Jump to content



Member Since 19 Feb 2013
Member ID: 659,748
Currently Not online
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 06:40 AM

#7134639 Italy helps prove that we live in the best possible timeline

Posted by vla1ne on 11 February 2019 - 05:18 PM

So... A group of italians decided to make a massive float in (what was rumored to be mockery but clearly lead to) appreciation of trump. the video itself pretty much says everything that i could possibly say on the topic though. so i'll leave it at this:


#7134421 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 27 January 2019 - 10:15 PM

You know it could also be for those people who weren't getting paid for their work. makes sense to reopen things to at least keep people from going homeless.

#7134180 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 19 January 2019 - 08:22 PM

Nothing at all is paranoid about it. I meant fining from the start, if negotiations to be allowed to build a wall in exchange for compensation are shot down. If the wall is completed, and theirs are the only open areas, if it is discovered that cartels, traffickers, or illegal immigrants are entering through said gaps, then fining them is pretty much in order, as they are at that point, willfully compromising the security of the border. But I already suggested an alternative, aka building the wall outside their land, just around it. That would work as well.



He just gave a speech on what he would like to have allocated in funds, the 5 billion goes directly to the wall, he also requested additional border security guard funds among other things as well. Stating it goes towards the wall is more than enough info.


And like I said, they don’t have to accept the wall on their land, but they will damn sure accept the responsibility of monitoring their part of the border if they do not allow it, and will be fined accordingly if they are proven to be slipping on their end of upkeep.

I’m not even claiming that he’s already built the entire part of the border that’s unowned by the sovereign folks. Fact remains, there’s more wall to be built than just the bits owned by people who disagree with him, and that 5 billion he’s looking for is aimed directly at it.


He laid out a deal with them today, and stated his requests, we’ll see just how wrong I am about that.

EDIT: Turns out, she rejected the deal before he even made it, citing several reasons why she wouldn't accept it, he then makes the speech, addresses each and every issue she preemptively cited, and she STILL rejected it. I was right, and for this one, i'm flat out boasting about it, because not only did i call it, he directly addressed every thing she used in her statement against him, giving her ALL of it and then some, and she said exactly what i said she would, Dude played every move right, gave her everything that she, practically minutes prior said she wanted in the deal, and the answer was still no. Do you doubt my point any further? She rejected it before it even existed, AND after he gave her everything she claimed to want just minutes prior.



There is no fear there. It’s reasonable point making. The biggest gaps in a barrier are the easiest to break through. Do you disagree? If the wall’s completed everywhere but on citizen owned land, would that not make said land (the main land open) the most simple place to break through? What homeland security did in the past has nothing to do with trump at the moment, and with actual funding, I’d say he’s far more likely to be able to do something with the stubborn folks than without it. No, I’m not imagining that the 5 billion would convince them all, I’m stating that it would be better leverage, and grant more wiggle room by far than 1.3 billion, which is a complete fact, as you can do more with 5 billion than you can with 1.3 billion (over 3x more in fact, that 1.3 billion itself could be allocated to opening up negotiations). A few dozen million to build a fence on private land is a price that could be well worth negotiating. Like that, you could slowly make deals with those who agree, and temporarily skip over those who do not. Sure, it’s slow, but I doubt most people would absolutely refuse 30-40 million in exchange for a fence in their distant backyard. This isn’t a mall, it’s a border barrier, if anything, it would protect their peace and quiet. Given some time, and upfront money available, I’m pretty sure a decent number of them could be convinced.


No, almost had it though

  • Cut out a couple hundred million of the 5 billion budget to negotiate with a few of them (small steps, not covering the whole thing at once, as 5 billion cannot reasonably do that) 
  • Notify those who refuse, that they will be responsible for their open border section from the point of the walls completion on, (as it IS a matter of national security)
  • If they are found to be actively negligent in their maintenance, say if drugs or human traffickers are found to be coming through their area en masse, and they are doing nothing to report, stop, or at least slow the flow till border patrol can begin handling it, then they will be fined appropriately.
  • Provide some form of incentive to upkeep their area of the border in either case, like tax cuts, or yearly assistance so long as they help with the due diligence.

This is border security, not home upkeep. That’s as nice a deal as they can get, and be it church or individual, the same conditions will apply. They would have had a chance to at least leave part of it up to the authorities, yet chose to send them packing at that point.



