Am I racist?

[Leshma]

Also on /pol/? I only visit 4chan's /pol/.

Probably not. There are few subreddits like /r/pol, /r/TheRedPill and /r/The_Donald where you can chat shit but other than that it is not welcome shitting on muslems even when it makes perfect sense.

Concept of every subreddit is, you started it you're the dictator of it. There is no free speech or calling out to common sense, logic or whatever. If subreddit in question has been started by complete lunatic, his rules will apply in that subreddit. Since most of reddit crowd are modern leftist liberals, more often than not you'll get downvoted for voicing different opnion. They are very downvote friendly.

There are some general rules on reddit but I don't thinking anything cares about that. It's like expecting Valve to intervene and punish crazy moderators on Steam forums. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Unlike Google, Twiiter and Facebook which are ruled by iron fist, reddit doesn't have that centralized authority thing going on.

Of course, chans are for lulz freedom loving sites, you can write whatever you want in there.

[Angantyr]

Seriously, this whole Google memo fiasco has demonstrated that the majority of ostensibly literate people can't actually read. Almost all the retarded MSM articles on it say that Damore claimed "women are biologically inferior" and "thinks women shouldn't work at Google."

Yes, I was actually slightly surprised this time, for all the bad propaganda I've seen in my life. Many commented in bad faith, of course. And others were just victims of confirmation bias, I guess (or perhaps too stupid to understand what he wrote). But many others again didn't even read the memo. Good example from CNN here;

Same with the reception of Trump's comments on Charlottesville. It seems the media and its uncritical consumers have decided to know nothing of the history of Antifa, BAMN and BLM or how these groups have acted in the past year particularly. How they've attacked peaceful protesters, rioted in the streets and prevented (through violence) conservative speakers from speaking at universities (Charles Murray for one was physically attacked as he fled Middlebury, his companion grabbed by her hair and got her neck twisted by protesters who proceeded to surround and pound on their car and jump unto the hood - with no repercussions for any students present). The violence has been coming almost exclusively from the left until Berkeley. Trump said it like it was but the media just exploded as if Weimar-style street violence in the US had completely escaped everyone until now. Though everyone has filled their daily article quotas with Trump bashing since he first ran for president, even my country's so-called center-right media just more or less copy paste from Washington Post and New York Times as if they were in any way non-partisan. Nothing too petty or too hysterical.

A recent study from Harvard actually demonstrated what anyone reading newspapers every day already knew (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641);

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

It's as if the left is living in a post-modernist simulacrum by this point, if anyone is guilty in creating divides in the population it's the media.

[Leshma]

Regressive media has been defending antifa for years now. The only reason they're even starting to get slightly negative coverage is because of Trump's statement on Charlottesville. One which they immediately REEEEEEEEE'd over, because antifa are anti-racist freedom fighters, dontchaknow, and anything that is standing against evil waycists is automatically good and wholesome, so there's no equivalence between the two mirror reflections at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

Problem with Antifa is that no true communist would ever find them even remotely serious. They look silly, they act silly and if they tried to pull off that shit in communist state ruled by a dictator like North Korea for example, they would be arrested for spreading 'western propaganda', civil unrest, not helping the country to grow and prosper by being lazy, radical elements and in general not acting like good obedient communists. After prompt arrest they would be put in concentration camp of sorts, serving as free labor (slaves). Because as every communist knows, nothing helps build strong character like hard work.

In communist countries, average peons are supposed to finish their education, get a degree, find a wife (gay is totally not okay in hard core communism), breed three children (two to replace parents and one to promote further growth of population), serve in military (absolute must, no two ways about it), work hard until retirement for measly paycheck and die. If you do not follow this pattern and have certain connection to foreign, potentially dangerous elements (relatives who live abroad), you're going to be closely followed by state service through their soldiers who live among general population, seemingly normal lives in order to perform checks is everything going to plan.

So I'm really not sure who are these clowns trying to represent? Anarchy is not welcome in well run socialist society and will get you killed more often than not.

