Fear Mongering

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Did you hear why?

Reddit's Left leaning admins didn't like the fact that people were collectively trying to identify the perpetrators of violent attacks occurring at the anti-Trump rallies.

And as moronic as that is, considering police regularly ask for help in identifying criminals, rather than ban a few users they used it as an excuse to lock the entire sub.

Doxxing is against ToS though. I've never been on that sub personally, I've actually learned of it's existence when I've learned it was shut down (although I still wouldn't have been there, me and the right are not exactly in good terms). But the_donald is still up, so I see no reasons why people in this thread would make the assumption mmo-champ would become home for the alt-right.

I mean, for rational people.

[Machismo]

So, we are naturally racist, and Spencer is proud of his racism... got it.

It's unnatural, and possible blasphemous to not be racist... got it.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry to go slightly off topic
I have been to countries outside the US. Germany, Italy, Romania and Greece. A common problem in those countries is gypsies. These people are supported by the govt though it may not be a lot of financial funding. The people in these countries have to deal with burglaries, rape,
murder and total disregaurd to the law. Why? Because they are refugees and the govt cant do shit to them. 2 years ago a soldier in one of the MP units on my base was struck by a gypsy that was way above the legal limit. She survived but he did not. What did the govt do? Nothing. Why? They cant they are a refugee. Before we start protesting refugee bans we need to develop a plan that protects the refugee but also the people of the United States.

It's called the United States Constitution.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

Some are worse than others but they are all complicit.

Eventually you will come around and start to make the hard pragmatic choices that define adulthood.

[Dug]

Sorry to go slightly off topic
I have been to countries outside the US. Germany, Italy, Romania and Greece. A common problem in those countries is gypsies. These people are supported by the govt though it may not be a lot of financial funding. The people in these countries have to deal with burglaries, rape,
murder and total disregaurd to the law. Why? Because they are refugees and the govt cant do shit to them. 2 years ago a soldier in one of the MP units on my base was struck by a gypsy that was way above the legal limit. She survived but he did not. What did the govt do? Nothing. Why? They cant they are a refugee. Before we start protesting refugee bans we need to develop a plan that protects the refugee but also the people of the United States.

I'm sorry to hear that. I can understand and empathize with the concern over refugees and unvetted immigrants and I truly wish we had much better systems. Problem for me is I've never subscribed to the logic of bad apple spoils the bunch. In some cases I can say it's somewhat justified but with immigrants and data I've seen across countries the majority of them are not committing crimes and are just trying to get by. I want to help those people and if the others cannot get in line then yes please by all means get rid of them. But blanket bans and refusing to address the issues doesn't seem productive to me. I think the more we put off developing better systems or just ignoring the problem the worse it will get until it blows up into a huge global crisis.

[Fyersing]

So, we are naturally racist, and Spencer is proud of his racism... got it.

It's unnatural, and possible blasphemous to not be racist... got it.

Your words, not mine.

The tone of your post suggested that you believe it would be entirely inconceivable for anything other than some weird, impersonal objectivity to factor into how people interact with each other. I gave you an example which can be demonstrably observed in virtually every species on the planet and all you do with that informaction is reduce it to buzzwords to make yourself feel as if you came out of the exchange empowered.

All that virtue signaling must wear you out.

[schwarzkopf]

You've bought in. Hook line and sinker.

Bought into what - if you are going to make accusations, at least make some rational claim.

[Caolela]

...I mean, Jackson shot people on the street and married already-married women). Both were populists, caused significant amounts of chaos in Washington, both ran on heavy anti-establishment platforms, both did many things in office that caused major political upheaval (Jackson almost launched the Civil War 30 years early). The claim ala John Oliver that Trump is an aberation never seen before in American politics is absurd to anyone familiar with our past presidents, like Jackson.

The Trump admin. has just gotten started. It's been less than 2 weeks, give it some time and he'll probably be in fist fights with world or business leaders who don't agree with him but that he can't just blow off, or attacking places with the military when he doesn't get his way.

The dizzy bastard just hung up the phone on the Aussie PM today.

The man is an embarrassing disgrace to the office, American politics, and the country and that's saying something after deceitful morons like W.

[schwarzkopf]

It's different but the same lol

The intents of the two were the same, the reasons for Obama's was rational.

However - the MAJOR difference is that Trump's EO was a completely incompetent and chaotic document which he refused guidance on.

The issue with Trump isn't just policy, the issue is his insanity.

[willtron]

Did you hear why?

Reddit's Left leaning admins didn't like the fact that people were collectively trying to identify the perpetrators of violent attacks occurring at the anti-Trump rallies.

And as moronic as that is, considering police regularly ask for help in identifying criminals, rather than ban a few users they used it as an excuse to lock the entire sub.

They regularly close subs and ban people for doxxing. It's literally in every subreddits rules on the right hand side.

[Machismo]

Your words, not mine.

The tone of your post suggested that you believe it would be entirely inconceivable for anything other than some weird, impersonal objectivity to factor into how people interact with each other. I gave you an example which can be demonstrably observed in virtually every species on the planet and all you do with that informaction is reduce it to buzzwords to make yourself feel as if you came out of the exchange empowered.

