This thing when a racist can go on the record once and say "I'm totally not racist guys" while winking at the camera, then dress in klan gear for the rest of their lives and guys like madcap and foldn will post the clip of the guy saying he's not racist as proof they're not is insane. This is what happens every ****ing time.

Every time a terrible person does terrible things 99% of the time, then 1% went on record going "oh, I'd never do that!" and it fools you guys. Every time. How?

Ya sorry if that was overly harsh but 'western values' is the granfalloon of all granfalloons.

Are there any specifics?

Sorry, my dude, you can't just play Mad Libs with racist agitprop and expect it's going to fool anyone.

My gibberish-to-english translator is on the fritz because I didn't grasp any of that post.

If the motivation against immigration from Muslim majority countries was genuinely predicated on concern about Muslim beliefs on apostasy homosexuality and women for instance it would be possible to demonstrate this by advocating for priority given to apostates, homosexuals and women, now I'd still argue this is a mistake but it's a different conversation than the one that is usually had when someone points to those beliefs as a reason to prevent immigration from those countries.

It could also be demonstrated by advocacy for homosexuals and women in the receiving nation given that discrimination still occurs towards women and gay people but I don't see much of that either. Basically I'd like evidence that the concerns are genuine rather than just concern trolling.

That's just it. It's very tough to have a conversation on this issue and policies reflect that. There are liberals who want to do what you are saying. From what I've seen, guys like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, and plenty of Muslim reformers like Majid Nawaaz and Sarah Haider want to empower apostates and refugees fleeing these terrible regimes. They're often lumped in with the white supremacists though. They are concern trolls and uncle toms.

We disagree on one person's motivations for acting dishonestly. Fine.

But let's forget about Milo. Every single time I post here I have to defend myself against some obviously unfounded charge of racism/fascism/whatever. It should be clear to anyone who has read enough of my posts to know that, while I may be wrong about certain things, I do not have these wicked intentions.

I will say, personally, that when this happens, the charge itself loses it's meaning. Some of you really need to stop playing this game. Just asserting that someone is racist isn't an argument.

(13ball I know you actually laid out a case wrt Milo and I will look at it later. So this is not exactly directed at you)

We need to stop treating everyone we disagree with like they are Richard Spencer. It is a dishonest high school debate team strategy that gets tiresome really quickly.

I don't think I've ever accused you of such but the charge of racism doesn't require intent. We can judge a policy or claim on the evidence for the claim and the outcomes the policy promotes without ever having to establish the motivations of the person promoting them.

You haven't at all.

And, yeah, that would be true enough if the charges were 'what you are saying is dangerous and racist and here is why....' rather then 'you only believe these things because you have racist motivations.'

The same people asserting to know the intentions of people like Milo tend to be the people who have asserted to know my own intentions. As someone who has a pretty good idea what my own intentions are, it makes me question their other claims.

TheMadcap,


I mean in regards to so-called western values and the erosion thereof.

Are you asking what values have been eroded or what values are worth protecting?

Assuming you are going for the first thing, its not something I think I have to worry about living in the US and so I don't. No values have been eroded and they are not likely to be eroded in the future.

To keep you from having to write the next post: I think Milo is wrong about a lot of things but that doesn't mean I have to think he is secretly a white supremacist.

Let's say I have a particular goal not to do or say racist ****.

Consider that I have posted something on this forum and am accused of having racist motives or intent. I can claim, correctly, that I am privileged with regard to my motives and intentions and challenge the accusers claim that way. Alternatively I can review the content of the post that triggered the accusation and try and understand why it did.

The first response does nothing to further my goal of not doing or saying racist ****, regardless of intent or motive doing racist **** is bad and I don't want to do it. Only the second approach allows me to address it. So if I look at the content of the post that triggered it and understand why I've learned something and wont say that again. If I look at it and am happy that the post doesn't constitute me saying racist **** I'm good I don't need to make a defence based on my motives.

Regardless of the accusers mistake Idgaf whether they have misread my motives I only give a **** about whether I'm saying or doing racist **** because I'd like to know in order to not do it.

I'm not really defending myself, I am attacking the idea that they can understand Milo's intentions with the privileged information that in a lot of cases people got my intentions so wrong.

There could be other reasons for this. Milo could actually be a white supremacist while I am just not very articulate. It just seems more likely, to me, that some people are too quick to smear others who don't agree with them.

With regard to Milo we have a body of work and can get a lot closer to his intent and motives than some random on the internet, but again I can criticise him for doing and saying **** stuff regardless of whatever motivates him.

Don't agree with them about what, specifically?

Like if Milo and you aren't racist, don't we all agree? Racism is bad, white supremacy is evil, gay people deserve rights.

So is your operative theory here that SJWs pick liberals who AGREE WITH THEM ON THE ISSUES to smear?

Maybe check all the moving parts there.

Madcap you know how like, when you read a post and think to yourself "oh man how am I gonna dodge that question?" so you post dumb **** like
and
do you imagine the readers are stupid enough to buy this horse****?

"Oh, dear Madcap, who absolutely does not present as a deeply autistic white supremacist, disagrees with Milo about LOADS of things, so many he couldn't even list one! He must be just a concerned citizen worried about the internet reputation of this guy he thinks is wrong. Let's hear him out"

Things are more complicated then "is racism bad?"

If you don't think that 2 people who both think racism is bad can't disagree on issues that have to do with race, I am not sure what to tell you...

what "obvious reasons" would that be?

What constitutes a "real American," in your foreign view?

That's not an answer to my question, though. Again, do you think this **** fools people?

What are you talking about? You just posited a situation where there can only be two completely homogeneous groups of people, racists and people who agree that racism is bad. What else does the sentence "like if milo and you aren't racist, don't we all agree?" mean?

If that's not what you are saying, what is it you are saying?

Fly- that's not an autism related issue nor are those easy to guess about a person stereotypically.

If you somehow guessed correctly about the person, You could be mocking a person with a range of disability and that is nazi **** man. No amount of insulting me can change this.

I asked you a pretty simple ****ing question. What I'm saying is that you didn't answer it.

You said a lot of things. But you seemed angry, maybe you don't remember.

The first instance was about whether you should punch a nazi. I said no.

Fly's angry. In fact, he's going to be in that state for quite a long, long time.