Tonight’s debate.

[morton]

I am a bit at a loss to follow how restricting access to voting aligns with either democratic representation or principals of freedom. 

[One Man Banned]

[Dark_Knight]

@misteravenyeah all I really know about them is from the news, and brief search of history. They’re definitely extremists, but unsure if race is the primary motive. 
 

To @6Penniespoint... I’m also really confused on why he picked a very specific, widely unknown organization as his example instead of the more household names. Very strange.

 

Regardless of motive, the proud boys seem to be emboldened by Trumps statements, and I don’t think that their intentions are peaceful. Empowering extremists as the president is like indirectly inciting riots and violence. Because that will inevitably be what them and similar extremist organizations will be doing come November. Hope I’m wrong.

[6Pennies]

1 hour ago, Dark_Knight said:

@misteravenyeah all I really know about them is from the news, and brief search of history. They’re definitely extremists, but unsure if race is the primary motive. 
 

To @6Penniespoint... I’m also really confused on why he picked a very specific, widely unknown organization as his example instead of the more household names. Very strange.

 

1) In AZ, they seem to be considered more as right-leaning, patriotic bros.  Maybe some other chapters are different, but all the attention even before the debate, gave them an injection of testosterone.

2) Neither of them are quick of mind. but he did make that KKK (as well as Antifa) designation within the last week or so, but he had to ask Chris Wallace: "Give me a name...."

3) Dangerously dumb, to the point of Dunning-Kruger.

Edited October 1, 2020 by 6Pennies

[misteraven]

10 hours ago, fat ralphy said:

insert potato jesus here

[misteraven]

5 hours ago, morton said:

I am a bit at a loss to follow how restricting access to voting aligns with either democratic representation or principals of freedom. 

Our principals of freedom are built in n the constitution and most specifically the Bill of Rights. The United States was very specifically engineered to not be a Democracy and if you’re going to trust your fellow man to grant you your freedom or even trust them to maintain it on your behalf, you’re going to watch it erode. Exactly what we’re seeing happen right now since we’ve strayed so far from it. 
 

Honestly the real solution is to break the consolidation of power up so that it’s back to being exceedingly limited at the Federal level and goes back to State and especially local governance. This way when you see regions / states like California grossly mismanaged their duties as government, you at least have the option to get the fuck out and put down roots in a region / state that is more aligned with your views and aspirations in your own pursuit of happiness. 
 

But yes indeed, I do not believe that very one should be required to vote and I do not believe the majority of people are at all qualified. I see it little different than asking the average person on the street for medical advice. Obviously most are woefully unqualified to do that either. But considering so few people understand how our government even works, then largely gather their understanding of the mechanisms of policy off memes on social media... Google how many people are unable to locate North Korea on a map. Then you want them to effectively vote on a candidate that has a wise plan for foreign policy and the ability to effectively execute that plan? 

 

Interesting how often you hear that it’s “your responsibility to vote”, yet how little attention goes towards educating people on topics. But tragic how now we’ve reached a stage where access and exposure to knowledge is actually weaponized. 
 

Anyhow, that’s kinda how you end up at the point where we are... Deciding between Trump and Biden. Two train wrecks with the nation at each other’s throats arguing over who’s the biggest liar and least qualified, based on talking points they skimmed off a meme on Instagram. 
 

 

[misteraven]

3 hours ago, Dark_Knight said:

Regardless of motive, the proud boys seem to be emboldened by Trumps statements, and I don’t think that their intentions are peaceful. Empowering extremists as the president is like indirectly inciting riots and violence. Because that will inevitably be what them and similar extremist organizations will be doing come November. Hope I’m wrong.

“Extreme” is a subjective term, unless we set a standard to define it. That said, as extreme as things have become, where cities are being set on fire, there’s firefights in the street and mobs of people are blocking off streets and dragging people from there cars... Bunch of dudes wearing Fred Perry and tactical gear looks ridiculous, but is sort of a response I’d expect to everything else that’s happening. 
 

In my view, all of it is extreme, but I’d focus more on the cause, than the effect and the Proud Boys so far, from what I’ve seen, aren’t setting shit on fire and going out of their way to bully their ideology on people. 
 

Again, not a supporter or fan. Just providing a different perspective rather than falling in line with the mainstream narrative. 

[misteraven]

9 hours ago, Schnitzel said:

Kudos to you @misteraventhat reply was waaaaaaay more polite than I was expecting

 

I sort of see what you're saying but wouldn't reducing the amount of people you allow to vote mean any potential candidate has to offer less to improve society because they don't fear any backlash from the % who don't get to vote?

