Count Dankula is now a member/supporter of UKIP.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:

Avnger:

Zontar:

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

My opinion on the wedding cake thing is...well, look, if a cake baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason, you can't exactly force them to bake the cake. They're not an employer of the person deciding whether to hire or fire them, and they're not a cop deciding whether to arrest them or let them go. They're a cake baker who is providing a service and a product and who enjoys the same general right to refuse to provide that service or product to people based on whatever they feel like.

The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people. He's just throwing out good business, and he'll suffer for it, the same as the people who refused to cater to Irish or Jewish people eventually suffered for it when their competitors took their market. Now if we were talking some industry where there's a near-monopoly and the person can't find a better deal elsewhere - like, say, utilities pricing, or getting a bank loan, or law enforcement - then none of that applies. The injustice wrought by locking a person out of a significant and necessary community service - like keeping the lights on or getting a mortgage or being able to call the cops without being shot - far outweighs the injustice wrought to the business by being compelled to do business with someone contrary to their values.

Basically, it depends on how vital the service is and what alternatives are available. I could see myself supporting a law saying that it would only be illegal to refuse to bake cakes for people if you were the only cake baker within a reasonable distance. But other than that? If I was a US cake baker and Donald Trump came in asking for the greatest and most bigly wedding cake in the history of bakery, I would want to have the right to tell him to take his wallet and buy a dildo to go fuck himself with.

Actually theres a reason why there isn't always another bake shop and a reason why we need the civil rights bills. Because what it all the bake shop share similar beliefs so there is no other shop they can go to? Or what if all the shops get together to deny certain people the ability to shop there? I mean that might be hard in a big city but in a small town its sure do able and has been done before. In fact they did that in cities too back in the day. Throwing away business like that barely had people bat an eye with jim crow.

We have a very unfortunate history with people getting together to fuck over a certain minority group and while we might seem more enlightened today, we still have to deal with it. We can't take these laws off the books or people will still try to fuck over certain groups. We are seeing that with gerrymandering and voter id laws and such. Soon as the supreme court let the southern states manage themselves they tried to start fucking over minorities again.

Okay, so I made myself clear about how fucking dumb I thought the stunt was it how jail is definitely out of order.

So with that out of the way: yeah, no shit he is. He's been vilified and made a criminal and now he's sided with the only people who haven't treated him like the biggest minter in he Universe. It turns out literally trying to fucking ruin a person doesn't make them more responsive to your message

bastardofmelbourne:

Avnger:

Zontar:

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

My opinion on the wedding cake thing is...well, look, if a cake baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason, you can't exactly force them to bake the cake. They're not an employer of the person deciding whether to hire or fire them, and they're not a cop deciding whether to arrest them or let them go. They're a cake baker who is providing a service and a product and who enjoys the same general right to refuse to provide that service or product to people based on whatever they feel like.

The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people. He's just throwing out good business, and he'll suffer for it, the same as the people who refused to cater to Irish or Jewish people eventually suffered for it when their competitors took their market. Now if we were talking some industry where there's a near-monopoly and the person can't find a better deal elsewhere - like, say, utilities pricing, or getting a bank loan, or law enforcement - then none of that applies. The injustice wrought by locking a person out of a significant and necessary community service - like keeping the lights on or getting a mortgage or being able to call the cops without being shot - far outweighs the injustice wrought to the business by being compelled to do business with someone contrary to their values.

Basically, it depends on how vital the service is and what alternatives are available. I could see myself supporting a law saying that it would only be illegal to refuse to bake cakes for people if you were the only cake baker within a reasonable distance. But other than that? If I was a US cake baker and Donald Trump came in asking for the greatest and most bigly wedding cake in the history of bakery, I would want to have the right to tell him to take his wallet and buy a dildo to go fuck himself with.

