[08:18:51] <internewt> So what is wrong with racism, to you, is nothing or how it effects feelings of others, and that's it. (And I guess you think the same about other types of bigotry, like sexism). You seem to be saying intolerance of intolerance is intolerance, comparable to the intolerance that drove the German holocaust. Fucking get over the juvenile philosophies you've downloaded off the internet.

Re-read what i said silly guy. Here's the jist.. People are entitled to their opinions and i tolerate ALL of them. I even defend their right to have AND speak them freely. How alt right and Nazi of me eh?! What I do not tolerate acts of aggression. Basically "You can hate any race/sex/thing you dam well please up until the point of harming another person." No, people's precious fucking feelings do NOT count. Not even a little bit.

[08:18:51] <internewt> For someone so open-minded, you dogmatically stick to the libertarian ideology. The rhetorical devices you repeat come up so much on the internet it is like people use templates..... oh, it turns out they do. Why would I want to try and engage with someone who says in advance you will just send me templates? You are proudly stating you will not change your view, and that you think that is a good thing! Politicians play the U-turn card on opponents because it works, in reality changing your mind is a sign of learning and maturity.

1- Sorry if i like to save a little time on typing the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over :P. Just know that if i had typed it myself it would have been very much the same.. Just more RSI for me and WAY more spelling, punctuation and grammar errors for you. As UJD likes to put it, I am an illiterate FUCK!!!!!! ROFL :D

2- You VERY, VERY, VERY CLEARLY.. DO want to engage.

3- I am always willing to change any of my points of view when provided with the evidence needed to do so.

[08:18:52] <internewt> Libertarians make the same mistake Marxists do, assuming people are homogeneous human-like spheroids. Marxists think that people will be happy with their lot and won't seek more in some way, and libertarians think that people will be happy with their lot and won't seek more in some way. Both ignore how the corruptible will corrupt things further, or if that does come up just purifying the system further will prevent abuses. Those with a head-start on the awful can use those philosophies for their own power aspirations, but those being hood-winked are oblivious to what is being done to them.

1- I can't speak to how others feel or the mistakes they make.

2- I am NOT Libertarian.

3- Your leftist "putting everyone in categorys/boxes/groups" is showing.

4- Nothing wrong with wanting more.

5- All i really said is that i don't support acts of non defensive aggression. Or the people who do condone it (you). Sorry you like aggression so much. I cant speak to what may or not happen in given future scenarios. Nor is it my responsibility to solve all the world's problems after simply stating what i do and do not condone. OMG he doesn't condone non defensive violence!?!?!? Fucking ALT RIGHT NAZI!!! Lefties, well all statsists, HATE that because everything they want is based on hiring men with guns (thugs or "government") to force (Violence) people to act the way they want them to act. It's wrong to initiate and/or threaten violence. It is wrong to steal what is not yours. Using force against people is ONLY justified when it is used to stop an actual aggressor. That is true in rich, pretty neighborhoods. It is also true in poor, rundown neighborhoods. It is true where there is a lot of violent crime. It is true where there is little or no violent crime. It is true everywhere, all the time. That's why it's called the non-aggression PRINCIPLE, not the non-aggression occasional mild suggestion, if it happens to be convenient at the time. The principle also applies regardless of someone's skin color, IQ, income level, education level, place of birth, ancestry, age, sex, spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof), and so on (How Alt-Right and Naziish of me). If you condone the initiation of violence, then YOU are the obstacle to peaceful coexistence. YOU are the problem. YOU are the threat to freedom and justice. HINT: Voting and/or supporting "government" and taxes is condoning the initiation of violence. Just because "you don't see it that way," or it goes against what you have been taught your entire life, does not make it untrue.

Democracy is just a super nice term for the majority using the threat of violence, and actual violence, to oppress and steal from a minority. We are taught this equals freedom. ROFL. The very best example of pure democracy is gang rape. And its not OK. Its not OK for ANY majority to force its will on ANY minority. What democracy actually does is keep us at constant war with each other. It keeps us clamoring to "government" "Please force my neighbors to fund what i believe in, force them to behave the way i want them to behave." Meanwhile the other neighbor is saying "No, force my neighbors to fund what i believe in, force them to behave the way i want them to behave." Democracy is not freedom. It is the exact opposite of freedom. It creates perpetual conflict. And it always will.

[08:18:52] <internewt> Libertarianism, especially the common internet version, is stunningly simplistic (whilst at the same time complicated by rowing factions, eg gold bugs vs. monetarists, or the differences that have fallen out of Chicago school vs. Austrian). In the style of traditional left-wing notions of freedom, right-wing authoritarianism is couched, and some Libertarians do not even realise what they are promoting: take away accountability for the power-crazed and they will make things shit for basically everyone. Others do know what they are doing, such as the Kochs and probably people like Hedge Fund owners, oligarchs or other contemporary aristocrats. "The market" is the go-to answer for every social matter, which conveniently or ignorantly (depending on the speaker's bias) omits that in a "free" market freedom is proportional to wealth. Compare that to a free vote, where each person gets one say, and the free market turns out to be rather unfree. Libertarianism is absolutely capitalism before democracy (usually crony capitalism at that, because of insistent opposition to regulation), and if there is a conflict then it seems the democracy must go. The perfect politics for the rich, or thick people who think they would be stinking rich if things were socially a bit different: no, they'll probably still die cold and hungry.

1- Again, NOT  Libertarian. This was established very clearly in some of the first things i wrote here man.

2- Voting is an act of aggression. Loving “democracy” amounts to loving widespread violence and constant conflict. Political elections are not about togetherness, unity or tolerance; they are about AGGRESSION. Arguing over how everyone should be forced to behave and what everyone should be forced to financially support, via the control machine called “government.” The abundance of campaign signs littering lawns prior to every election are not the sign of an enlightened, free society; they are the sign of a mentally and physically enslaved society, bickering over which slave master they want holding the whip. Every single person who votes is attempting to put people into power who will carry out large-scale extortion (’’taxation”) to fund various “government” programs. All voters attempt to empower a gang that they know will commit mass robbery, yet none of those voters accept any responsibility for doing so. They know what their candidates will do if put into power, they know what the consequences will be to any who then disobey the commands of those politicians, but the belief in “authority” makes the voters psychologically incapable of recognizing that what they are doing is advocating widespread violence. Those who talk about “representative government” refuse to accept any personal responsibility for actions taken by those for whom they voted. If their candidate of choice enacts a harmful “law,” or raises “taxes,” or wages war, the voters never feel the same guilt or shame they would feel if they themselves had personally done such things, or had hired or instructed someone else to do such things. This fact demonstrates that even the most enthusiastic voters do not actually believe the rhetoric about “representative government,” and do not view politicians as their representatives.


[08:18:52] <internewt> As you don't seem to understand what is actually wrong with racism, only opposing some undefined aggression, what is wrong with racism is down to the utter moronicness of it. When that moronitude is taken as anything more than "fuck off" it has real world consequences. Purely economically it makes no sense, if someone wants to spend money at your business take it, the more people want to work for you the less can be paid, both contributing to profitability. (I think the moderate right get this, which is why David Cameron's government legalised gay marriage. They want things stratified, they are conservatives, but no point fighting reality, just stratify along money lines. Yes, the Old Boys network is still significant in our ruling class (the UK exported the boarding school system to the empire, so I am sure Canada has something similar), but lots of traditional divisions are dropped from formal policy. They do this not because they aren't bastards, but because evidentially bigotry is stupid).
[08:18:52] <internewt> People do not choose their physical traits, nor date or place of birth, nor religion type or level in their birth society. To hold people responsible for those things is simply a faulty idea.... but you appear to explicitly deny that. Perhaps you see nothing wrong with "how wise of you to have chosen to been born white in the first world, at this point in history"? Maybe "you twat, why didn't you wait until hover boots were the norm before being born?" will turn out to be a welcomed insult.
[08:18:52] <internewt> Rigorous study shows that personality elements are not caused by traits of birth (and can be confirmed easily by just looking about: there are utter bastards everywhere, and they can and do pop-up in any community. We can all be malevolent and petty, humans cannot be trusted with unfettered power: it has to be kept in check, and proxies to power (like money) need to also be kept in check). Horoscopes and astrology are shit because those too say place and time of birth define a person. Racism, and other flavours of bigotry, make (at least) a double-whammy of idiocy when negative attributes are assigned to a person based on things they did not even decide upon. When someone comes out with that kind of horse shit, or worse, wants to base policies on it that effect everyone, then it must be called out.