[njames89]

Hes not wrong is stating both sides are to blame for the violence. I agree it was the wrong thing to say, very insensitive and only really placates the people supporting the fringe right wing.

We learned long ago that Trump doesn't say the right thing or the smart thing a lot of the time though. Despite having at heart what I believe are good intentions.

[Gnjus]

You're all a bunch of bigot racist shitheads in this thread and I won't be playing Bannerlords with the likes of you.....especially that froggish gypsy Oberyn, that bone-nosed baboon Heskey and that bloody shqipëtar Leshma. Oh and that puckheaded maple-sucker njames.

[njames89]

the appropriate slur is frostback, ty

[Angantyr]

As much as I like acknowledging how much the media divide us, I can defend the bashing over Trump's Charlottesville comments. Nobody wants to hear "both sides are to blame" after a car rams into a crowd. Whether the driver is leftist, far-right, or Islamist. That's just poorly-conceived. There's an expectation that when your people are attacked and dead/injured, that you condemn the attack.

If I was on this forum after the Nice truck attack and blamed "many sides" as my first response to hearing it confirmed as an Islamist terror attack, you know I'd be labelled an apologist, and I'm not the leader of a country. As it stands, as a not-President, and someone who's pretty vocal about what I think of attacking civilians, you're all quick to anger if I even attempt to talk about any issues beyond "condemn the group that did X", not just on the day of an attack but the week or month of one. And that's the same expectation people have from their President when an attack happens, by all means talk later about how violence on both sides has gotten out of hand, but in the moment you need to condemn the attack that's just happened and left people dead/injured, make it clear you're not just an apologist for the far-right as a President.

As I put in an edit a few minutes before you posted there has been Weimar-light-style violence on the streets of the US in the last year. I recommend looking up some of the fight videos, people have been stabbed, gassed, maced, shot, beaten etc. it's only by some luck nobody has been killed before now, and it's like no one in the mainstream have followed how these far left groups have facilitated the violence until The Battle of Berkeley (where the right wingers had had enough and came prepared https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwsAMjvRWXM), and have since only exacerbated it. I think it was fair of Trump to point this out. Charlottesville would have been peaceful if the protesters had just been left in peace to protest, if not by extremist groups like Antifa, BLM or BAMN then by the police who should have kept the two opposing sides seperated. Admitting that to ourselves isn't defending the stupid fuck who drove the Dodge into the crowd of people.

And the violence isn't just against right wing protesters, police and neutral pedestrians have been attacked on several occasions by Antifa, and cops have been shot by a BLM supporter in Dallas. Even university speakers have been physically assaulted, when Charles Murray was forced to flee Middlesbury University where he was to do a talk he was attacked by masked Antifa on the way out, his companion was grabbed by her hair, had her neck twisted (later hospitalizing her) and when they escaped into their car it was surrounded and beaten on and prevented from driving away.


Comparing that to an Islamic terrorist attack against innocent bystanders, including children more often than not, is way off the mark.

[Xant]

Yes, I was actually slightly surprised this time, for all the bad propaganda I've seen in my life. Many commented in bad faith, of course. And others were just victims of confirmation bias, I guess (or perhaps too stupid to understand what he wrote). But many others again didn't even read the memo. Good example from CNN here;

Same with the reception of Trump's comments on Charlottesville. It seems the media and its uncritical consumers have decided to know nothing of the history of Antifa, BAMN and BLM or how these groups have acted in the past year particularly. How they've attacked peaceful protesters, rioted in the streets and prevented (through violence) conservative speakers from speaking at universities (Charles Murray for one was physically attacked as he fled Middlebury, his companion grabbed by her hair and got her neck twisted by protesters who proceeded to surround and pound on their car and jump unto the hood - with no repercussions for any students present). The violence has been coming almost exclusively from the left until Berkeley. Trump said it like it was but the media just exploded as if Weimar-style street violence in the US had completely escaped everyone until now. Though everyone has filled their daily article quotas with Trump bashing since he first ran for president, even my country's so-called center-right media just more or less copy paste from Washington Post and New York Times as if they were in any way non-partisan. Nothing too petty or too hysterical.

A recent study from Harvard actually demonstrated what anyone reading newspapers every day already knew (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative/article/2623641);


It's as if the left is living in a post-modernist simulacrum by this point, if anyone is guilty in creating divides in the population it's the media.

One of the perfect examples of this crap:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/08/why_james_mattis_viral_rebuke_of_trump_was_so_disturbing.html

They report it as FACT that Mattis told the troops he has "lost faith in the President", despite Mattis obviously talking about all the protests and the division in the country, not Trump.

As much as I like acknowledging how much the media divide us, I can defend the bashing over Trump's Charlottesville comments. Nobody wants to hear "both sides are to blame" after a car rams into a crowd. Whether the driver is leftist, far-right, or Islamist. That's just poorly-conceived. There's an expectation that when your people are attacked and dead/injured, that you condemn the attack.

Yes, except Antifa weren't some poor victims that were attacked. They were attacking, and injuring, the other protesters. So it only makes sense to condemn both sides. Just because one neo-chocolate chip cookie decides to ram his car into a crowd doesn't make all of Antifa angels, or all of the neo-chocolate chip cookies worse than all of Antifa.

The situation has absolutely nothing to do with the Nice terror attack.

[Drunken_sailor]

lets not pretend like one side of the antifa vs altright wants peaceful protests.  They are both filled with angry shitheads looking for a fight. 

in the US anarchism is a joke, it does not require any outside involvement to be an ineffective belief.  Racism however is still a huge issue here, with violence on both sides of the skin color divide.  Arguing about who was justified in a fight between two groups looking to fight regardless of the situation does nothing towards the problem of eliminating racially motivated violence.

[Oberyn]

I guarantee that the driver will not be charged with 1st degree murder, much less terrorism. Just because the media treated it as a Truck of Peace attack doesn't mean it was anything remotely similar. Have you seen multiple videos of the event? From multiple angles? A car runs into the back of another car which then speeds into a group of antifa. He clearly wasn't trying a muslim style terrorist attack, cause he would've drove right through the entire crowd. He stops, then backs up immediately, speeding away.

There was no high speed chase. He clearly didn't try to resist arrest. He probably even called the cops to surrender, since it was so close to the scene of the "attack". The first initial news from police officers was that they considered it an accident. There are multiple reports of antifa randomely assaulting people, especially photographers (their usual MO) and anyone they didn't like the look of, and throwing bottles at passing cars and vandalizing others. They were carrying baseball bats, sticks, metal bars and backpacks full of glass bottles, again, their usual MO. Is it really so far-fetched to imagine the hectic situation may have played a role, and this guy didn't set out to find some commies and run them over for the glory of H1tler?

The HYSTERICAL overreaction of the media over the death of one person, as opposed to, oh, the few hundred here and there every year that muslim terrorists are responsable for, or the battlefields that have become certain american cities, if anything should've opened your eyes to their ridiculous lies and distorted perception of reality.

[Xant]

The minimum leadership you'd expect when a person or a group attacks and/or kills people in your country is "A bad thing happened, I will do everything in my power to try and prevent it from happening again", as the immediate response. That should be the knee-jerk reaction, no apologising and nothing to indicate that perhaps the victim(s) had it coming.

Another side performs violent action, condemn it. I don't know what's shocking or revolutionary about the idea. You point out violent protest from the left on other occasions, that's fine, did Trump shy away from condemning these? There's no getting precious over how nobody ever condemns it when the other side acts, Trump condemned it then and should condemn it now. You can bet half the internet and media would have equally exploded if he hadnt condemned violent 'leftist' action in the past.

I brought up terror attacks because if you're unable to comprehend why people get so angry over Trump speaking "simple truths" immediately after the event, how did the assertion from Macron that terrorism will simply be “part of our daily lives for the years to come” make you feel? I mean he's not wrong. But it's not what you want to hear from your leader following an incident.

