This very moment Jay is somewhere eating a bucket of chicken upset that his town doesn't have sewers.
Thanks again for banning him Ken.
Thanks again for banning him Ken.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
And less alternative opinions on this forum, how wonderful. Didn't entirely agree with everything Jay had to say, but I feel he should not have been banned.SuperJail Warden wrote:
This very moment Jay is somewhere eating a bucket of chicken upset that his town doesn't have sewers.
Thanks again for banning him Ken.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
The problem I have now is that every news report seems like an Onion article and I have to check that it isn't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yeah that was my take. "It can't be real, but it's so damn plausible."
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Thanks again for banning him Ken.
I banned him, and for two weeks, for this post. Feel free to PM me.War Man wrote:
I feel he should not have been banned.
You have been banned by tazz.. Reason:
"'Flaming' (personal attacks) are not well received on these forums.
While some users may exhibit traits of being an ass, there is always a line. You crossed that line."
This is a temporary ban and will expire 2017-02-19 21:26:40.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
i should add that i'm not offended by jay 'crossing' that line. i've dealt with a lot in 2.5 years of having a brother in a coma and having some vain idiot on the internet bring it up out of desperation is hardly going to cause an emotional breakdown. it's sad that he now has children himself and so should have a deeper emotional intelligence (and indeed a decade of maturity over me), and yet he will shame himself with such petty and pathetic comments. jay defeated himself there.
also i don't think anything i've said in to him has made me an ass. jay can't form a cogent defense of any of his arguments re: trump or the constitution. he's a strict constitutionalist who will totally overlook that trump is in contravention of the constitution according to ANY literalist reading. jay thinks the attorney-general is only there to facilitate the executive's will – despite the fact that several dozen ag's at state level have upheld their oath to the law and constitution above the government. it's not like i was just trolling him. he is incoherent.
also i don't think anything i've said in to him has made me an ass. jay can't form a cogent defense of any of his arguments re: trump or the constitution. he's a strict constitutionalist who will totally overlook that trump is in contravention of the constitution according to ANY literalist reading. jay thinks the attorney-general is only there to facilitate the executive's will – despite the fact that several dozen ag's at state level have upheld their oath to the law and constitution above the government. it's not like i was just trolling him. he is incoherent.
Last edited by uziq (2017-02-18 04:18:16)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
So that Milo guy that Berkeley got set on fire because of turned out to be a pedophile. Or at least a pedophile apologist. He was supposed to be the keynote speaker at the Conservative Politician Action Conference and had a book deal set up. Both are gone as people distance themselves from him.
Isn't he essentially just a Twitter troll or does he have actual thoughts? Probably not worth paying attention to, in any case.
He was the alt-right poster boy, because they're so well known as hating gays they could proudly parade this guy around and as their token gay friend. It's blown up spectacularly.
The Obama administration was never this fun to watch from the sidelines.
The Obama administration was never this fun to watch from the sidelines.
he's just a troll that for some reason people started paying attention to. Hopefully he just fades away.DesertFox- wrote:
Isn't he essentially just a Twitter troll or does he have actual thoughts? Probably not worth paying attention to, in any case.
Still kinda scratch my head about the "promote free speech....wait, except if you talk about pedophilia" viewpoint of his previous conservative backers. Seems they glommed on him because of his "liberal bashing" more than anything else. In fact that kinda seems the main defining feature of the alt-right: there's no cohesive platform beyond "hate liberals". That's why they will vanish like a fart in the wind.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
He is such a weirdo. I won't be surprised if we find him hanging in his bedroom in a few months.
he said in an interview a few years ago, in a rare moment of candour, that he felt in his mid-20s like he didn't really like who he was so he decided to start acting like this fake, brash, troll persona. he said that at some point the persona and his unhappy, uni-dropout self merged into one. he basically just flits between being serious and being a performer. he's nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is and i think people will get bored soon. he's enjoying his moment of major media notoriety way too much and way too obviously.
This is too funny.uziq wrote:
he said in an interview a few years ago, in a rare moment of candour, that he felt in his mid-20s like he didn't really like who he was so he decided to start acting like this fake, brash, troll persona.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
What I hate most about Milo is how he reinforced this broad idea of freedom of speech that has never existed. Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you. But you have another generation of young people who think freedom of speech means you are entitled to a platform. Media groups shunning Milo isn't censorship. It is private individuals and groups exercising their freedom of association.
People like him undermine freedom of speech the most. When the 1st amendment is invoked to defend his smut, people become a lot more skeptical of its utility.
People like him undermine freedom of speech the most. When the 1st amendment is invoked to defend his smut, people become a lot more skeptical of its utility.
Protesting him and forcing universities to disinvite him is infringing on other people's freedom of association too. It works both ways. Would you be upset if right wingers protested and burned shit if a BLM member came to campus to speak? You'd probably call them racists.SuperJail Warden wrote:
What I hate most about Milo is how he reinforced this broad idea of freedom of speech that has never existed. Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you. But you have another generation of young people who think freedom of speech means you are entitled to a platform. Media groups shunning Milo isn't censorship. It is private individuals and groups exercising their freedom of association.
