Free speech.

[husaberg]

The person who posted what I saw thought it was optimistic too.

Especially considering hes currently on bail awaiting another hearing for contempt of court (which he will likely be found guilty of, because he is clearly guilty and ignorance is not a defense)

[TheDemonLord]

You have no valid points or any evidence to support the point you claim, on the other hand i have heaps of evidence the is guilty of breach tos and that is why he was removed.

You are claiming he was removed because he was right wing this is not backed by facts.

Your claim is not backed by facts Yet what is backed by facts, is that he was removed for breaching the sites TOS

How about you try and understand what my claim was - you're about 50% of the way there.

[husaberg]

How about you try and understand what my claim was - you're about 50% of the way there.

No one will support your claim without evidence unless they are a conspiracy theorist.
Tell you what, How about you post some actual evidence.
Because I'm 100% aware of your current lack of evidence thus far.
I am also 100% aware you your failure to counter the evidence that proves your claim to be wrong also.
PS evidence is factual that would stand up in court not rumours or claims about others conduct.
Next thing you will be claiming that AKA is not allowed in NZ as hes ALt right while totally ignoring he has a passport fraud conviction.

[TheDemonLord]

No one will support your claim without evidence unless they are a conspiracy theorist.
Tell you what, How about you post some actual evidence.
Because I'm 100% aware of your current lack of evidence thus far.
I am also 100% aware you your failure to counter the evidence that proves your claim to be wrong also.
PS evidence is factual that would stand up in court not rumours or claims about others conduct.
Next thing you will be claiming that AKA is not allowed in NZ as hes ALt right while totally ignoring he has a passport fraud conviction.

So I'll take that as "I'm sorry, I'm incapable of understanding the point"

Also - Tommy isn't Alt-right...

[husaberg]

So I'll take that as "I'm sorry, I'm incapable of understanding the point"
..

Take it the same way Tommy likely did in prison for all i care.

I am just pointing out your the total lack of evidence you have presented and comparing it with the vast amount of evidence that Jones was banned for breach of tos.
I am still awaiting for your evidence that supports your claims that Jones was banned for is non left wing views.

Also - Tommy isn't Alt-right...

Gish gallop away.......
So AKA's not alt right you better tell the alt right sites they seem to have claimed him
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...obal-alt-right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5as6HEXBA
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-contempt-laws
https://www.ft.com/content/f8f2b174-...2-9563a0613e56

[TheDemonLord]

Take it the same way Tommy likely did in prison for all i care.

I am just pointing out your the total lack of evidence you have presented and comparing it with the vast amount of evidence that Jones was banned for breach of tos.
I am still awaiting for your evidence that supports your claims that Jones was banned for is non left wing views.

And you'll keep waiting, since you fundamentally don't understand the point that was made.

As for your sources - Since when did the Guardian become Alt-right? Or the Financial Times?

Do you even know what the Alt-right is? Because when you compare what is claimed as alt-right by the Media (especially places like the Guardian) and what is actually Alt-right, they are 2 vastly different Magisteria.

To the Media, everyone to the right of Marx and mildly popular is Alt-Right....

[husaberg]

And you'll keep waiting, since you fundamentally don't understand the point that was made.

As for your sources - Since when did the Guardian become Alt-right? Or the Financial Times?

Do you even know what the Alt-right is? Because when you compare what is claimed as alt-right by the Media (especially places like the Guardian) and what is actually Alt-right, they are 2 vastly different Magisteria.

To the Media, everyone to the right of Marx and mildly popular is Alt-Right....

Who could ever understand your point, as its pointless to try and have a discussion with anyone when they, like you, refuse to present any actual evidence to support your views.
Sourse i just googled the wold alt right and aka and came uo with thousands of links.
alt right covers all the alternative right fringe group nutters to which AKA firmly belongs.
he is covered by the definition of white nationalist.
Shatman and oldjewspam would get in also on account of their own antisemitic views their neo nazi fixations and holocaust denial.

[TheDemonLord]

You could ever understand your point as its pointless to try and have a discussion with anyone when they like you refuse to present any actual evidence to support your views.

Could you try again, this time in English? Although that outburst might explain why you are having such trouble understanding the point I was making.

Sourse i just googled the wold alt right and aka and came uo with thousands of links.

Argumentum ad Google.

alt right covers all the alternative right fringe group nutters to which AKA firmly belongs.