That article is not actually true, see, the ones who get caught, are generally those using legal ports of entry, there are thousands of pounds in the U.S. though.  You telling me all the stuff we miss comes in right through the front door? No, that’s them twisting the fact that 90% of the drugs we catch, we catch at points of entry. Unless you can explain to me how they know exactly where the people we don’t catch (and thus don’t know about) are coming in from? We may catch the greatest number of drugs at the entry port, but the amount in america due to cartels is far more likely to come in from far away from the point of entry, as they are clearly quite good at catching them there. Unless you're telling me the drug cartel is entirely dependent on coming in through the most basic ports of entry, instead of the slightly bumpier, but far less occupied middle of nowhere? Where the security is far lower, and their escape routes don't involve traffic, drug dogs, and higher overall security? Where's the logic in that claim?


It’s trump demanding funds for a wall, in combination with a request for future legislation that would rework and remove some incentive programs. Border security, whom are the people he got the facts in his speech from, are the ones dealing with it day in and out, and they are the ones he’s getting his wall update ideas from. In other words, the people who actually do the job, are the people giving him advice and new ideas for the wall. As far as plans go, the guy who’s talking directly with those whose boots are on the ground, is higher up on the list than the people writing incorrect articles.

#7134145 Trying to brainstorm genericly good LV5+ Warrior-Type monsters with no summon...

Posted by vla1ne on 18 January 2019 - 09:03 PM

I think I miss worded that: I meant that one should ignore how hard they are to summon so long as they don't have special summon restrictions e.g. If Jinzo were a Warrior-Type it would be a consideration ignoring the fact that you'd need to tribute summon it.

Ah. In that case, both level 5 U.A. monsters are pretty good.

#7134133 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 18 January 2019 - 06:58 PM

The border fence is incomplete because of the land ownership issues in Texas. This isn't a problem that can be solved "as they go along"; it's the immediate issue at hand.
Trump stormed out of a bipartisan meeting, and the fact that the Democrats were even willing to lend any money still completely flies at odds with Trump and McConnell claiming that they're refusing to fund the wall at all. While you offered examples of what else that money could go towards, has Trump himself explicitly laid out how the 5 billion that he is asking for would be allocated and spent?
You're conflating two completely separate issues, so claiming that this is somehow a red herring disregards that there can be multiple factors. The difference between 1.3 billion and 5 billion has nothing to do with the land rights; the first is a matter of him having the funds to build the wall, and the second is whether or not he has the legal authority to do so. It is the combination of both factors (among others) that have progress on the wall. It's also difficult to claim that the materials have been decide when Trump has been inconsistent about that.
You also seem to be under the impression that the land rights are the Democrats' reasoning, so I encourage you look at it again. The reasoning the Democrats gave was that he has no plan. Land rights were not brought up by Democrats (Or if they were, that's not at all what I was talking about), but rather independent homeowners have been suing against land seizures on their own.
Homeland Security had to build gates to claim that they technically did not seize property, so while they could build land outside of the owned area, the only way to do so would simply perpetuate the perceived weaknesses in the current fence.


Like i said, the wall can be built around said land, negotiating to get what you can where you can. For the rest, you can actively fine any land owner that tries to deny the building of the wall, yet does not do it's part to prevent illegal immigration. It is a matter of national security. People who block the wall being built on their land, yet do nothing to keep the borders on their land secure, are actively working against the best interests of the country, and we'll know exactly who to look at when illegal immigrants enter the country illegally.


He walked in, asked "are you willing to give the 5 billion?" and walked out when he got a no. anything else would be a waste of time. I've said it before, and i'll say it again, he has already cut the asking price by 75%. Telling him to cut it any further is pointless. he's given more than enough up in consessions.


You brought the question of landowners into this, and i've explained it two different ways. We already have parts of the wall built on the Mexican side of the border. for the people who are too paranoid to allow the wall, the wall can be built on mexican land. We've done so already, we can do so again. There is no reason that they cannot give him the 5 billion other than they do not like him. He has the authority, as the top dog of the foreign relations for the country, and he is already going by the books with it, doing very little in relation to the wall that has not already been done by prior presidents (aside from the wall type, and wall size, former presidents have already done pretty much everything he's doing, just not on as big a scale, and there is infinite precedent from other countries for how to do it. like egypt and israel for some of the most recent cases) 



He's already acting on the wall, and has already begun construction. whether they claim he has a plan or not, withholding the money, when he is clearly doing the job already, and clearly has people working to keep things going smooth down on the border, makes absolutely no sense, because there is nothing illegal, impossible, or unreasonable about 5 billion dollars for a years worth of funding. as for the homeowners, they are well within their rights, and they can get slammed hard for obstruction and abetting illegal immigration when the rest of the wall is complete and they're the only open spots, as they will be the clear goals of all illegal immigrants and foreign cartels, as the easiest point of entry. It's not hard to play hardball, and telling the plan early, if that is how he's going to play it, would heavily dampen the overall effect.they don't want a written plan, they want something they can attack from every conceivable angle. were trump to send them a written out plan, or even a dozen written out plans tomorrow, no matter if he wanted to keep it under wraps, they'd all be fully leaked, and rejected by the end of the day.


There's still areas that actually require the wall trump is building, that are not privately owned. Securing those areas, would go a long way to getting the landowners to either accept the wall, or to guard their own border areas better. we see from the indian tribes on the border that drug cartels and illegal criminal activity is strongest where there is no defense. (if i recall, there are actually Indian tribes who have complained for years to congress to do something about it) if the wall is guarded fully, yet the private land is the only land not tightly secured, then guess where the cartels will funnel to? and that, is how you hardball people into accepting the wall on the border. despicable? Yes, but so is endangering your neighbors by not at least securing your own borders. 5 billion would allow those who are able to be persuaded, to be reimbursed quickly, while still keeping funds in the bank for minor changes and upgrades to the already established wall. 1.3 can do none of that.

#7134101 U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

Posted by vla1ne on 17 January 2019 - 08:12 PM



He's being petty and vindictive because she suggested delaying the State of the Union address. What's also important is that this trip was supposed to be kept under wraps to preserve national security, so he blew the lid on this out of pure spite.


There is no good reasoning it. It was just a stupid move.

Well, he shut the trip down, so there's not really a lid to be blown at this point. petty or not, politics has always been dirty. Look at the people trying to make him a villain for spending 3K+ of his own money on mcdonalds for a couple hungry college students during the shutdown. people on both sides are pretty terrible to each other right about now..




Cite your sources here.

"I am proud to shut down the government for border security. I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down.”


That is a direct quote from Trump himself. Trump openly admitted that he would be the one to shut down the government, and is only blaming the Democrats after the fact. Claiming that it's a "fact" that Democrats are the ones willing to shut down the government is just peddling the same false arguments as Trump, and ignores that they've already offered $1.3B for border security.





While it is a joke, I would like to reiterate the question: Can you show what efforts McConnell has personally made to reopen the government?



These are stats from one of the better portions of the wall completed during the bush era (which is still far smaller than the wall trump is proposing and constructing). That's over ten years of info collecting, though it's in a smaller area in general than the total wall we're gunning for. so in short, we have a smaller wall than trump has been building, with sustained stats from the bush era. the wall there has been followed by a massive reduction in crime, and yet remains close to what has been known as one of the more dangerous border areas. that's pretty strong evidence that walls, while not a guaranteed solution, are pretty good at dissuading criminals from coming over the border to your particular area. keep in mind, this is without the additional kinds of surveillance that trump has also proposed, and requested a budget for. in short, we've got data that tells us a wall, even smaller than what trump is asking for, can do the trick pretty well.



I'm not saying trump's not responsible for shutting it down. What i'm saying is that the democrats are responsible for not getting it open again. it's 5 billion, 20-15 billion less than the starting price, and less money than we gave to south america just last year. We know the wall can do it's job (if backed by proper legislation, surveillance, and and removed incentives), and the people obstructing it today were asking for a border barrier decades ago, claiming bush's fences were not enough just a decade ago. This is nowhere near the first thing they've flipped on recently.




As a side note: https://www.fairus.o...der-fence  Thisis a report on the walls costs as estimated by professional building contractors and determined by prior pecedents. The short of it is, the wall, if built using the same materials we're already using, in a similar manner to israel, would cost around 25 billion, and would be about 40 feet high and 7 feet deep. Personally i would prefer it be 30 feet high and 17 feet deep to further dissuade tunnels, but i suppose that would be a bit more expensive, to the tune of probably 5-10 billion extra. As digging deeper would be more difficult than building higher. Even so, considering we gave out far more than 35 billion in foreign aid, and our entitlement spending for many programs are generally far higher than 35 billion (some being closer to the trillion mark), i'd say it's pocket change (in government terms) and is only being postponed because they don't like the person promoting it.

#7134064 Ask me something

Posted by vla1ne on 16 January 2019 - 07:06 PM

How has your politics changed since 2015

Knew i'd get at least one of these. In short, less than i'd thought, more than i realized. at length:


Around 2015's beginning, I honestly leaned extremely liberal, and had quite a few socialist traits that i thought would be good if they could be refined further. These days i still carry those liberal views, but the 2016 election made me recoil from the left a lot, and pick up more views from the right than i thought i would ever hold. and it's mostly because  kept having to defend donald trump. I would be having perfectly normal discussions at work, and the second trump got mentioned, the people around me would start acting like he was some kind of monster wearing a human skin. i got exposed to some serious dogmatic beliefs during that election, and it made me take a step back, and reevaluate the left, the right, and donald trump himself. By the end of the election, while you happened to be banned i came around to having trump instead of hillary, on the grounds of what she did to bernie sanders being absolutely inexcusable. and from day one, trump has actually done some impressive things. i though he was unfit for office at the start, but over time, he got more and more done, and yet the news covering him got more and more negative, and it affected my own views of politics, as somebody who generally tried to be the counterbalance to political extremities. so over time, i overlooked my own biases, with the help of mainstream news, alt-stream news, and the don himself, and as i did so, i started to lean closer to the right than to the left. I still try to gravitate towards the center, as that's there the sane people tend to congregate more often, but i find that sitting center right is just a bit more comfortable at this point.


That's pretty much it. Kinda messy, but it's there in a nutshell.

#7133278 [DANE] Chaos Betrayer

Posted by vla1ne on 24 December 2018 - 07:25 PM

It looks exactly like an archfiend monster, why doesn't it get the name? It's not like archfiends have too much good support.


What decks can this even go into though? I know generic chaos builds might like it, but i'm having trouble thinking of anything this could help out beyond that.

  • Dad likes this

#7133273 [DANE] Psychic Reflector

Posted by vla1ne on 24 December 2018 - 07:05 PM

Even still, if /AM get even one more psychic support monster on this level, then the Hyper Psychic Build could become a respectable build for /AM, which is something I've never even dreamed i could say. For the sake of future discussion, please do not confuse respectable with meta, there is a massive difference between the two in this case. by respectable, i mean not immediately destined to brick city

#7131776 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on 13 December 2018 - 11:24 PM

That doesn't apply to this case, he didn't try to kill them, he accidentally hit them. Malicious intent were the exact words used to define this case. That is blatantly false. Do your really think that he would not have been able to absolutely murder, or eternally cripple at least a dozen or so in a car that can go 0-60 in under ten seconds?  Also, you continue to ignore the illegal roadblock that heavily factors into this entire incident. Standing in the road when you shouldn't be, while blocking multiple paths out of the area illegally, generally increases the chance of getting hit by a car. Attacking a vehicle in the road, after they have already encountered hostile armed members of your group, is pretty much a perfect formula for at least one vehicle hitting a person. To say nothing of a group of people driving their way down the road, blocking off many cars ways of leaving. in fact, the car he hit was also stifled by the massive crowd that should not have been there. Remove the antifa factor from any protest involving right wing views, and the violence is all but guaranteed to drop to zero.

We've seen it in multiple areas, multiple times

Remove the alt-right from any protest that antifa's involved in, and the violence remains the same. See the problem with your analogy? One side increases the violence no matter where they jump in, the other only seems to have any violence at all when the already violent group jumps in. the beliefs of one side are clearly undesirable (i doubt anybody here agrees with any supremacist race argument) but the beleifs and actions of the other side, both are just as bad, if not worse than their opponents, as they take things to the next level. 


His beliefs alone didn't cause the actions, the actions of others also influenced this outcome. You are removing the autonomy from the people involved, with the exception of just one, and you only do so, because of your own bias. (and no, the same does not apply to me, i've already said my piece on his actions. I neither condone or support hitting people with cars, and I've already stated he does indeed deserve jailtime for them, intentional or not.)


I'll defend whomever i see fit to defend.