All that virtue signaling must wear you out.

No, you specifically stated that people are biologically prone to preferring their race and group over others. They are naturally racist.

You are the one who brought God into this, don't blame me. You can justify your desire for maintaining divisions among groups and ethnicities all you like, and i will be happy to call it what it is. Thanks.

if one need to make a concerted effort to mix with other races, or to avoid doing it, then they are clearly doing it based on learned bias. Since Spencer talks about focusing on maintaining racial divisions and separate groups, he's making that concerted effort to keep them apart. That is placing emphasis on learned hierarchy. He's pushing an artificial change into the scenario.

[Mad_Murdock]

So, are the policies similar as Trump claimed?

In the most superficial of ways, yes. They both limit immigration into the United States on a temporary basis. But there are two significant differences that Trump omits.[/I]

It's different but the same lol

Well, to be a little fair, it boils down to how far into the nuance you want to go. They were similar and yet, obviously different. Obama's was acting on intel and was narrower. Trump is more proactive and a bit broad (and I'll agree too broad). Trump announced his, Obama did not. I think the did not announce part should be more heavily criticize if anything

So if we want just the 30,000 foot view, they are the same. The 300 foot view says "kinda, but not really". It's much easier to justify a narrow ban that is supported by some Intel, versus a broad ban that doesn't seem to have any Intel to support it.

[Fyersing]

No, you specifically stated that people are biologically prone to preferring their race and group over others. They are naturally racist.

I didn't specifically say anything of the sort. I literally said that within all animals is a biological imperative to ensure the health and wellness of those things which are most closely related to them, genetically; the relatedness of individuals, while including race as a component, isn't fundamentally intertwined with race at all. If two people from China and Venezuela, respectively, have a child that child is still the closest thing to them genetically (at least, individually).

You are the one who brought God into this, don't blame me. You can justify your desire for maintaining divisions among groups and ethnicities all you like, and i will be happy to call it what it is. Thanks.

Actually, I implied that focusing on a artificial social hierarchy while entirely ignoring the natural social hierarchy is a bit like "playing God"; an expression which almost never actually invokes any religious deity, but which aims to highlight extreme hubris and/or arrogance.

if one need to make a concerted effort to mix with other races, or to avoid doing it, then they are clearly doing it based on learned bias.

I'm not arguing that either being racially-conscientious or racially-impartial are, in fact, "natural" or "artificial"; rather, I'm saying that virtually all racially-conscientious worldviews attempt to reconcile natural tendencies with artificial ones whereas the latter implicitly seeks to ignore all natural, biological imperatives. The Soviets had a name for the completely culture-void, impartial, objective being: 'novy sovetsky chelovek', the New Soviet Man.

[fudgeit]

We already have a plan. In the US it doesn't matter if you're a refugee. If you break the law you get prosecuted. Your turn, show me some actual evidence that refugees have protected legal status.

We already have a plan. In the US it doesn't matter if you're a refugee. If you break the law you get prosecuted. Your turn, show me some actual evidence that refugees have protected legal status.

There isnnot evidence to support the claim that if they commit a crime they wont be prosecuted. My thing is why let it get to the point where it becomes a problem. This is completely outrageous to say, but, what is the better way to attack your enemy? From the outside or within? Millions of refugees with the of LPR program become citizens. They have every right as an American now to purchase a weapon. You see the problem? GRANTED not all of them are crazy. I personally met some cool Afghanies while I was there and I also met some fucked up ones some who killed Aussie troops and injured American troops in Tarin Kowt (Bet you didnt see that in the news). Thankfully I was on mission that day, but sadly some people were shot. Some killed and some wounded while giving a promotion/award ceremony. But what do I know. I just spent 7 months in a mountainous barren area beating my dick because it's fun.

[Machismo]

I didn't specifically say anything of the sort. I literally said that within all animals is a biological imperative to ensure the health and wellness of those things which are most closely related to them, genetically; the relatedness of individuals, while including race as a component, isn't fundamentally intertwined with race at all. If two people from China and Venezuela, respectively, have a child that child is still the closest thing to them genetically (at least, individually).



Actually, I implied that focusing on a artificial social hierarchy while entirely ignoring the natural social hierarchy is a bit like "playing God"; an expression which almost never actually invokes any religious deity, but which aims to highlight extreme hubris and/or arrogance.



I'm not arguing that either being racially-conscientious or racially-impartial are, in fact, "natural" or "artificial"; rather, I'm saying that virtually all racially-conscientious worldviews attempt to reconcile natural tendencies with artificial ones whereas the latter implicitly seeks to ignore all natural, biological imperatives. The Soviets had a name for the completely culture-void, impartial, objective being: 'novy sovetsky chelovek', the New Soviet Man.