People like him undermine freedom of speech the most. When the 1st amendment is invoked to defend his smut, people become a lot more skeptical of its utility.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
to be clear milo was personally targeting students at universities and encouraging his following to abuse them. never requesting a dox explicitly but all the same. he wasn't just turning up with some lecture notes.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
I couldn't care less about BLM. Seriously?
Milo defended groups that advocate or encourage attacks on people. It is not a form of speech I feel like bending over backward to defend. It is occupies the same space as Islamic extremist ideology which we never see get defended with the same zeal as right wingism.
I will start to raise a fuss about the first amendment when political parties and books get banned. Until then you are not going to get me to defend vulgarity or people's "rights" to use other people's platforms.
Milo defended groups that advocate or encourage attacks on people. It is not a form of speech I feel like bending over backward to defend. It is occupies the same space as Islamic extremist ideology which we never see get defended with the same zeal as right wingism.
I will start to raise a fuss about the first amendment when political parties and books get banned. Until then you are not going to get me to defend vulgarity or people's "rights" to use other people's platforms.
Generally, not in reference to Milo, what a lot of (white) people take issue with is that when a minority group advocates the destruction of the white race, or calls for reparations, or the expansion of affirmative action so that they can take power based on the color of their skin, it's treated as just them venting frustration and not a threat. If a white person were to do it, it would be an outrage and we'd have protest marches etc. Yes, I understand that the power dynamic is not equal, but it doesn't make it any less hateful.
People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
You know Milo spoke about a lot more than sad white people issues, right? He also talked a ton of shit about women and gays. The protest had more to do with women and gays than it did with black people's feelings. As if middle class college kids care about black people's feelings.Jay wrote:
Generally, not in reference to Milo, what a lot of (white) people take issue with is that when a minority group advocates the destruction of the white race, or calls for reparations, or the expansion of affirmative action so that they can take power based on the color of their skin, it's treated as just them venting frustration and not a threat. If a white person were to do it, it would be an outrage and we'd have protest marches etc. Yes, I understand that the power dynamic is not equal, but it doesn't make it any less hateful.
People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
I don't understand your point. Should I somehow defend Milo because there are sad white people in Michigan? There has to be better defenders of white or um western culture than a flamboyant troll. He hurts that movement and should be shunned by the right too.
the right whine so much about exclusion, it's funny.
I'm saying that it would be better to ignore him instead of giving him a platform to play the victim. He only became a household name after they started banning him from speaking on campus.SuperJail Warden wrote:
You know Milo spoke about a lot more than sad white people issues, right? He also talked a ton of shit about women and gays. The protest had more to do with women and gays than it did with black people's feelings. As if middle class college kids care about black people's feelings.Jay wrote:
Generally, not in reference to Milo, what a lot of (white) people take issue with is that when a minority group advocates the destruction of the white race, or calls for reparations, or the expansion of affirmative action so that they can take power based on the color of their skin, it's treated as just them venting frustration and not a threat. If a white person were to do it, it would be an outrage and we'd have protest marches etc. Yes, I understand that the power dynamic is not equal, but it doesn't make it any less hateful.
People on the right look at the left as being exclusionary. They're incredibly focused on racial and minority status, with any combination not of the majority elevated above the majority. This is a problem. If you watched the election, Clinton spent a lot of her time talking about policy. If you read right wing news, they didn't care about policy, they spent their time scaring white people into not giving power to the loonies on campus who want to put white males in chains. It played a huge role in why the democrats lost. Milo getting banned from speaking on campuses played directly into that narrative and gave it teeth.
I don't understand your point. Should I somehow defend Milo because there are sad white people in Michigan? There has to be better defenders of white or um western culture than a flamboyant troll. He hurts that movement and should be shunned by the right too.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Identity politics of both the right and left persuasions make me ill.uziq wrote:
the right whine so much about exclusion, it's funny.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
one could argue the reason the left diverted into petty identity politics is because the right have held the economic centre for so long.
leftist theory in the 50s and 60s talked about radically changing the social order and distribution of wealth.
identity politics came about during a time of centrism and two-party neoliberal consensus. what can you change when the basic economic system is locked in place? well, you start fussing over identity and individualism. the major class- and group-based ideologies are now defunct.
leftist theory in the 50s and 60s talked about radically changing the social order and distribution of wealth.
identity politics came about during a time of centrism and two-party neoliberal consensus. what can you change when the basic economic system is locked in place? well, you start fussing over identity and individualism. the major class- and group-based ideologies are now defunct.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +634|3708
I wouldn't call the left's foray into identity politics to be be petty. There are a lot things that make a difference in people's lives. I do find it funny that right wing identity issues cause sad white people to cut their own economic throats. I don't mean funny as ironic. I mean it genuinely makes me laugh at those people.
from the point of view of marxian theory, identity politics is unproductive. the traditional leftist line is that all inequality and group difference comes from economic iniquity. their line is that conflicts between races, genders and classes wouldn't exist if the economic field were levelled. i'm not passing some judgement here in calling it petty. that's the party line.
shouldn't jay like this guy?
shouldn't jay like this guy?
Last edited by uziq (2017-02-24 10:05:05)
I don't know who Sam Harris but I agree with what he said in that podcast.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat