fing awesome. Yet you whine about 'deflection'. Bravo!

But thank you for gd confirming what your stance is. Too bad I had to gd use fing cross examination to extract that from you. Good grief.....

I am sure that Buzzfeed article is sufficient for your predisposed view on the subject.

Perhaps if you had just said 'well yes it is a preformed construct and I do believe that most alt-right groups are covers for white nationalists, regardless of what they say', I wouldnt have had to to play 'chase the fing greased pig' with your statements, nor would I have had to actually use this amount of space to actually extract that predisposition from you. But thank you again for confirming that your initial comment of many means most -- as opposed to play hide and go seek with the word 'some' like you did, and refusing to admit that your 'some' actually means 'most'.

I always thought a predisposition would be a position not based on evidence or analysis. I’ve come to my opinion on the alt-right based on reading articles and analyses about groups in the alt right.

To the effect that you have noted that you would refuse to listen to the statements of the groups themselves, apparently. Good for you.

Quote:Does your response mean you think there aren’t white supremacist in the alt right and that your disagree with my comments?

I am positive there are elements of white supremacy in the alt-right 'universe'. I fail to see where you or any basic English reader would or could take my comments as a disavowal of that pretty much certain state.

I have already noted one or more of them, and dont think I have stated that the alt-right is 'pure as the driven snow' --- in any way, shape, or form.

Criminy, I have represented people in alt-right groups who are that mindset. I believe I noted that two or three years ago, in fact.

And, I have represented individuals in 'alt-right' groups that are not, nor are the groups they are associated with. But that isnt in a pretty chart in a Buzzfeed or HuffPo article so fell free to ignore that as 'exemplary' in nature, I guess. Perhaps I am a moron deplorable and believe the 'staged line' that they conveyed to me over the course of those representations -- because one should *never* trust *any* alt-right that has the temerity to note that they are not white supremacists (sneaky and smart..... good enough for intentionally dense people like me, eh?)

As for '[me] disagree with [your] comments', I dont have a clue in hell which 'comments' you are referring to, to be honest.

So are you not taking Owl# to task for saying the same thing about Antifa and their stated mission?

And if their are alt-right groups that practice what they preach and don’t fall into the white supremacist hiding in plain sight tropes, then I would believe them. As I mentioned, the Bundy group would seem to be one of those to me. These Prayer group appear to do fall in that role as well, but since the Proud Boys showed up during this skirmish, there were white supremacists hiding in plain sight there.

My comments have been that many alt right groups are based on white supremacist ideas. So do you agree that more than 50% of these groups are? Or do you think less than 50% of these groups are?

(05-07-2019 05:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am positive there are elements of white supremacy in the alt-right 'universe'. I fail to see where you or any basic English reader would or could take my comments as a disavowal of that pretty much certain state.
I have already noted one or more of them, and dont think I have stated that the alt-right is 'pure as the driven snow' --- in any way, shape, or form.
Criminy, I have represented people in alt-right groups who are that mindset. I believe I noted that two or three years ago, in fact.
And, I have represented individuals in 'alt-right' groups that are not, nor are the groups they are associated with. But that isnt in a pretty chart in a Buzzfeed or HuffPo article so fell free to ignore that as 'exemplary' in nature, I guess. Perhaps I am a moron deplorable and believe the 'staged line' that they conveyed to me over the course of those representations -- because one should *never* trust *any* alt-right that has the temerity to note that they are not white supremacists (sneaky and smart..... good enough for intentionally dense people like me, eh?)
As for '[me] disagree with [your] comments', I dont have a clue in hell which 'comments' you are referring to, to be honest.

So are you not taking Owl# to task for saying the same thing about Antifa and their stated mission?

Umm, what did I say and how is he taking me to task? I'm not following.

Quote:And if their are alt-right groups that practice what they preach and don’t fall into the white supremacist hiding in plain sight tropes, then I would believe them. As I mentioned, the Bundy group would seem to be one of those to me. These Prayer group appear to do fall in that role as well, but since the Proud Boys showed up during this skirmish, there were white supremacists hiding in plain sight there.
My comments have been that many alt right groups are based on white supremacist ideas. So do you agree that more than 50% of these groups are? Or do you think less than 50% of these groups are?

So would you agree that more than 50% of Antifa groups are based upon communist/collectivist ideas? Or do you think less than 50% are? For the record, I would put the number at over 90%.

And as I have said before, there are plenty of people on the right who denounce the KKK/Nazi/white supremacist element. I don't see many on the left denouncing Antifa. I see far more defending or excusing them.

(05-07-2019 05:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 05:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am positive there are elements of white supremacy in the alt-right 'universe'. I fail to see where you or any basic English reader would or could take my comments as a disavowal of that pretty much certain state.
I have already noted one or more of them, and dont think I have stated that the alt-right is 'pure as the driven snow' --- in any way, shape, or form.
Criminy, I have represented people in alt-right groups who are that mindset. I believe I noted that two or three years ago, in fact.
And, I have represented individuals in 'alt-right' groups that are not, nor are the groups they are associated with. But that isnt in a pretty chart in a Buzzfeed or HuffPo article so fell free to ignore that as 'exemplary' in nature, I guess. Perhaps I am a moron deplorable and believe the 'staged line' that they conveyed to me over the course of those representations -- because one should *never* trust *any* alt-right that has the temerity to note that they are not white supremacists (sneaky and smart..... good enough for intentionally dense people like me, eh?)
As for '[me] disagree with [your] comments', I dont have a clue in hell which 'comments' you are referring to, to be honest.

So are you not taking Owl# to task for saying the same thing about Antifa and their stated mission?

Umm, what did I say and how is he taking me to task? I'm not following.

Quote:And if their are alt-right groups that practice what they preach and don’t fall into the white supremacist hiding in plain sight tropes, then I would believe them. As I mentioned, the Bundy group would seem to be one of those to me. These Prayer group appear to do fall in that role as well, but since the Proud Boys showed up during this skirmish, there were white supremacists hiding in plain sight there.
My comments have been that many alt right groups are based on white supremacist ideas. So do you agree that more than 50% of these groups are? Or do you think less than 50% of these groups are?

So would you agree that more than 50% of Antifa groups are based upon communist/collectivist ideas? Or do you think less than 50% are? For the record, I would put the number at over 90%.

And as I have said before, there are plenty of people on the right who denounce the KKK/Nazi/white supremacist element. I don't see many on the left denouncing Antifa. I see far more defending or excusing them.

You’ve said you believe Antifa does not just represent their stated goals. For some reason Tanq is angry at me for saying many alt right groups do the same, but he has said nothing to you about similar claims regarding
Antufa. I wonder why...

Based on what I’ve seen from Antifa I would agree Antifa groups are primarily composed of anti-capitalist or socialists or communists. They’re pretty much all groups of radicals that use violence.

(05-07-2019 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’ve said you believe Antifa does not just represent their stated goals. For some reason Tanq is angry at me for saying many alt right groups do the same, but he has said nothing to you about similar claims regarding Antifa. I wonder why...

I think the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists are pretty straightforward about their goals. I think what Tanq is saying is that some so-called alt-right groups have different goals. I would not project the goals of one group onto another group that rejects those goals.

I don't think Antifa represents their stated goals at all. Luckily for them, they fell into anti-fascism as a cover that gives them some air of legitimacy. I don't blame them. If I were a communist, I wouldn't state my goals correctly, either. I do blame others on the left for not calling them out.

Quote:Based on what I’ve seen from Antifa I would agree Antifa groups are primarily composed of anti-capitalist or socialists or communists. They’re pretty much all groups of radicals that use violence.

Thank you. That's where I have been trying to get you to go. I'm afraid too many of your fellow travelers on the left don't go there.

(05-07-2019 06:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 06:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’ve said you believe Antifa does not just represent their stated goals. For some reason Tanq is angry at me for saying many alt right groups do the same, but he has said nothing to you about similar claims regarding Antifa. I wonder why...

I think the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists are pretty straightforward about their goals. I think what Tanq is saying is that some so-called alt-right groups have different goals. I would not project the goals of one group onto another group that rejects those goals.

I don't think Antifa represents their stated goals at all. Luckily for them, they fell into anti-fascism as a cover that gives them some air of legitimacy. I don't blame them. If I were a communist, I wouldn't state my goals correctly, either. I do blame others on the left for not calling them out.

Quote:Based on what I’ve seen from Antifa I would agree Antifa groups are primarily composed of anti-capitalist or socialists or communists. They’re pretty much all groups of radicals that use violence.

Thank you. That's where I have been trying to get you to go. I'm afraid too many of your fellow travelers on the left don't go there.

Ah, so you’re ok assuming Antifa groups are misrepresenting their goals, but not alt-right groups?

There is a mountain of evidence that many alt-right groups are a facade for blatant racism. So that’s why I am wary of any group claiming to be alt-right and claiming to not support white supremacy ideology. As I’ve said, there are groups that buck that trend and don’t trade that ideology currency (for like for third time, the Bundy group comes to mind).

Why is it not ok to use the actions of other groups inside of a larger group (the “alt-right”) to draw initial opinions about their background? Actions speak louder than words, so when certain groups practice what they preach about not being white supremacists in hiding or completely ignore those tropes, I am inclined to believe them. But when they openly associate with other white supremacist groups like The Proud Boys, why is it incorrect to be skeptical of their claims?

What Tanq is saying is that I can’t be reserved about believing what groups say, when they travel in a circle meant to be a public facade for racists because they’re on the right. Yet it’s ok to make sweeping generalizations about a group like Antifa.

By the way, I’m pretty much ok with the sweeping generalization about Antifa because they don’t act as if they’re a group meant solely to stand up to facists.

And you don’t need to thank me - I’ve been fairly quiet on this thread because I’ve been traveling. Not sure how much leading you’ve actually been doing to get me to speak about Antifa. I was primarily trying to point out that the event that sparked this line of talk, was one that was instigated by an alt-right group.

How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

(05-07-2019 05:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 05:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-06-2019 10:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am positive there are elements of white supremacy in the alt-right 'universe'. I fail to see where you or any basic English reader would or could take my comments as a disavowal of that pretty much certain state.
I have already noted one or more of them, and dont think I have stated that the alt-right is 'pure as the driven snow' --- in any way, shape, or form.
Criminy, I have represented people in alt-right groups who are that mindset. I believe I noted that two or three years ago, in fact.
And, I have represented individuals in 'alt-right' groups that are not, nor are the groups they are associated with. But that isnt in a pretty chart in a Buzzfeed or HuffPo article so fell free to ignore that as 'exemplary' in nature, I guess. Perhaps I am a moron deplorable and believe the 'staged line' that they conveyed to me over the course of those representations -- because one should *never* trust *any* alt-right that has the temerity to note that they are not white supremacists (sneaky and smart..... good enough for intentionally dense people like me, eh?)
As for '[me] disagree with [your] comments', I dont have a clue in hell which 'comments' you are referring to, to be honest.

So are you not taking Owl# to task for saying the same thing about Antifa and their stated mission?

Umm, what did I say and how is he taking me to task? I'm not following.

Quote:And if their are alt-right groups that practice what they preach and don’t fall into the white supremacist hiding in plain sight tropes, then I would believe them. As I mentioned, the Bundy group would seem to be one of those to me. These Prayer group appear to do fall in that role as well, but since the Proud Boys showed up during this skirmish, there were white supremacists hiding in plain sight there.
My comments have been that many alt right groups are based on white supremacist ideas. So do you agree that more than 50% of these groups are? Or do you think less than 50% of these groups are?

So would you agree that more than 50% of Antifa groups are based upon communist/collectivist ideas? Or do you think less than 50% are? For the record, I would put the number at over 90%.

And as I have said before, there are plenty of people on the right who denounce the KKK/Nazi/white supremacist element. I don't see many on the left denouncing Antifa. I see far more defending or excusing them.

This is due to the fact that (correctly or incorrectly) the general view of antifa is "a bunch of silly young people fighting Nazis". I don't believe that the view of them is that they are primarily composed of violent Marxists. You can argue if this is willful ignorance or not...

Therefore it certainly doesn't seem to rise anywhere near the level of the KKK/white separatists/etc.

(05-07-2019 08:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is due to the fact that (correctly or incorrectly) the general view of antifa is "a bunch of silly young people fighting Nazis". I don't believe that the view of them is that they are primarily composed of violent Marxists. You can argue if this is willful ignorance or not...

I think it is intentional misleading.

Quote:Therefore it certainly doesn't seem to rise anywhere near the level of the KKK/white separatists/etc.

Wow.

(05-07-2019 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

(05-07-2019 08:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

How many candidates have Antifa thrown their weight behind?

And are we sure none have even said anything about Antifa?

(05-07-2019 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

How many candidates have Antifa thrown their weight behind?

And are we sure none have even said anything about Antifa?

Did I get the number wrong?