#7131691 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on 13 December 2018 - 12:11 AM

Keeping my own responses brief as well, first off, his political opinions, while relevant to the rally, do nothing for the actual case. It's virtue signaling at best, and ad hoc arguing at worst. Relating to the court case:


That professor is on record, on the day of the event, instructing people to block traffic, to create public disturbance, and generally cause trouble at what could have been, and what would have been, a rather peaceful protest on that day. In other words, dixon was completely in the wrong, no matter what fields did (this does not absolve fields, but again, it removes any argument of intent). It's been shown in court that fields had attempted to leave, and that he'd inputted directions into google maps to find out how he could, yet his options were blocked, by the commands of a particular professsor who had ZERO authority to block road traffic, and had no discernible reason to brandish a weapon in said roads towards vehicles yet he did so anyways, as his own post proudly proclaims. 


In short, this was not willful murder, this was manslaughter at best. His available actions were sealed off with established malicious intent, and while he deserves jailtime for the death of another person, his only real mistake was being afraid if the group of nutjobs who would willingly allow themselves to be hit by traffic, all so they can persecute a group of people who were doing no harm to them.

#7131654 James Fields Jr found guilty of first-degree murder

Posted by vla1ne on 12 December 2018 - 07:40 PM

Wonder what they're gonna sentence the guy who made fields drive off with

It's all good though, because the guy convicted was a white supremacist. Any and all actions relating to White Supremacists are automatically malicious. Proving intent? Nah, dude only went there to spew hatred and kill people. No need to look any deeper, because the guy was clearly evil from the get-go. It's not like any regular people were there as well, or like anybody who was there had disavowed the actions of the previous day.



Seriously though, Yeah, he deserves jailtime, can't even argue that. Regardless of reasons, he ended a life, and harmed multiple others. That said, stamping him with the title of "white supremacist with malicious intent" is not something that has even remotely been proven yet. We have ample reason to believe things had gotten far too hectic, and james may well have been placed into a state of panic by the inclusion of weaponry. Does that justify his actions? Not in the least, but it does negate the attempt to stamp intent where it does not belong. Involuntary manslaughter, 5-10 years, and call it a sentence. He's not some absolute villain. He's got no history of violent offenses. He's a guy that majorly fucked up, and while punishment is not even a question, his sentence should reflect the actual circumstances of the action, not the perceived image of it. That said, he's likely going to get the full book thrown at him, and that's about the saddest thing i can think of.

#7129276 Raidraptor - Call

Posted by vla1ne on 21 November 2018 - 12:13 AM

How reliable has it been for you to search pain lanius with force strix? It's a line of play I haven't seen before.

Frankly, I think that what it comes down to is that fuzzy lanous is the only truly powerful card that is lost by skipping out on the xenophobia, and it doesn't provide enough to justify losing all the other outside techs. These new cards do not only support a pure build, nor do they support it disproportionately over the logical mixed lists, so I don't think they should be considered as a factor for the two builds in comparison to each other.

At the end of the day, I'd argue that from a competitive (or at the very least attempting to use a given deck to the best of its capacity, which even many casual players strive for) standpoint, it doesn't matter if the new cards make a pure build less terrible, as it is still the objectively more effective way to build the deck.

oof, Was thinking singing while typing pain lanius. Meant to say nest searches pain lanius. That was my bad.


The Link, while mostly triggering off of Xyz effects, doesn't need them to do crazy stuff. On the other hand, the R7 kinda thrives in the pure build. It doesn't restrict non pure builds, but ED space is really tight in the deck, so the more RR's you have in there, the bigger a threat the R7 becomes, as it can throw out the appropriate birb for the situation, and gains additional attacks based on it's RR materials, which the pure build would give it more often than any other build. which increases the OTK power it has, and allows it to do more both on field and in death.


I'm in agreement that non pure (or at least not absolutely pure) builds are better overall right now in the tcg. My point though, is that call is a stronger card the purer your build, and the two cards mentioned (wise and R7) make the pure build capable of being run with peak efficiency. Keep in mind, i'm discussing this in the context of a pure build, which, while arguably a more casual means of play, remains a form of deckbuilding that can indeed be perfected. Some people actually take pride in running decks as purely as possible, and making them competitive. I have this habit for some of my decks as well. In non pure builds call is pretty much not an option (except that one crazy bastard who topped a year or so back running call in his deck). but in pure builds, call is an incredible card, and is arguably essential in maxing out the power of the pure deck. Not trampling on hybrid builds or anything, just saying that RR-call has to be optimally considered if you plan on running it. Thus, the only build that it can be optimally considered in, is the pure build, where the restrictions don't limit it so much. You can use tools like allure to boost consistency anyways in either build.