No it doesn't. It refers to a specific set of ideas. Of which, Tommy does not espouse.

he is covered by the definition of white nationalist.

No he's not.

Shatman and oldjewspam would get in also on account of their own antisemitic views their neo nazi fixations and holocaust denial.

I've never seen Katman or Oldrider argue in favor of White Ethno-state. Which would make them not Alt-right.

You are committing the very thing I accused the media of doing: Everything that is to the right of Marx is "Alt-right"

[oldrider]

You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time except for husaberg he appears to be the one person fooled most of the time! -

[husaberg]

Could you try again, this time in English? Although that outburst might explain why you are having such trouble understanding the point I was making.



Argumentum ad Google.



No it doesn't. It refers to a specific set of ideas. Of which, Tommy does not espouse.



No he's not.



I've never seen Katman or Oldrider argue in favor of White Ethno-state. Which would make them not Alt-right.

You are committing the very thing I accused the media of doing: Everything that is to the right of Marx is "Alt-right"

Congratulations you have reinvented the common definitions of terms now to suit yourself. Anything alternative to the norm of right is alt right.

Richard B. Spencer initially promoted the term in 2010 in reference to a movement centered on white nationalism according to the Associated Press, he did so to disguise overt racism, white supremacism, neo-fascism and neo-Nazis

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
I wll give you a hint AKA is an alt right nutjob
if you want to argue hes not provide some evidence he is not a white nationalist
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
As for oldracist and shatspam.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right

The Holocaust is in many ways a natural frontier for the alt-right whose modus operandi is the casting into doubt of objective truth. Holocaust denial, once an end of level boss for conspiracy theorists and truthers, is now a starting point.
Convince people to question Auschwitz and what else can’t you challenge?
What’s scariest though, as a Jew and as a liberal, is that Holocaust denial is now where extreme left and right meet. The language, gestures and agendas might differ but what both amount to is a deliberate attempt to diminish the victimhood of a people who have faced massacre or expulsion on average every hundred years for the last two thousand
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8484806.html

Unless you are going to say neo nazis are just normal right wing, they by default fall under ALT right, as much as you find it uncomfortable the alt right has made a bed and all the kooks choose to lie in it.

[Graystone]

Why don't you take 5 minutes to try and get your story straight.



So why was his approval required for the banning? Afterall if the Policy was absolute, there's no need to involve the CEO...



No, it was not. It was about the contradictions in the statement.

And curiously, his details as to how they guard against bias is very scant... One might almost say "non-existent"



Not at all, you see - you asserted (initially) that "White Male Privilege" wasn't racist and sexist because it did not encompass the entirety of the groups:



And yet, when presented with the definition (that fulfills YOUR definition of Racism and Sexism) you've now resorted to avoiding the question and further mental Gymnastics - which is exactly the Corruption that I critiqued.



I know you haven't said anything about how All Males does not equal all Males - that's the point....

I've not created a False Equivalence, I'll break it down really simple like:

You agree with me that the statement "Maori are Criminals" is definitely Racist. Because we are saying ALL of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic) have a negative attribute.

Your defense of "White Male Privilege" not being racist was because "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members".

So, I posted the description of "White Male Privilege" from a scholarly source, were it clearly articulated that it was in fact applying the attribute to ALL members of a group (whose membership is a protected characteristic).

You now have a problem: The definition of "White Male Privilege" is clear that is meant in the same way that "Maori are Criminals" - since it states explicitly that all Men have it. You are arguing one is Racist and one is not.

The means by which you argue this is to try and redefine and twist language - because you know you've been hoisted by your own petard.

How it is applied is the interpretation, surely...

High profile, gotta get everyone on the same page. You let me know when you turn up that legal definition though eh!

His context, not yours.

And it doesn't encompass the entirety of the groups, that's why you had to create the false equivalence which used the word 'are'. "White male privileged" does not mean the same as "White males are privileged", in the same way "Maori crime" does not mean the same as "maori are criminals" you can tell since the words are different. Finding some obscure, definition you can't even be bothered citing doesn't change basic English.

[TheDemonLord]

How it is applied is the interpretation, surely...

If only we had 2 separate words for each concept. One for Application and One for Definition.... If only...

High profile, gotta get everyone on the same page. You let me know when you turn up that legal definition though eh!