You missed my point entirely. One more time.. People are entitled to their opinions and i tolerate all of them (Even the ones i do not like). And will ALWAYS defend their right to have and speak them (Even the ones i do not like). What I do not tolerate is the acts of aggression that you do. Basically i am FOR that thing you seem to be very much against. That horrible thing called freedom. All people should be free to think and say what they want (Even if what they want to say is "I hate Niggers and trannys!"). Doesn't mater if you like or dislike it. Doesn't mater if you get super sad and your feelings get hurt. But people are never free to infringe on the rights of others. Real/actual rights not the fake ones lefties like to make up. Those are privileges. I'm speaking the the inalienable rights.

[08:18:53] <internewt> When bigots are literally so stupid to subscribe to multi-dimensional wrongness, is it any surprise that they get mocked? I do think the left need to spell things out more, we all start knowing nothing and humans are prone to otherism. I know when people say things like "I'm not a bigot, but $BIGOTTED_THING" they usually mean they don't see themselves as anti-social, and that there is some confusion over the $THING. To take their contradiction at face value only stands to entrench people.
[08:18:53] <internewt> When you drop so much alt-right jargon you can't be expected to not look like a contemporary nazi. If asked what you think makes racism wrong and you end up immense it does not help your claim you are open-minded, and quite honestly undermines it. What is wrong with that point is that you could have run into some people of other ethnic groups who happen to be nice enough people that they just put up with your bullshit. The friend argument also undermines your point because it could be that you have only overcome prejudice towards a few individuals, whereas the rest of the group could still face negative treatment. The friend argument is you saying you have selected a few from a group that are OK, which could betray a prejudice by omission. And at the same time you are saying all the people in a group are like the few you know, which is also unrealistic. These concepts aren't that difficult, but they do need more thinking than lazy otherism, or welcoming it.
[08:18:56] <internewt> Calling people Nazis on the internet is some kind of standing gag. I do see racism as a spectrum from pretty much harmless, like a Frenchman calling me a Rost Boeuf and me calling him a Frog (the slurs are basically the same, a straw-man image of the other places' national dish, and Britain and France are so fucking similar that we might as well be mocking a nearby town), via petty nationalism, to full on ethnic supremacy, apartheid and on to Southern slavery and eugenics. So dropping the r-bomb is intellectually lazy sometimes too, but across the whole spectrum the same dodgy logic underpins it. When the context is race-baiting and talk of civil war, some mere culture bashing can be distasteful, to say the least. The genuinely anti-social want to polarise, and it is easy to get caught up in it. The alt-right is a vague term, but getting on for apartheid-level at the least, most of the time. There's another terrible term, alt-lite, maybe you'd be happier with that? It still isn't a complement, mind.


*sigh* This was very hard to read. Fucking wow dude. Yup, you go me. Toats BUSTED. I am a Nazi with Jewish people in my family. Black friends. Asian friends. East Indian friends. Native friends. Mexican friends. White Friends. Female friends. One trans friend. I've had sex with more than one man in my life (not really my thing but i tried it a few times in my 20s because i'm SUPER closed minded). But, you know, simply stating these facts undermines my argument that i am not a racist, bigoted, alt-right Nazi that only likes them but want's to gas the rest. You are seriously and completely fucked up man. And a clear example of when the left goes to far. I thought i was nuts! hah

I am not a bigot and said nothing bigoted. Fuck you.

I am not "alt-right" and said nothing "alt-right". Fuck you.

I am not a Nazi. And i take immense fucking offence to this. Not only for myself but when people like you use it just because people say things you do not like, or just to try and shut down the conversation. It cheapens the plight of the millions of men, woman and children who had horrible things done to them by actual fucking Nazis. So, fuck you. You are gross. I will respond to the rest AFTER you apologize.. If you do not i am offering you a free trip to Victoria BC Canada. Call my a Nazi to my face, cunt. No joke, it i will literally pay for your flight.