#7126715 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 02 November 2018 - 06:06 AM

alright, lot's happened, but starting from square one: just a heads up, I rushed this one out, and some of the quote parameters screwed up, so i'll be trying to separate them properly via lines

Seriously? The dude created Vice. He knows that broadly, broadcasting yourself as something we've literally gone to war against while claiming to be "pro-American" isn't good for business so he's trying to avoid the title while holding rather openly racist views. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Also, pray tell how white nationalists plan to actually expel every single  minority from America without resorting to violence and how I should differentiate them in the slightest? Like picture what an actual white nationalist American rule would look like, then attempt to differentiate that with what the Nazis wanted.

What do you expect we're just gonna borrow enough money to PAY every black, brown, yellow, jewish and red person to leave? Nah. There's no feasible price for sending citizens back to a shithole. So basically they're totalitarians that advocate for the extermination of everyone who's not white, that's Nazi shit. No reason to play by their name games.

He's a white nationalist, authoritarian, antisemite. The fuck else do you need a swaztika tattoo? If you're gonna play this game literally nobody besides people who rock the hammer and sickles are communists.
Gonna drop the Spencer shit because it's falling under viewpoint arguing and that's not gonna be productive for this already wall of text discussion. I don't judge people by their skin color, gender, sex or really anything besides being disingenious or lying. Also I'm not talking about this video when I said he made a video about "10 Things I Hate About Jews". Just merely, context for you to understand the full picture, the link below shows what he said before he censored himself to "Israel" after realizing that this video might get him in some bad water



That's not a mark against him. Vice has some rather left and right leaning coverage. in fact, is among the more fair reporting sites, which lends more credence to my own points than to yours. That said, I will repeat it, he is not a white supremacist, and this is one of the issues i have with your own viewpoint. He doesn't fit inside your organized political bubble, so you, among others, decide to call him something he is not. fact is, he's not a white supremacist. Fact is, you have not even attempted to understand where he is coming from, and fact is, you don't even want to. Drop the topic. seriously. you're blatantly wrong.


What in the hell are you even on about here? I've explained it multiple times. he is not. he is only being painted as such because he's a white man speaking out against people who advocate racism against white men. end of story. you are viewpoint arguing for Gavin as well. he is nothing like Spencer, yet you attempt to place them in the same league. they might not hate each other, but they both disagree. stop it. it's disingenuous. and I have seen no argument for it that doesn't boil down to "He's a white supremascist only because he doesn't agree with me"


Yeah, again, that's people being fucking stupid. Let me explain something to you, left wing people do not like him, and they take his views out of context. Israeli news, the most likely place to be offended, caught on to the joke. the only people who didn't, are the people who make a living off of getting outraged.




seriously, drop it, you're just plain wrong here.





Which is why you linked a video of Antifa by a guy who's whole video catalogue is just him provoking leftist protestors and continue to represent them solely as a violent mob when there have been far more non-violent rallies with dudes with black masks then not. Because you care so much about representing ideas fairly right? Even the most violent Antifa protest has about as many arrests as a rowdy football game (with about the same amount of violent crimes because we don't kill people). Yet, what do you choose to defend so vehemently? The racist guy because he wears a suit and he's conservative.  

Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to not get punished for what you say and it doesn't even grant you an audience so to speak. You have your freedom to speak what you want, you don't have control over the audience, the protestors have every right to freely scream at your reporter dude yet you don't seem too inclined to dignify theirs yet when a guy comes with a suit and starts calling black people monkeys you immediately start thinking "what if there's more to this, obviously the media's crucifying him, this can't be true."

As listed before, he doesn't say how he hates jews in that video, he talks about it in another one that he re-titled 10 Reasons Why I Hate Israel.