What you don't seem to understand is that Antifa was the one initiating the violence, like always. One neo-chocolate chip cookie responded by driving his car into a crowd. Why should the violence of hundreds/thousands be ignored because of one person being violent on the other side?

[Grytviken]

If I was on this forum after the Nice truck attack and blamed "many sides" as my first response to hearing it confirmed as an Islamist terror attack, you know I'd be labelled an apologist, and I'm not the leader of a country. As it stands, as a not-President, and someone who's pretty vocal about what I think of attacking civilians, you're all quick to anger if I even attempt to talk about any issues beyond "condemn the group that did X", not just on the day of an attack but the week or month of one. And that's the same expectation people have from their President when an attack happens, by all means talk later about how violence on both sides has gotten out of hand, but in the moment you need to condemn the attack that's just happened and left people dead/injured, make it clear you're not just an apologist for the far-right as a President.

The left did come around after every single terrorist attack and blamed many sides. The left promotes this type of violence through policy and their media outlets and chooses to ignore the countless murders, assaults and maimings that do not fit their narrative.

I can't count how many times after a terrorist attack they show the " friendly Muslim taxi cab driver" giving free rides to victims, disgusting.

I also don't blame the right for all the Nazziis coming out of the woodwork. The left has been accusing everyone of being a chocolate chip cookie for even questioning their failed immigration policies, now the actual real nazziis are coming out and are stronger than they've ever been before and the left is cowering to the right for help and assurance. I find it comical actually. As much as I don't agree with Nazzi ideology, I have to say fuck you to the liberals for attacking even moderate free speech, enjoy the nazziis you've created.

[Oberyn]

lets not pretend like one side of the antifa vs altright wants peaceful protests.  They are both filled with angry shitheads looking for a fight. 

in the US anarchism is a joke, it does not require any outside involvement to be an ineffective belief.  Racism however is still a huge issue here, with violence on both sides of the skin color divide.  Arguing about who was justified in a fight between two groups looking to fight regardless of the situation does nothing towards the problem of eliminating racially motivated violence.

You really want to compare racial violence side by side in the US and pretend it's some sort of equal distribution?

You may also think these "anarchists" aren't a huge issue in the US, but they absolutely are. They are the product of a cancer riddled throughout academia, media and even corporations. Antifa are just as much a symptom of something far greater and more pernicious as modern neo-naz1s are. Do you really think actual, avowed fascists and KKK are some sort of sizeable political force, or numerous? It's the vastly growing silent majority of the center and moderate right who have been forced by Identity Politics to pick a side you should be worried about. Anytime there is a "conversation" about race, which largely consists of foam-mouthed angry preaching about original sin, you push that much farther. Remember that when it comes to picking a side in the Clown World game of Identity Politics, most people will eventually chose their own. You can't brainwash an entire race into eradicating itself.

[Xant]

What about the hysteria some people feel when an extremist group (Antifa) goes around beating up random people and burning down buildings, etc?

[Oberyn]

One thing that is certain, is the neo-nazi ploughing his car into a crowd. You usually condemn that.

I did, just not here. I have emails I can quote from if you'd like. When I thought it was a chocolate chip cookie car of peace attack, my reaction was one of outrage. That video I linked back there? It's the same one I posted when arguing with a friend that this was indefensible and insane. Then I actually started looking into it, and surprise surprise, the "peaceful" antifa were there doing what they always do. Then I started thinking about the sequence of events as posted above. I don't know how, knowing all this, and even admitting that he wouldn't even be charged with murder, you still say the outrage is justified and just as valid as if it was a muslim extremist attack designed to kill as many people as possible.

When it goes to trial and the guy inevitably gets, at most, manslaughter, will you admit it was a retarded hysterical mob driven by chants of "naz1! NAAAAz1!1" by the media that turned this into a national moral panic? I'll admit this is equivalent to a muslim terrorist attack and I was badly wrong if the trial determines so.