 

Using the military as an example current members and veterans is only about 25 million so not much of a sample of the american population.  But a huge swathe of  the experience listed above.
If all veterans get to vote then of course government policy is going to be swayed to appease them for their voting power than would be equitable.

 

Then to achieve three times that amount of service reduces most of the potential candidates to your high ranking career military whose leadership ability is based on blind obedience ("sir yes sir") not on consensus with as many parties as possible.

Yes you might have doctors/charity people/ religious leaders or whatever or the like but your core is going to be military because the military is big in the USA.

 

And then as a far fetched example

 

If some future ex general president decides to put forward a constitutional vote to make him "president for life" and promises full pensions and zero taxes for life for all veterans or servicemen who vote for him you could potentially have this happening based on the small fraction of society who gets to vote which is skewed to certain demographics by who is eligible to vote. 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm sitting here by myself so this might not make any sense.

Feel free to shoot down my arguments because I'm possibly talking shit.

feels a bit weird to make a post about politics on here after carefully avoiding it for 15 years.

 

Yeah man, hopefully I’ve done a fair job on leading by example on how we can discuss contentious topics, explore ideas and perhaps even disagree while remaining respectful of each other and productive towards the overall conversation. 
 

In any case, I can’t provide a proper response typing this out on my phone. I’ll loop back when I’m at my computer so I can hopefully provide a valid response that doesn’t suffer from too many auto correct typos. 

[6Pennies]

And, if you know the movie, you're an old mofo like me 😆

 

 😆

[Dark_Knight]

21 minutes ago, misteraven said:

“Extreme” is a subjective term, unless we set a standard to define it. That said, as extreme as things have become, where cities are being set on fire, there’s firefights in the street and mobs of people are blocking off streets and dragging people from there cars... Bunch of dudes wearing Fred Perry and tactical gear looks ridiculous, but is sort of a response I’d expect to everything else that’s happening. 
 

In my view, all of it is extreme, but I’d focus more on the cause, than the effect and the Proud Boys so far, from what I’ve seen, aren’t setting shit on fire and going out of their way to bully their ideology on people. 
 

Again, not a supporter or fan. Just providing a different perspective rather than falling in line with the mainstream narrative. 
 

 

I feel like if they didn’t stand by (see what I did there?) the assumption that they are a white supremacist organization, they would openly denounce the suggestion that they were rather than create t shirts and be empowered by it. 
 

As far as them being passive observers, I don’t believe that to be true either. I think we’ll see more or their actions in the coming months as well, now that they have motivation.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/09/30/proud-boy-arrested-on-six-felony-charges-in-portland/amp/
 

i found this article immediately when googling “proud boys”. I get that it’s the mainstream media in which I feel like most of us here want to avoid, but it does appear that they are involved in the action.

 

That being said, I think it’s important for Biden to denounce antifa if he wants to use this as an argument. 
 

I get antifa started as an “idea” but it has now become a movement for leftist anarchy. I don’t think they have productive intentions so they need to be acknowledged in the same light.

 

Political polarization is bonkers

[where]

22 minutes ago, 6Pennies said:

And, if you know the movie, you're an old mofo like me 😆

 

 😆

When I was 7 years old my daddy caught me smoking a cigar. He locked me in the broom closet for 2 days with just a box of cigars and a book of matches. No food, no water just those damn cigars, wouldn’t let me out until I finished every god damn one of them, and it taught me one hell of a lesson.

 

the level of discourse in this thread is surprisingly good.

[Deine Mudder]

1 hour ago, misteraven said:

based on talking points they skimmed off a meme on 12oz

ftfy

[Kults]

57 minutes ago, where said:

the level of discourse in this thread is surprisingly good.

not to put it all on his shoulders but it usually is when Raven jumps in 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

What difference does it make whether you support said “proud boys” or not? The fuckin guy STILL doesn’t condemn or denounce white supremacy. He has in the past and currently supports people like David duke and the rest of those wing nuts. He doesn’t have to say it directly and the msm doesn’t either. The guy is blatantly without fuck about the growing swarm of good ol boys ready to take shit back to  1950’s and some Jim Crow shit. The single driving force of anyone who may not care what other people do and think but actually still care about not seeing a massive reversal in our country’s history should be supportive of terminating this mans from presidency. Period. I honestly cannot talk to people with counter arguments. But at the same time I believe in doing or saying wtf you want to in your own head or at the polls. Just shut tf up about it. Or go live in the woods for real instead of dropping 2 cents at every chance in support of a different opinion. 

