Why are there only far right people in this sub

[WISD0MTREE]

:I How am I being racist by calling racist people racist? 

You are calling racist people racist publicly. This implies that you think people of alternate races wouldn't know what a racist is. Therefore, you are calling people of other races too stupid to know what a racist is, when they are just as capable of knowing that a racist is racist.

 

:^)

[Frank Todd]

did i say that?

 

 

nice meme

 

 

 

you hate coming to the OWF because your opinions and beliefs are challenged, because you perceive disagreement as an attack when its nothing more than a simple rebuttal to a flimsy point you would've made. 

 

 

why would they do anything? it prevents open discussion and debate. by interfering, it creates a stagnant political sphere, allowing people of the "correct" opinion to argue about anything, which ultimately accomplishes nothing. Also muh first ammendment.

 

 

 

^{[citation needed]}

 

 

 

 

im 17

1. Well I'm just rolling with the stones so to speak in implying what not

2. Thank you.

3. There's a difference between a healthy debate between two beings (or more) and people trolling because they can troll.

4. Isn't the stagnation of what you speak happening now? I'm not asking for total censorship, just knock out a few of those hate-filled threads that talk of deporting Muslims and killing poor people cause it is what better off people should do.

5. _{[more so context]} 

6. Where I come from that is adulthood friend.

[Frank Todd]

You are calling racist people racist publicly. This implies that you think people of alternate races wouldn't know what a racist is. Therefore, you are calling people of other races too stupid to know what a racist is, when they are just as capable of knowing that a racist is racist.

 

:^)

[What Roz thinks of me]

[WISD0MTREE]

(aka not wonky leftist blogs)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/what-do-the-neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-of-the-alt-right-movement-want/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/white-nationalists-alt-right-nazi-language-trump

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/alt-right-leaders-we-aren-t-racist-we-just-hate-jews.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/steven-bannon-trump-chief-strategist-breitbart-white-house-dangerous

Holy shit, this is !@#$ next-tier tolling or CTR is still up and attacking PaW of all places. What in the actual !@#$ did I just read? 

 

NYT

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? …

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.

If they weren't biased, they wouldn't need to "rededicate" to being unbiased. 

 

Raw Story

By their own admission:

Raw Story is a progressive news site

 

The Guardian

"Well, it's a good question. Yes, at the beginning — and I think most liberals and right-thinking people would have been, in his first couple of years in power. There was plenty of reason to give him any benefit of the doubt. Now, over time, when he became a bit more oppressive, shutting down television stations, and when the wheels were kind of beginning to come off the economy in some ways, I, in my own reporting, became very critical, just reflecting what I saw on the ground. And this prompted quite a debate, internal debate, in my newspaper, because a lot of editors then and to this day feel and felt that we should have supported Hugo Chavez because he was a standard-bearer for the left. Whereas I, very close up, I thought, well, no, actually. Because sadly, he's running the country into the ground and we have to report that."

Supporting Hugo Chavez because he is a "standard-bearer for the left," despite someone inside Venezuela saying he is a brutal dictator. 

 

The Daily Beast

The Daily Beast is owned by IAC, where Vice Chair of the Clinton Foundation, Chelsea Clinton, serves on the board of directors. (Source)

---

 

3 of the 4 sources I cited above were from the website themselves. The fourth was from an interview with someone from the paper for National Public Radio, which admits a liberal bias. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Rozalia]

The problem is that you don't dissect anything - you all spout a bunch of garbage and yell incoherently, ignore actual facts and then when people get tired of being insulted you proclaim victory.  Neo-Nazis are not worth debating against.

 

 

By "left behind" I was referring to how I can just go to literally any other website and have the same discussion with people who are actually interested in real debate, not refer to some sort of progressive "you're on the wrong side of history" jab.  You literally couldn't even respond to my post without inventing some kind of insult in there to call yourself an oppressed minority to justify your safe space.

 

It's okay, Roz.  We get it - nobody else lets you spout your racist, neo-Nazi agenda except the mods here, who think that their misinterpreted idea of "free speech" (which doesn't apply here, but I digress) should trump the ability to have an actual discourse. That doesn't mean those of us here are going to listen, just because you're allowed.

 

Don't analyse anything you say? Lol. When I was here saying about both Brexit and Trump that the polls were wrong and did not catch certain groups, especially the shy X that the media and aggressive name callers such as yourself made hide their support I was laughed at by several of you. What happened? Just as I said. Your tactic of calling people racist, Nazi, or whatever does not make those people change their votes. Making the narrative that all that support Brexit/Trump are racists, Nazis, whatever does not work. I told people here all this. I saw things that you and the rest could not, that the highly paid "experts" were completely blind to. 

You and the rest were out of touch while I was in touch with reality so you lost and I won. Simple as that.

 

Except I'm not a Neo-Nazi and am likely more left wing than you to boot. I believe in supporting every citizen with a basic income, support gay marriage, support polyamorous marriage, support women's rights, against Censorship, against the revoking of citizenship of even terrorists, and am against racism. Years back I primarily debated with Conservatives and the like.