A few points:

1. Your example falls apart because under the current Colorado law the baker violated, one would have every right to deny a cake to The Donald. Even if The Donald came in as part of a gay couple, you could deny selling that couple a cake. The reason why the denial of service takes place is what matters. US law uses the idea of privileged classes (eg: sex(/gender depending on interpretation), race, religion, etc); Colorado and a few other states have added sexual orientation to this list[1]. As long as the basis for your denial of service is anything not based on a person/group's belonging to one of those classes, you're entirely free to do as you will. The cake baker, in this instance, is only getting in trouble with the law because they were stupid enough to openly admit their bigotry as their reasoning. These violations are normally almost impossible to prove because it involves showing a why a person did something.

2. How far do we set this distance? Are we allowed to take factors into account other than distance as well? What if we set the limit to 50 miles (80.5km), but the person needing access can only use public transportation or walking? How would you expect someone to reasonably get a cake that far walking or riding public buses/trains? What if there are multiple businesses within that limit, but they all refuse service? Which one is forced to bake the cake despite their bigotry? Each one would have a reasonable argument that they should be exempt and the person should have to go to another business, and if they all have to be willing to bake it, then we're right where we started as far as those businesses are concerned.

3. If the cake bakers truly wished to follow their bigoted ideals strictly, they would have every right to as long as they changed their business to a private club based on invitations. A private club has no requirement to honor anti-discrimination laws. For example, the prestigious golf club Augusta National Golf Club limited their membership to men only until 6 years ago yet were never in violation of the law for their policy because they were private.

[1] Contrary to what morons might tell you, privileged classes cover everyone. A straight person is just as much in the class as a gay person, a white person is just as much in the class as a black person, and a man is just as much in the class as a woman.

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

bastardofmelbourne:
The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people.

Yeah, here's the thing. You can have the "you can always just go to another cake shop" defence or you can have the "making a cake is a form of artistic expression" defence. You can't have both.

Part of the value of art is inherently contextual. I can commission an artist to make an exact copy of any famous painting, but it does not have the same value as the original even if it is functionally identical, even if it's such a good copy that experts would struggle to tell the difference. The value of art is partly defined by the person who created it, and by the story by which it got to us, rather than simply the fact that it can be enjoyed as an image or decoration. If this guy is going to claim that every cake is a unique creation and an act of expression, rather than a functional product, then it is inherently impossible to just go to another cake shop because while you may be able to get a cake, you will not be able to get the same cake. You may get a perfect cake which is exactly what you wanted, but it is different in the same way my counterfeit artwork is different.

On the other hand, if cakes are just interchangeable products whose value is defined only by their function, then one could also say that you could always make another cake. At that point you are not refusing to make a unique work of art for someone, you are not excercising creative or artistic control, you are simply refusing to sell a generic product to someone, which is very different and, all hysteria about the cake controversy aside, illegal even in the US.

CheetoDust:
So with that out of the way: yeah, no shit he is. He's been vilified and made a criminal and now he's sided with the only people who haven't treated him like the biggest minter in he Universe. It turns out literally trying to fucking ruin a person doesn't make them more responsive to your message

Again, he was UKIP material long before any of this happened. Half his videos were rants about Islam and trans people dressed up as "anti-SJW" edgelord shite.

Vanilla ISIS:
He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

Well, speaking as a right wing person (which I totally am because I said so), I would say that once you come out and endorse a far right party, then that qualifies as a material statement of political support for the far right. I mean, it's not like people on the far right, especially people on the internet who are on the far right, have a long history of misusing political terminology, deliberately concealing their political affiliation, masquerading as controlled opposition or false flagging.

So yeah, sorry but he's /ourguy/ now.

Vanilla ISIS:

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

I'm curious, where does it say that he is left leaning? Also I tried to tell the samething to Saelune.

WolvDragon:

Vanilla ISIS:

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

I'm curious, where does it say that he is left leaning? Also I tried to tell the samething to Saelune.

From what I remember, he was a communist as a youth. What that says about him now, I dunno. He probably went ancap somewhere down the line. It doesn't seem like the most left-wing thing to join a member of a conservative political party, to me. :P

Vanilla ISIS:

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

Is it actually left leaning? Sargon says hes a libral but all he does is crap on the left and lionize the right.

BreakfastMan:

WolvDragon:

Vanilla ISIS:

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

I'm curious, where does it say that he is left leaning? Also I tried to tell the samething to Saelune.