[where]

25 minutes ago, Kults said:

not to put it all on his shoulders but it usually is when Raven jumps in 

yea everyone tries to be a good lad when the boss is in the building 

[Kults]

5 minutes ago, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

He has in the past and currently supports people like David duke and the rest of those wing nuts.

Is he though? just playing devils advocate here but he’s designated the kkk down as a terrorist organization. Obama didn’t do that. 

 

Sure the proud boys are chauvinists and nationalists. I don’t think you could qualify an org with members of all races as ‘white supremacists’ though. 

[where]

The David Duke shit is 'fake news.' He endorsed Trump, also endorsed Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Trump is on record calling David Duke a racist piece of shit multiple times initially  in 1990 when duke lost the senate race in Louisiana but got the popular vote of white folk. If Trump dominates the new cycle long enough with this shit it keeps the democrats from pitching their mirage for the future and they will lose. 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

1 minute ago, where said:

The David Duke shit is 'fake news.' He endorsed Trump, also endorsed Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Trump is on record calling David Duke a racist piece of shit multiple times initially  in 1990 when duke lost the senate race in Louisiana but got the popular vote of white folk. If Trump dominates the new cycle long enough with this shit it keeps the democrats from pitching their mirage for the future and they will lose. 

I’m sure trumps on record saying a whole lot of things. Some lies. Some perhaps not. I cannot say for certain if that particular alleged disavowing of Duke was sincere because he without question blatantly and unabashedly lies about fucking anything. A lot of the time. And Specifically, I’m not even talking about the proud boys group. You can have people of all whatever’s in any number of groups. Just like you can be a black Clayton bigsby.  I am referring to the Charlottesville incident where there were fine people on both sides. Gtfoutta here and stfu forever if that doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Kults]

https://us24news.com/2020/10/01/after-joe-biden-call-proud-boys-a-white-supremacist-group-their-black-chairman-speaks-out/

[Kults]

from their site 

 

 

[Kults]

pretty odd look for a ‘white supremacist’

 

 

 

 

[NightmareOnElmStreet]

Tell fake action Bronson to sit down somewhere, b. 

[Dark_Knight]

Minimal government but supports a guys who wants to use martial law and federal agents in state issues. Que?

 

but yeah they are the right winged antifa then. I suppose that would be a happy middle ground.

[where]

30 minutes ago, NightmareOnElmStreet said:

I’m sure trumps on record saying a whole lot of things. Some lies. Some perhaps not. I cannot say for certain if that particular alleged disavowing of Duke was sincere because he without question blatantly and unabashedly lies about fucking anything. A lot of the time. And Specifically, I’m not even talking about the proud boys group. You can have people of all whatever’s in any number of groups. Just like you can be a black Clayton bigsby.  I am referring to the Charlottesville incident where there were fine people on both sides. Gtfoutta here and stfu forever if that doesn’t mean exactly what it sounds like. 
 

 

 

 

 

I generally dont look to politicians to be barometers of society's level of goodwill like so many dim people these days, and I assume theyre going to justify their means to get and keep power. There is a market for power, and being a racist doesnt get you power and i dont think Trump is a racist but he stands up to the people who are trying to dictate what the talking points are going to be, that is why he resonates with people imo not because everybody is racist but because theyre sick of the power structure. I believe the Charlottesville comment is slightly out of context, imo he is talking about how things have fractured along tribal lines and there are definitely people that wanna live harmoniously on both sides of the ideological divide that are caught in the fracas that is now. 

Edited October 1, 2020 by where

[misteraven]

1 hour ago, Dark_Knight said:

 

I feel like if they didn’t stand by (see what I did there?) the assumption that they are a white supremacist organization, they would openly denounce the suggestion that they were rather than create t shirts and be empowered by it. 
 

As far as them being passive observers, I don’t believe that to be true either. I think we’ll see more or their actions in the coming months as well, now that they have motivation.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/09/30/proud-boy-arrested-on-six-felony-charges-in-portland/amp/
 

i found this article immediately when googling “proud boys”. I get that it’s the mainstream media in which I feel like most of us here want to avoid, but it does appear that they are involved in the action.

 

That being said, I think it’s important for Biden to denounce antifa if he wants to use this as an argument. 
 