So? If it's as clear a breach as you claim, then there is no need to get the CEO's sign off. I've disabled numerous accounts for breach of my Companies ToS - never bothered the CEO about any of them.

His context, not yours.

I see, off to dismiss the clear contradiction of his statements....

And it doesn't encompass the entirety of the groups, that's why you had to create the false equivalence which used the word 'are'. "White male privileged" does not mean the same as "White males are privileged", in the same way "Maori crime" does not mean the same as "maori are criminals" you can tell since the words are different. Finding some obscure, definition you can't even be bothered citing doesn't change basic English.

So you are trying to claim that "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - could you explain how that is?

I'll simply remind you - the concept of "White Male Privilege" is clear that it encompasses all White Men. Which means my expansion of the phrase is entirely correct.

And it's not an obscure definition, it's from a Scholarly source - I posted the name of the resource, it's written by a PHD holder in Gender Studies - Funny how, in order to maintain your narrative, you've got to dismiss it as "Obscure".

[TheDemonLord]

Congratulations you have reinvented the common definitions of terms now to suit yourself. Anything alternative to the norm of right is alt right.

Are you being Mental? You've even posted the correct definition - you see the key part "White Nationalism" - so anything that does have that at it's core isn't Alt-right.

I wll give you a hint AKA is an alt right nutjob
if you want to argue hes not provide some evidence he is not a white nationalist

No, burden of proof is on you - can you link to a Tommy Robinson Speech/Quote where he has called for a White Ethno-State.

His main problem is with Radical Islam and it's effects on British Working class communities. He's critiqued immigrants from countries that have views and opinions that are IMO incompatible with British, Western Values.

None of which makes him a Member, figurehead or luminary of the Alt-right. Unless of course you are the left-wing media, in which case, everything that is to the right of Marx is Alt-right these days.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
As for oldracist and shatspam.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/alt-right

I'm just quoting this as it's clear that the Cognitive Dissonance is starting to have a real-world impact...

Unless you are going to say neo nazis are just normal right wing, they by default fall under ALT right, as much as you find it uncomfortable the alt right has made a bed and all the kooks choose to lie in it.

Consider this - the Alt-Right have a degree of respect for Israel, it's pretty close to what they would consider an Ethno-State, it's also a place for the Jews to go that is not where the Alt-right live. Which means that it's a little more complex and nuanced than you are trying to make it out to be.

[Graystone]

If only we had 2 separate words for each concept. One for Application and One for Definition.... If only...



So? If it's as clear a breach as you claim, then there is no need to get the CEO's sign off. I've disabled numerous accounts for breach of my Companies ToS - never bothered the CEO about any of them.



I see, off to dismiss the clear contradiction of his statements....



So you are trying to claim that "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - could you explain how that is?

I'll simply remind you - the concept of "White Male Privilege" is clear that it encompasses all White Men. Which means my expansion of the phrase is entirely correct.

And it's not an obscure definition, it's from a Scholarly source - I posted the name of the resource, it's written by a PHD holder in Gender Studies - Funny how, in order to maintain your narrative, you've got to dismiss it as "Obscure".

Or one that covers both, like interpretation...

Of course there is no need for the CEO to sign off, he only did so due to the profile of the case.

The contradiction was not present in the quote you made which I pulled you up on for taking it completely out of context. So there is nothing to dismiss since you didn't even post it

By that logic, you are trying to claim "White male privilege" means the same as "White males are privileged", and that "Maori crime" means the same as "maori are criminals", right?
We both know you refuse to post this citation, just as you refuse to post the myriad of others, because in the correct context, it does not show what you would like to portray it does. A 'helpful metaphor' as you quoted is not the sort of thing used in a definition. You've gone and cherry picked some bullshit form some obscure source (wtf is a scholarly source anyway? is it a journal article? or just some bullshit with a name that appear scholarly to the scientifically illiterate?), just like you always do. Get an education and stop making a fool of yourself.

[husaberg]

blather

So as well as you claiming to know more than a US federal court judge about the law you now know more than three dictionaries about what words mean
You also attempt to claim that separate parts that get thrown into the alt right, somehow must share the same attributes.
But in reality being alternative right wing and a kook is all it needs to meet the common definition of alt right.
Cognitive Dissonance well, its even more funny when you use it than when Yokel used to
You remember Yokel and what views he espoused.