From what I remember, he was a communist as a youth. What that says about him now, I dunno. He probably went ancap somewhere down the line. It doesn't seem like the most left-wing thing to join a member of a conservative political party, to me. :P

Dave Rubin and apparently Sargon were left leaning, now they recently became right wingers to capitalize on people hating sjws. So it's not out of left field for a left winger to turn right wing.

WolvDragon:

BreakfastMan:

WolvDragon:

I'm curious, where does it say that he is left leaning? Also I tried to tell the samething to Saelune.

From what I remember, he was a communist as a youth. What that says about him now, I dunno. He probably went ancap somewhere down the line. It doesn't seem like the most left-wing thing to join a member of a conservative political party, to me. :P

Dave Rubin and apparently Sargon were left leaning, now they recently became right wingers to capitalize on people hating sjws. So it's not out of left field for a left winger to turn right wing.

"left wing" lol sure buddy. Would be interested to see what their concept of "left wing" was. Usually when that happens, the extent of that person's leftwing ideology is "legal weed" and "gays shouldn't be executed, I guess".

BreakfastMan:

WolvDragon:

BreakfastMan:

From what I remember, he was a communist as a youth. What that says about him now, I dunno. He probably went ancap somewhere down the line. It doesn't seem like the most left-wing thing to join a member of a conservative political party, to me. :P

Dave Rubin and apparently Sargon were left leaning, now they recently became right wingers to capitalize on people hating sjws. So it's not out of left field for a left winger to turn right wing.

"left wing" lol sure buddy. Would be interested to see what their concept of "left wing" was. Usually when that happens, the extent of that person's leftwing ideology is "legal weed" and "gays shouldn't be executed, I guess".

Hey buddy, yeah I'm not your buddy ok?

Vanilla ISIS:

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

Is he? Just because he says he likes socialised healthcare and a few welfare programs?

It's not like I've spent a lot of time on Sargon, but mostly he strikes me as too inconsistent to pin much of a left/right label on. He's clearly mostly supported by right-wingers, however, which probably therefore makes that them most sensible designation.

I've been asking myself lately if 'classical liberal' even left wing anymore. It's not like political labels are set in stone (and here in Australia if you start talking about the liberals, then odds are you're talking about the conservative party. Unless you're Andrew Bolt. Fucking hell, I've never been able to finish any of his drivel, criticise anything about Australia and you're an unpatriotic cultural Marxist who hates western civilisation).

From my, admittedly not very well informed opinion, it would seem to me that the 'classical liberal' label leans left on socioeconomic issues, like healthcare and welfare, but very much on the right when it comes to sociopolitical issues such as LGBT and minority rights and issues. They tend to be far more...traditional (dare I say conservative?) on the latter.

Going further than that would require me to go through a few hours of videos like Sargon's. And to be honest, I don't relish that thought, if that style of video is still anything like Sargon was when I unsubbed from him.

Major Tom:
I've been asking myself lately if 'classical liberal' even left wing anymore. It's not like political labels are set in stone (and here in Australia if you start talking about the liberals, then odds are you're talking about the conservative party. Unless you're Andrew Bolt. Fucking hell, I've never been able to finish any of his drivel, criticise anything about Australia and you're an unpatriotic cultural Marxist who hates western civilisation).

From my, admittedly not very well informed opinion, it would seem to me that the 'classical liberal' label leans left on socioeconomic issues, like healthcare and welfare, but very much on the right when it comes to sociopolitical issues such as LGBT and minority rights and issues. They tend to be far more...traditional (dare I say conservative?) on the latter.

Going further than that would require me to go through a few hours of videos like Sargon's. And to be honest, I don't relish that thought, if that style of video is still anything like Sargon was when I unsubbed from him.

Based on my understanding is that "classical liberal" is just a fancy term for libertarians but don't really favor in cutting out basic government programs that help people, more like reforming it in a sense.

Idk these labels can get confusing.

Agema:

Vanilla ISIS:

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

Is he? Just because he says he likes socialised healthcare and a few welfare programs?