I'm not looking for reasons to attack people, I'm stating what I already know about someone and proving that his influence is incredibly harmful for me personally and many others. I'm not labeling everyone a Nazi, I've never called you a Nazi once, I've never called Polaris a Nazi once, I didn't even call Melkor a Nazi I called him a fascist sympathizer because of the quote below. I'm just calling the white nationalist antisemetic authoritarian who believes that the holocaust is greatly exaggerated and that some "unknown forces" are controlling the media in order to make white people feel bad and go extinct.
Woo. He said he was joking later in that same conversation you're quoting me from but apparently that's all anyone needs to say to convince you that they're not something.
Funny how you link a hilariously partisan man who's job appears only to aggrievate protestors in order to make this comparison.




They aren't arrested because the city is on their side. Take a look at Portland, where they blatantly obstruct traffic laws, cause property damage, and attack anybody who disagrees. If you call the cops not breaking them up, fair and balanced, then we have polar opposite views on the subject. You've been proven wrong on the Gaving thing already, leave it alone. Again, i don't support the proud boys. but unlike antifa, their entire shtick is that don't start the violence, they finish it. I still condemn them for seeking violence. but they are leagues better than the group that seeks and starts the violence. end of story.


it also doesn't give others the right to attack you. and the spirit of freedom of speech is an actual concept, that discourages attacking or "punishing" people. they don't have control over the audience, but unlike you and antifa, they know it already. they don't break into leftist rallies ant attack people, or try to get leftist rallies shut down half as often as antifa and other leftist groups. your side is the one attempting to control hte audience. days ago, they attempted to shut down a speech by Milo. When has Milo done that to them? he hasn't, because he has a better grasp of freedom of speech than they do. Don't project your views onto the left, you've advocated speech control in this very thread, you don't get to then attempt and project it onto your opponent.


And I've already BTFO'd that argument using the most Jewish site possible.


Yeah you are. You're taking  the views of others FAR out of context, and then claiming your warped opinion is justification for punishing those you disagree with. Stop it.



he may be partisan, but he is not violent, nor does he attempt, at any point to be violent. that's why i use him, to prove that point. no matter the opposing view, violence isn't the way to oppose it. debate is. could have used a leftist to push that point, but that's somewhat hard to find right now.



Okay, seriously, "black supremacist"? Explain to me how the heck that guy was a "black supremacist"?
You seem to be conflating general opposition to white supremacy with Antifa. Richard Spencer is a Nazi, and he also participated in Unite the Right, which did result in murder. He's banned for his views because they explicitly advocate for murder, genocide, and slavery. This isn't about attacking people who "might" be Nazis. This is about pushing back against people who are Nazis. You should expecting nothing less from universities, because banning Nazis is the appropriate course of action.

I can post several other examples from this thread alone. Proto's use of "fascist" is hardly any different from the utter disdain with which you constantly use "leftist", so you can stop pretending that you're not into labels.


He advocated blacks needing their own safe spaces within the nation, among other parallels to Spencer, and has been known to promote violence against whites. arguably, that places him under the black supremacist label. i don't care too much to argue the label though. I could easily be wrong about what label he fits under, as it's been a while since i've seen the debate, and the debate itself seems to have been scrubbed from youtube, while google's hiding the site i used to find it last time(gonna try searching via bing later on after work, but likely same problem will occur),  


he's not a nazi, he's a white supremacist. the two are related, but not the same. unite the right was not a violent event inherently, it just had the misfortune of actual white supremacists appearing to screw everything up. very few people actually liked the way that event went down, as it ruined the optics for both sides, on both sides. you can argue back, but when you support attacking, as many here have, you are on another level of disagreement. not it's not. universities were once places you could encounter and debate opposing views, while understanding the opposing points. if they ban that ability, then they they fail themselves and their students.


I use leftist to describe leftist. notice i don't address people who's views don't seem to paint them as such. If you aren't a leftist, then please tell me as much and i'll retract the statement. 

#7125985 Political Violence

Posted by vla1ne on 29 October 2018 - 01:34 PM

Incorrect. I stand against it as well. I simply don't need violence to do so. (if swung on first, i will definitely fight back, but till then, words are words). More racists have been converted through compassion and discourse than through violence. So i take that route first, as it's the most effective. In fact, just three days ago, i had a discussion about it with two ethno-nationalists online. Both thought they held the same correct views, but upon having a proper (long as hell) discussion, i managed to bring one round to my side, to reach an agreement on the topic (The other was a lost cause, but that's life).  That would not happen if i just went in screaming "you're both racists and need to die!". You can only change minds through nuance and debate. Some won't change, but far more will.