I get antifa started as an “idea” but it has now become a movement for leftist anarchy. I don’t think they have productive intentions so they need to be acknowledged in the same light.

 

Political polarization is bonkers

So for fun and to further our exploration of this topic, lets take a brief look at how core information / media outlets on the internet are covering these two concepts (Antifa / Proud Boys). And again, I don't support either group. This is simply us exploring a topic and me attempting to look past the surface as to what is driving what we're seeing... The beginnings of an attempt to look at the framework and engineering with less emphasis on the details of the facade that covers that framework. From this exploration, we can made a jusgment call as to whether we're seeing bias, which in turn can be interpreted as what might be shaping opinions, especially when this is likely the basis for all the conversation on social that has largely replaced any widespread attempts at applying reason, logic or the sort of healthy skepticism that leads individuals to challenge narratives and seek truth.

 

Wikipedia's result when you search "Proud Boys"... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

 

Wikipedia's result when you search "Antifa"... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa

 

 

Now we don't have to take this very significant difference at face value. A reasonable argument for why searching "Antifa" takes you to an index instead of a page is that there is more history and therefore more usage / context. But from this index, we have 13 options that describe the organization. The only one that seems to apply to the subject here is possibly the last option, "Rose City Antifa". I've never really seen it designated as such in the mainstream media, which begs its own question, but lets have a look at the entry... Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa

 

 

Now, putting a little more effort into it, I was able to come across what appears to be an official Wikipedia entry for the "Antifa" as it relates to the discussion. Curious why it wouldn't be a primary link on the index when searching this subject from within the USA, but I won't speculate. On first glance, it appears to be pretty thorough, judging its length. We all know that the basic summary is the entry block of text, so to not extend my little dissertation to a true wall of text, we'll simply focus on that and you guys can continue our research and see if you can gather more insight into what motives might exist behind these entries.

 

 

Pretty interesting to see how both organizations are described.

 

Opening line for the Proud Boys entry: "The Proud Boys is a far-right[1][2][3][4] and neo-fascist[5][6][7][8] male-only[9][10] organization that promotes and engages in political violence.".

 

Opening line for the Antifa entry: "Antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] is an anti-fascist action and left-wing political movement in the United States[2][3][4][5] comprising an array of autonomous[6][7] groups that aim to achieve their objectives through the use of both nonviolent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform."

 

Now attempting to truly set any bias aside, do these descriptions match up with what we've been seeing so far? Even accounting for heavy bias in coverage and opinion, has anyone seen less than a dozen individual instances of violence from protests that clearly show mobs dressed in black and carrying shields and waving flags bearing the Antifa logo? Can anybody dig up even a single similar video of mob violence on behalf of the Proud Boys, let alone many?

 

Did you happen to notice that the Proud Boys entry also includes related entries at the bottom of the page for "White Nationalism"? There is a brief mention in the opening block about it "Officially rejecting white supremacy", but it is interesting to analyze the description of them and that other than that single sentence, the entire description is that they're white supremacists with really only the single takeaway that they are indeed a racist organization bent on violence, rooted in neo-fascist ideology. Would indeed seem an odd pairing when we can see so many of the members of Proud Boys are clearly not even white. Also interesting is even after digging around, I can't find a website for them or even any kind of official account for them. Curious how the entries author was able to so clearly define them as having a "neo-fascist" ideology or that women aren't allowed to be members when again, we can identify females mixed into the crowd shots that show their groups. Obviously that isn't irrefutable evidence, but with no official website or account pages I'd be curious to know how thy were able to so clearly define these very significant characteristics, especially at a time when most of these fringe groups / movements - from Antifa to BLM to Proud Boys - seem to not be centrally controlled or posses an obvious command and control structure. Also interesting to me Is that besides being described as racists when there's clearly minorities in their makeup, not having women members when you can see women in their mob, or being fascist when I'm not seeing much evidence of them bullying people to accept any sort of ideology at all, that there isn't much of the same rush to categorize Antifa or BLM as violent or extremists or fascist when we can see videos that could serve as a strong argument for it (even if its the exception and not the rule for those organizations).

 

In fact, I've heard this fact exactly used to explain away some of the bad behaviors of both Antifa and BLM... A few bad apples that don't represent the organization /  movement and that the protests are mostly peaceful.

 

Again, not trying to encourage any sort of support or hostility towards either group here. Only attempting to analyze how they're being positioned by authoritative information sources and media. So for those all important "undecided" we spoke of early on in this discussion, what do you think the take away is if your basing opinion on the official narrative?