(05-07-2019 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

How many candidates have Antifa thrown their weight behind?
And are we sure none have even said anything about Antifa?

You tell me if any have. I'm not aware.

Here is my problem, restated. Anybody on the right is tarred and smeared with the KKK./Nazi/racist tag. No matter how much they disavow, it's always not quite enough. But the left gets to excuse and even embrace Antifa, and it's no big deal. Maybe that's okay, if we assume that KKK/Nazis/racists are the worst personification of evil, while Antifa is just a bunch of kids protesting racist Nazis. I'm fine with the first half of that, but not the second. I see absolutely no way that commie Antifa is any better than the KKK/Nazi/racists.

So here's how I'm going to approach it. And right winger who does not disavow the KKK/Nazis/racists is equally as fascist and racist as any left winger who doesn't disavow Antifa is communist.

(05-07-2019 09:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 08:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-07-2019 07:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many democrats in the presidential field have disavowed Antifa?

Zero. Zip. Nada.

How many candidates have Antifa thrown their weight behind?

And are we sure none have even said anything about Antifa?

Did I get the number wrong?

Are you following all candidates that closely? The only comments I remember hearing were Pelosi bashing Antifa.

And are Antifa groups actively supporting candidates? I don’t know the answer to that - you seem informed.

(05-07-2019 05:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And as I have said before, there are plenty of people on the right who denounce the KKK/Nazi/white supremacist element. I don't see many on the left denouncing Antifa. I see far more defending or excusing them.

Maybe not 'defending' them -- I dont think I have seen anyone in mainstream liberal/progressive side (even as far as the left has moved and the 'mainstream' has correspondingly tracked to what was once 'radical left' territory) say "Yay, go antifa, knock some heads".

And I dont see a full excuse in that vein either.

I do see a full court press that seems to say 'our thugs who knock the fk out the other side are coming from a better place and thus relatively 'better' than those others'.

(05-07-2019 08:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  This is due to the fact that (correctly or incorrectly) the general view of antifa is "a bunch of silly young people fighting Nazis". I don't believe that the view of them is that they are primarily composed of violent Marxists.

Then let's just say violent radical left. Is that *any* better? In fact, when you think of about that, that statement is *far* worse actually when you want to 'de-radicalize' their politics.

To be blunt the term you just used 'primarily composed of violent Marxists', mind you. Well I think the adjective 'violent' really cannot be debated -- they go out of their way at times to meet otherwise peaceful meetings (i.e. Patriot Prayer rallies) with the full intent of bashing heads. So if they aren't 'primarily violent Marxists', and we can ascertain pretty much that they are *very* violent, then three questions:

a) if not Marxists, what are they primarily? More mainstream progressive thought followers?

b) given in arguendo that they are not 'violent Marxists', how does that even impact the base level that they explicitly advocate violence, and are unabashedly violent?

c) assume again that they are philosophy-neutral (violent agnostics or something such....), are you implying that the expression of violent message and the enacting of that violent message with a philosophy (any philosophy) is somehow *worse* than the neutral violent message and the enacting of that violent message?

If so, think about that stance for a bit --- you would be advocating that 'violent head bashers who have zero philosophical stance behind their violence are inherently better than violent head bashers with a philosophical stance.' If so, I find it amazing to be labeled as 'hair-splitting' with a potential support of the stance that content neutral violent actors are relatively better than content bearing violent actors.

Quote:Therefore it certainly doesn't seem to rise anywhere near the level of the KKK/white separatists/etc.

And if I am not mistaken you just made that content neutral jump. Worse than that, you are expressing that 'violent actors who act against people that you have a visceral dislike of' should be 'rewarded' in a relative sense by having their head-bashing not be treated as harshly.

Going back to a point made earlier, you were amazingly critical of Trump's Charlottesville statements where you claimed he put his finger on the scale of violent actions based on content -- and your statements here seem to be the exact same format of what you critique but simply polarity-reversed.

For the record, this is *not* a defense of right-based violence. Antifa and those that they bash heads of are equal opportunity asshats, in action, scale, and degree in my book. And to be blunt, I am pretty much stunned to actually hear that 'violence of equal scope from one political quarter doesnt rise to the level of their doppleganger on the opposite spectrum'.

I have to join Owl#s in saying 'wow' to this.

Edited to add: I just realized I mis-attributed the quote above. Thus instead of saying "you were amazingly critical", I dont think Rice93 made statements there. My bad facts and assumption there.