However I support integration (common sense) over poisonous multiculturalism and am a Nationalist instead of a Globalist so I'm instantly a Nazi. Oh and I treat Islam with the respect it deserves (there would be no problem if I was saying it about Christianity though of course) and want the issue to be solved instead of kicking the can so more can be killed by some nutters.

 

The alt-right are literal neo-Nazis.  The term "alt-right" was invented to describe people without calling them neo-Nazis.  Here are examples by credible mainstream sources (aka not wonky leftist blogs) showcasing the neo-Nazi tendencies of the alt-right, all within the last few months (aka not cherry-picked articles from years ago):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/what-do-the-neo-nazis-and-white-supremacists-of-the-alt-right-movement-want/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/white-nationalists-alt-right-nazi-language-trump

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/alt-right-leaders-we-aren-t-racist-we-just-hate-jews.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/15/steven-bannon-trump-chief-strategist-breitbart-white-house-dangerous

 

I'm sorry, but I'm going to call a spade a spade - alt-right people follow an ideology that was designed for, propagandized by, and evangelized with neo-Nazis, have their roots in neo-Nazi leaders, and even in the modern day do things like call for a "homeland" without Jews, say black people are inferior to white people, give Nazi salutes at public rallies, and much more publicly documented activities that are all neo-Nazi mainstays.

 

If you want to get upset that I'm calling them neo-Nazis, fine - you're allowed to.  That's not going to change the truth.

 

Really? The Guardian and such? They have zero credibility. If the Guardian supports you then you know you're dead meat as they just gave you the kiss of death.

 

There is an important distinction between the "Alt-Right" and "Alt-Reich". There is a predating of the Nazis but you're not interested in that so no point going into it. If they started it or not is irrelevant, its been taken from them as people needed a label to unify them. These people include Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists, and so forth however they oppose Globalism and the like... things which the Conservative/Liberal/Libertarians/Socialist leaders support. In short the majority are normal common decent people and you have a minority of Nazis (irrelevant just like the KKK) who will get banned from most places (that are Alt-Right) the moment they start saying their crazy stuff. 

 

In reality there is no codified rites of the Alt-Right and its more of an umbrella term for people against Globalism, Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, mass immigration, and such. If you are any of those then boom, you're Alt-Right.

 

I have zero issues with Jewish or black people (I prefer if we just call them fellow countrymen if they are though) and reject Ethnic Nationalism (I support Cultural). What now? 

[Sargun]

"Here's five sources proving you're neo-Nazis"

 

"those sources are LIBERAL TRASH!!!11"

 

lol

 

 

and you wonder why we leave instead of arguing with you 

[Frank Todd]

"Here's five sources proving you're neo-Nazis"

 

"those sources are LIBERAL TRASH!!!11"

 

lol

 

 

and you wonder why we leave instead of arguing with you 

I would say wait for them to quote Fox or something and then go on a bender about how "trash" those sources are and what not, but I feel like that would be a moot attempt.

[WISD0MTREE]

"Here's five sources proving you're neo-Nazis"

"those sources are LIBERAL TRASH!!!11"

lol

 

and you wonder why we leave instead of arguing with you  

Those sources admitted to being liberal themselves. It would be one thing if I cited Fox News saying that they were liberal. Is that what I did? No, I cited the papers themselves. 

 

No, they leave due to bets. 

 

I would say wait for them to quote Fox or something and then go on a bender about how "trash" those sources are and what not, but I feel like that would be a moot attempt.

I was citing the source itself. Let's put it this way. If the NRA on https://home.nra.org/said that they were pro-gun, would it be safe to say that they are pro-gun? If I said I was pro-gun, would it be safe to say I'm pro-gun? 

[Frank Todd]

Those sources admitted to being liberal themselves. It would be one thing if I cited Fox News saying that they were liberal. Is that what I did? No, I cited the papers themselves. 

 

No, they leave due to bets. 

 

I was citing the source itself. Let's put it this way. If the NRA on https://home.nra.org/said that they were pro-gun, would it be safe to say that they are pro-gun? If I said I was pro-gun, would it be safe to say I'm pro-gun? 

Honestly I don't particularly care about this topic anymore. Both sides are basically throwing shit at each other hoping something sticks and makes the other side feel shitty.

 

Before I was pretty avid about this whole thread, but words falling on deaf ears make for boring talk.

[Sketchy]

I mean, everyone does namecalling in this thread, I think the point is they call you an idiot and present facts to back it up, whilst you just use your insults as the entire basis of your argument. 

 

 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for Big Brother to tell me about the perfect communist utopia.

[WISD0MTREE]

Both sides are basically throwing shit at each other hoping something sticks and makes the other side feel shitty.

 

but words falling on deaf ears make for boring talk.

I'm not throwing shit, unless quotes from the newspapers themselves are shit. Please answer honestly. If a christmas tree farm announced that they sold Picea engelmannii, would it be safe to assume that they sold Picea engelmannii? 