 

Continuing on...

 

Google search for "Proud Boys"... Link: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ei=gA12X67ROtHL-gST1JuADg&q=proud+boys&oq=proud+boys

 

Versus Google search for "Antifa"... Link: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=aw12X-H1LMbH-gSElL2ADg&q=antifa

 

 

 

Even discounting the actual result contents, does anybody find it unusual that the Proud Boys, an organization that according to Wikipedia was founded in 2016, but only has really been a conversation for a couple weeks now has 515,000,000 results versus "Antifa", an organization with roots going back to pre WW2, but with a history in the USA that certainly far predates 2016 and a large focus of the cultural conversation and news for many months, it would seem counter intuitive to see 2139.13% more entries for Proud Boys versus Antifa. Lets search for BLM, despite it being a tougher comparison since its a 3 letter acronym that until recently was understood to be the federal Bureau of Land Management... Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=blm

 

 

Again, pretty fascinating result... 116,000 total results for a movement that has dominated media and social attention for at least the last half year and arguably for the last couple years. An organization and movement that has been embraced by corporate America, professional sports and probably center stage since since just after Trump was elected. Do you find it unusual that collectively, Antifa and BLM as topics represent is just over 25% (26.99%) of the results as Proud Boys?

 

Anyhow, I feel the need to again reiterate that I'm not advocating for Proud Boys. I know very little about them. Likewise, I'm not denouncing Antifa or BLM here either. I'm merely attempting to bring attention to what I believe to be a very obvious bias, that in turn, I would speculate is fanning the flames of violence and division. What I've posted here is not the smoking gun, end all - be all irrefutable evidence of this, but merely a first stab and looking past the surface to try and understand the mechanisms behind what we're seeing. Naturally this leads to the next question after the "what", which is "who" and "why". If you guys are at all interested we can keep exploring and discussing and start to speculate on obvious questions such as how can one benefit from the dynamic we're witnessing and who sits in a position to be able to benefit from it when its executed successfully as we're seeing?

 

If nothing else, I sincerely hope I've at least planed a seed in the minds of those that took the time to read this whole thing. Something that will flourish into a healthy skepticism of the world around you, which in turn will compel you to dig beneath the surface and only use the stupid memes everyone embraces as fact as a starting point to dig into the truth behind the who, what and why so you can begin really understand the world around you.

[misteraven]

55 minutes ago, Kults said:

from their site 

 

 

I stand corrected. I spent an hour trying to find an official website with no luck. Good catch.

 

*Edit: link doesnt seem to work.

[Kults]

3 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I stand corrected. I spent an hour trying to find an official website with no luck. Good catch.

 

*Edit: link doesnt seem to work.

Not my screenshot. Grabbed it from https://thedonald.win It’s where the guys from r/thedonald went after the reddit ban.

 

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/6/29/21304947/reddit-ban-subreddits-the-donald-chapo-trap-house-new-content-policy-rules

 

Maybe the PBs took down their site, no idea 

[misteraven]

59 minutes ago, Kults said:

pretty odd look for a ‘white supremacist’

 

 

 

 

Intersting. I did a reverse image search to verify the validity of that and dude indeed has a black wide and a couple kids with her. While digging around I stumbled on a ton of hate, including these below. Its really pretty crazy to see the confirmation bias truly blind people. Rather than start to question the narrative that he's racist because he's a high profile "Proud Boy" member, they instead come up with the idea that he's a racist with a secret love of black women. In fact, how ironic is the tweet? A black dude that is using a slur to describe the black women here because there's no other possibility except that the white guy is a racist. Pretty unreal...

 

 

https://mtonews.com/racist-proud-boy-john-kinsman-arrested-has-black-wife

[Kults]

13 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I stand corrected. I spent an hour trying to find an official website with no luck. Good catch.

 

*Edit: link doesnt seem to work.

heh, use duck duck go, it’s still up

 

https://proudboysusa.com/aboutus/

 

E: Fuck You Google 

[Dark_Knight]

I’ve read about them at multiple rallies with traditionalist worker party members, patriot front members, and a few other neo Nazi organizations. Seems like having a few token black and Hispanic guys is a cover up for what the real agenda is. 
 

Or they’re just wannabe Tyler durden cosplay fags. 
 

Don’t think these dudes are innocent by any means. And they are getting recognized bc they have a founder who’s pretty good at getting recognition and knows a thing or two about diverting attention to operate.