And we are all the same species, correct? We're not biologically compelled to help out hedgehogs. if you are including race based on color, then it is as a component, which is what you are doing, then you are intertwining it all on your own.

the problem with Spencer, is that he wants to artificially separate what you feel should be naturally occurring. You want to counter what you oppose, by doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. By doing so, isn't Spencer also trying to play "God?"

- - - Updated - - -

There isnnot evidence to support the claim that if they commit a crime they wont be prosecuted. My thing is why let it get to the point where it becomes a problem. This is completely outrageous to say, but, what is the better way to attack your enemy? From the outside or within? Millions of refugees with the of LPR program become citizens. They have every right as an American now to purchase a weapon. You see the problem? GRANTED not all of them are crazy. I personally met some cool Afghanies while I was there and I also met some fucked up ones some who killed Aussie troops and injured American troops in Tarin Kowt (Bet you didnt see that in the news). Thankfully I was on mission that day, but sadly some people were shot. Some killed and some wounded while giving a promotion/award ceremony. But what do I know. I just spent 7 months in a mountainous barren area beating my dick because it's fun.

No, I don't see a problem. People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not harm others. You want to take away someone else's freedom, on the off chance that they may harm someone at some future point. You have just given approval for others to do the exact same thing to you.

Do you realize, that your exact same logic applies to the American soldiers who were in a foreign country... killing people. How are you any different than those you wish to keep out?

[Docturphil]

A statement of something that has never happened... lol

I could be wrong, but maybe he's referring to the history of Australia?

- - - Updated - - -

Not mongering as it is real... any rational person with a reasonable education in world History should afraid.

LOL, why??

[fudgeit]

And we are all the same species, correct? We're not biologically compelled to help out hedgehogs. if you are including race based on color, then it is as a component, which is what you are doing, then you are intertwining it all on your own.

the problem with Spencer, is that he wants to artificially separate what you feel should be naturally occurring. You want to counter what you oppose, by doing the exact same thing in the opposite direction. By doing so, isn't Spencer also trying to play "God?"

- - - Updated - - -



No, I don't see a problem. People should be free to do as they like, so long as it does not harm others. You want to take away someone else's freedom, on the off chance that they may harm someone at some future point. You have just given approval for others to do the exact same thing to you.

Do you realize, that your exact same logic applies to the American soldiers who were in a foreign country... killing people. How are you any different than those you wish to keep out?

The only difference between is that we have ROE. Soldiers cant shoot until shot at. The war has changed since the surge. Soldiers build hospitals, roadways and schools. We get rid of threats. We protect those who are too scared to protect themselves. We have soldiers literally picking ANA members off the ground so they can return fire and protect their own country. "Killing people" is the wrong choice of words we assess and take out threats to us and the civilian populas. Groups like the taliban like to use civilians as shields because they know we wont try to engage them.

[Machismo]

The only difference between is that we have ROE. Soldiers cant shoot until shot at. The war has changed since the surge. Soldiers build hospitals, roadways and schools. We get rid of threats. We protect those who are too scared to protect themselves. We have soldiers literally picking ANA members off the ground so they can return fire and protect their own country. "Killing people" is the wrong choice of words we assess and take out threats to us and the civilian populas. Groups like the taliban like to use civilians as shields because they know we wont try to engage them.

But some soldiers did shoot at others without following the ROE. We build hospitals, and we occasionally blow them up.

What freedoms are you willing to give up, so that others feel more safe? You clearly want to limit the freedoms of immigrants and refugees, so would you be fine if someone decided to ban guns? After all, the threat from shootings is far greater than that of Islamic terrorism in this country. It seems prudent to want to ban guns in order to protect Americans, right?

[Docturphil]

The difference is - Trump is 100% mentally unstable, he is insane as well. That's what makes Trump unique.

Your disagreement with his policies does not make him mentally unstable or insane. He's not insane. He's strong willed, stubborn, and probably a bit of a narcissist. None of those qualities disqualify him from being a national leader. The American public has been aware of who he is for quite some time and they voted for him anyways. That's democracy. That's how it works. If you don't like it, fine. Tell us how bad his policies are, but stop trying to assert that he's unfit to be president. Until he proves that he's actually unfit to be president, which he might, stfu.

[fudgeit]

I don't see any problem with anything you said except for all the tin foil you're using for that hat.

And I thought you started this thread with the position that you were unhappy with all the fear mongering going on when you watch the news. Why are you proceeding to do that with which you were displeased?

Remember when people thought monitored phone calls and data bases where tin foil?

[Machismo]

Your disagreement with his policies does not make him mentally unstable or insane. He's not insane. He's strong willed, stubborn, and probably a bit of a narcissist. None of those qualities disqualify him from being a national leader. The American public has been aware of who he is for quite some time and they voted for him anyways. That's democracy. That's how it works. If you don't like it, fine. Tell us how bad his policies are, but stop trying to assert that he's unfit to be president. Until he proves that he's actually unfit to be president, which he might, stfu.

But one could already argue that the actions he's made, and the things he's said make him unfit for the presidency.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember when people thought monitored phone calls and data bases where tin foil?

And yet, you seem to support restricting the freedoms of others even further.