“It’s ok to be white” 4chan campaign.

[Speaker to Animals]

Because this "I'm just a political moderate come here to police only right wing speech" act is so common, prior probability dictates it a safe assumption when one encounters all the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in a few of your posts above. /shrug

I don't happen to think opposing SJWs *or* Nazis is particularly "extremist".

You said folks who oppose the totalitarianism of SJWs are the flip side of the same coin. People opposing SJWs are generally standing up for freedom of speech and thought. I asked you how much of those freedoms we ought to abridge in order to become "moderates" like you, and you balked. You claimed "moderates" support freedom of speech. But if they support freedom of speech, then they oppose SJWs. Contradiction.

[DBTrek]

Person: I agree with 99% of your statement, aside from the 1% part that is obviously batshit crazy to any self aware human being.

StA: Clearly you are degenerate scum that must be destroyed.

99% of the threads here.

[nmoore63]

lol. You guys are still really mad about having your assets handed to you in that thread.

Culture is downstream from environment.

[Heraclius]

It isn't opposing SJWS or Nazis that is extremist. If anything, this is as moderate as one could possibly be.

The extremist position is to be one or the other.

I said folks who are extremely Anti-PC are the flip side of those that are extremely PC. Both operating with similar rhetoric, similar violence, similar screeching. The only difference is the color they blame for their problems. In my age group, they're both seen as groups that missed the forest for the trees and now are busy fighting over which tree is biggest rather than addressing the central economic concerns that created issues from the outset.

You don't need to be a believer in the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon genome in order to stand up for freedom of speech and thought. It is possible for Anti-PC extremists to be on the same side as moderates on some issues. Same can be true for SJWs. The problem is that once the public is sympathetic towards one side, the other considers it a betrayal on the level of Cain and Abel and proceeds to create a shitstorm in the streets.

Looking back at a previous post, I can see some confusion might happen again. A problem is that the extremes of both sides tend to coop moderate positions and manipulate them into meaning something else.

When an SJW says "opposing Nazism is not extremism" that refers to everything from actually opposing real Nazis to opposing people that were willing to support Trump. When a moderate says it, it really just means opposing Nazis.

I inferred you used totalitarianism in a more liberal sense than it was supposed to be used judging by your initial slippery slope with the word.

[Speaker to Animals]

And then there’s his denial issues.
Like claiming utter defeats as victories.

LOL!

You had your ass handed to you repeatedly in that thread, and every time you got angrier and threw the biggest tantrum ever. Don't try to deny it.

You ran around like an SJW monkey accusing people of being "racist" for wanting to maintain a demographic majority in their own country. When you were confronted with the implication that also means Mexicans are racist for wanting to maintain a Latino majority in Mexico, or Japanese are racist for not wanting a bunch of Europeans and Africans migrating there to displace them, you got angry and declared that's different!

You said we can't have race-based laws, so we might as well get used to being replaced in our own countries. I replied that it was a surprise to me that all of you guys are opposed to race-based laws, because it's not like you threw tantrums like that about affirmative action laws, or all the policies and laws that are designed to punish or harm whites for the benefit of nonwhites. Guess what the general reply was to that? That's different!

You couldn't even address the contradictions in your own arguments, if you want to call them such, and your only recourse was to accuse people arguing common-sense things like, "People have a right to maintain a demographic majority in their own fucking countries", with cries of racism and wanting to exterminate, sterilize, or otherwise destroy nonwhites in some kind of Nazi Fourth Reich.

Multiple people showed up and pointed out you were behaving like a dummy.


There isn't anything wrong with Japanese wanting to maintain a Japanese majority in Japan, Mexicans wanting to maintain a Latino majority in Mexico, or whites wanting to maintain a white majority in the United States, Canada, and European nations. If you want to argue the first two are okay, but the latter are racist, then you don't have a coherent or logical position. Your only real viable option at that point is to scream racist really loud, over and over, and hope nobody figures out you're totally full of poop. Oh wait.. that's what happened..

[K@th]

And then there’s his denial issues.
Like claiming utter defeats as victories.

It's easy to win in your head when you move the goalposts every couple of pages.

[The Conservative]

So can any retailer, or media outlet.

Our little fascist has a genuine belief that once a company reaches a certain status, the government should be able to dictate what they do/don't sell/offer and what prices they can/can't charge. He's very firm in his belief that this is the panacea.

That is actually what the government is supposed to do when a company starts to act/becomes monopolistic.

[DBTrek]

I lost count of StA’s lies about a paragraph and a half in, so I’ll let his hilarious response and the actual thread stand as my rebuttal. No man who hasn’t been red-assed in a thread would put that much effort into writing a fictional account where they actually emerged with a victory.

[The Conservative]

I lost count of StA’s lies about a paragraph and a half in, so I’ll let his hilarious response and the actual thread stand as my rebuttal. No man who hasn’t been red-assed in a thread would put that much effort into writing a fictional account where they actually emerged with a victory.

Honestly, when he goes on a tirade I see if people picked parts to point at and comment on those. My time is too precious to spend reading paragraphs of stuff that won’t make me smarter.

[Speaker to Animals]

It isn't opposing SJWS or Nazis that is extremist. If anything, this is as moderate as one could possibly be.

The extremist position is to be one or the other.

I said folks who are extremely Anti-PC are the flip side of those that are extremely PC. Both operating with similar rhetoric, similar violence, similar screeching. The only difference is the color they blame for their problems. In my age group, they're both seen as groups that missed the forest for the trees and now are busy fighting over which tree is biggest rather than addressing the central economic concerns that created issues from the outset.

You don't need to be a believer in the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon genome in order to stand up for freedom of speech and thought. It is possible for Anti-PC extremists to be on the same side as moderates on some issues. Same can be true for SJWs. The problem is that once the public is sympathetic towards one side, the other considers it a betrayal on the level of Cain and Abel and proceeds to create a shitstorm in the streets.

Looking back at a previous post, I can see some confusion might happen again. A problem is that the extremes of both sides tend to coop moderate positions and manipulate them into meaning something else.

When an SJW says "opposing Nazism is not extremism" that refers to everything from actually opposing real Nazis to opposing people that were willing to support Trump. When a moderate says it, it really just means opposing Nazis.

I inferred you used totalitarianism in a more liberal sense than it was supposed to be used judging by your initial slippery slope with the word.

You really need to address the contradiction.

You said people who oppose SJWs are "extremists". You later said "moderates" all support freedom of speech. But in order to support the freedom of speech, you place yourself in opposition to SJWs. SJWs are explicitly anti-freedom of speech, after all. They don't hide who they are like some folks apparently like to do. So if you call yourself a "moderate" who supports the freedom of speech, then you are opposed to SJWs. But you just said people who oppose them are "extremists".

Which is it? Do you mean to imply that people who oppose SJWs who don't agree with you are extremists? I don't know what to make of it. My best assumption is that you are moderate left to hard leftist and you are fronting as a so-called "moderate", and trying to attack only anti-SJW positions.

It's a pathetic tactic if true, but it's all-too-common in this forum now. Kath and GCF are exhibit A. These people are actually pretty extremists themselves. Their tactic is to frame the political ideas they oppose as "extreme" without actually openly admitting just how extreme their own views are. It becomes rather apparent after months and month. The modus operandi here is to frame yourself as the "rational middle America" while only attacking the people who oppose the extreme views you actually support.

It's more than a little common on the left these days. This meme didn't become popular in a vacuum..