 

You're telling me. 

[Frank Todd]

I'm not throwing shit, unless quotes from the newspapers themselves are shit. Please answer honestly. If a christmas tree farm announced that they sold Picea engelmannii, would it be safe to assume that they sold Picea engelmannii? 

 

You're telling me. 

It was kind of a "If it applies to you" sort of phrase.

 

Judgment call and all that.

[Katie]

this place is really bad

[Rozalia]

"Here's five sources proving you're neo-Nazis"

 

"those sources are LIBERAL TRASH!!!11"

 

lol

 

 

and you wonder why we leave instead of arguing with you 

 

Nazis aren't allowed so if you have some definite proof we're all Nazis then go for it. I'll wait.

 

Just going to ignore my entire response to post that huh, alright. I told you the fact that those sources have all of zero credibility, nothing more. Their current narrative is to paint the common decent people who supported Trump as Nazis due to there existing Nazis who support Trump (Nazis tend to like Nationalistic stuff yes), a shame attempt like calling someone a racist at the slightest thing. As always they're completely incompetent as all that does is harden the support for Trump, not weaken it.

 

Honestly I don't particularly care about this topic anymore. Both sides are basically throwing shit at each other hoping something sticks and makes the other side feel shitty.

 

Actually your side flings shit because they feel shitty at having lost so we win from the onset in such a contest.

[Frank Todd]

Nazis aren't allowed so if you have some definite proof we're all Nazis then go for it. I'll wait.

 

Just going to ignore my entire response to post that huh, alright. I told you the fact that those sources have all of zero credibility, nothing more. Their current narrative is to paint the common decent people who supported Trump as Nazis due to there existing Nazis who support Trump (Nazis tend to like Nationalistic stuff yes), a shame attempt like calling someone a racist at the slightest thing. As always they're completely incompetent as all that does is harden the support for Trump, not weaken it.

 

 

 

Actually your side flings shit because they feel shitty at having lost so we win from the onset in such a contest.

Lol whatever you say there kemosabi.

[Clarke]

Calling the Alt-Right racist or Nazi's would be similar saying a specific race is just full of criminals.

The media are pushing a narrative about the alt-right which you find acceptable because you hate those who disagree with you, if you just thought critically about it you would recognize the error in your logic and know the media is nothing than a propaganda outlet.

 

I rarely insult or name call, such an outrageous claim. 

[Chapsie]

It's been already said I think, and I think it's not at all a side of left or right at this point but people who don't mind changing, or even accepting new views as opposed to people who can't or won't accept, or even observe others. 

I've seen people on here make some back and fourth debate on some subjects and it ends briefly mostly because it was full of logical rebuttals accommodated by reasonable people and one of the parties accepted the reason, accepted their fault, or whatever happened to conclude the debate. So when walls of text are made in pages and pages back and fourth, it's normally a result of one person trying to reason or debate with someone who cannot accept a fault, or are arguing about something that has no real answer.

 

I pop in here every once and awhile and consider myself relatively left wing, but I'm not an extremist or anything of the sort. There's a point of alt-right that can turn me off, but it's the same with people of the far-left. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

The reason it may appear those with "far right" opinions are the main people here is because the facts are on our side, those who disagree have no ground to stand on and resort quickly to insults, some leave because they can't win since they have no facts, others are beaten into oblivion by the facts.

We do live in the glorious "Post-facts" era now.  Thank you Trump and Trump supporters.

[Clarke]

We do live in the glorious "Post-facts" era now.  Thank you Trump and Trump supporters.

[Donald Trump]

Some people in here seem pretty butthurt they lost still. 

[Rozalia]

We do live in the glorious "Post-facts" era now.  Thank you Trump and Trump supporters.

 

Nah, we use facts just fine. They're just "Hate Facts" to all the special snowflakes out there. For example while they say Islam is a religion of peace that preaches Feminism and other such garbage, we simply tell it how it is.

[Caecus]

Nah, we use facts just fine. They're just "Hate Facts" to all the special snowflakes out there. For example while they say Islam is a religion of peace that preaches Feminism and other such garbage, we simply tell it how it is.

 

BAIIIITTTTTTTTTTT

[Frank Todd]

Nah, we use facts just fine. They're just "Hate Facts" to all the special snowflakes out there. For example while they say Islam is a religion of peace that preaches Feminism and other such garbage, we simply tell it how it is.

Under that logic, if I called you a tool-bag you couldn't retaliate with anything because you would label my "facts" as "Hate Facts" and thus would make my earlier statement infallible.

[Clarke]

Under that logic, if I called you a tool-bag you couldn't retaliate with anything because you would label my "facts" as "Hate Facts" and thus would make my earlier statement infallible.

I don't even...

[Rozalia]

Under that logic, if I called you a tool-bag you couldn't retaliate with anything because you would label my "facts" as "Hate Facts" and thus would make my earlier statement infallible.

 

Literally a tool-bag?