It's not like I've spent a lot of time on Sargon, but mostly he strikes me as too inconsistent to pin much of a left/right label on. He's clearly mostly supported by right-wingers, however, which probably therefore makes that them most sensible designation.

Isn't the NHS extremely popular in the UK? I imagine just about everyone is for it. You prob be considered crazy over there if you weren't for socialized medicine.

Major Tom:
I've been asking myself lately if 'classical liberal' even left wing anymore.

The "classical" in classical liberal refers specifically to the mid-late 19th century. In the UK and those influenced by UK politics, it specifically refers to the British Liberal Party, which at the time was dominated by the legacy and thought of William Gladstone.

What that meant in practice was essentially pro-bourgeois policies (which at the time admittedly was what "left wing" meant, it's a term from the French estates general - in which the wealthy commoners would sit on the king's left side) rather than pro-aristocratic policies. The Liberal party are analogous to modern fiscal conservatives in that they favoured low taxes and a lassaiz faire approach to economics.

By contrast, in Britain at least, classical conservatives generally saw themselves as the party of the working class, but only in a very paternalistic sense that they believed the privileged and wealthy had obligations to their social inferiors which must be met in order to maintain their elite position, a kind of modern day noblesse oblige. For this reason they supported improving the conditions of the poor as a way of maintaining social cohesion while also being opposed to social mobility or unchecked individualism.

When modern people say they are "classical liberals" what they usually mean is that they favour "small government" and a free market economy with as little regulation as possible (obviously, what is considered to be too much regulation is going to vary, most people in the UK are quite protective of their access to healthcare, for example). The reason why this translates into social conservatism is that "small government" inevitably means something else has to take the place of government, often something very authoritarian in practice, like churches, or the family, or corporations.

Then there's the Sargon-of-Akkad-esque "rational skeptic" crowd who often claim to be "classical liberals" when what they really mean is "I think the Enlightenment was great, despite having read nothing of any substance about it".

WolvDragon:

Major Tom:
I've been asking myself lately if 'classical liberal' even left wing anymore. It's not like political labels are set in stone (and here in Australia if you start talking about the liberals, then odds are you're talking about the conservative party. Unless you're Andrew Bolt. Fucking hell, I've never been able to finish any of his drivel, criticise anything about Australia and you're an unpatriotic cultural Marxist who hates western civilisation).

From my, admittedly not very well informed opinion, it would seem to me that the 'classical liberal' label leans left on socioeconomic issues, like healthcare and welfare, but very much on the right when it comes to sociopolitical issues such as LGBT and minority rights and issues. They tend to be far more...traditional (dare I say conservative?) on the latter.

Going further than that would require me to go through a few hours of videos like Sargon's. And to be honest, I don't relish that thought, if that style of video is still anything like Sargon was when I unsubbed from him.

Based on my understanding is that "classical liberal" is just a fancy term for libertarians but don't really favor in cutting out basic government programs that help people, more like reforming it in a sense.

Idk these labels can get confusing.

There are also a bunch of sub-categories inside each ideology. Paternal Libertarians ask people to think how they set up situations for customer success. Eg. Having candy at the register will lead to bad health outcomes for their customer. Maybe try fruit instead. There are Libertarians who support BIG. Others want everything privatised including roads. Some think that privatising roads is too far, but you should private schools, Many classical liberals would not be interested in basic government programs, but some are.

The commonality is not in what they want but how they talk. They talk about being free to do what you want. So the Basic Income Guartanee is seen as freeing to some Libertarians but the cost imposed on business is seen as oppressive by other Libertarians.

WolvDragon:

Dave Rubin and apparently Sargon were left leaning, now they recently became right wingers to capitalize on people hating sjws. So it's not out of left field for a left winger to turn right wing.

Conservatives talk about how barbaric or uncivilised something is. Eg. They think SJWs are ruining society. And society is based around tradition. This is how you can tell what Rubin and Sargon are usually about. They don't talk about freedoms like a liberal or libertarian. They think the others ideology is dangerous. It's why SQW is a term. That just fight for the Status Quo irrelevant of its benefits or detriments.

Look at how some of them use the term Freedom of Speech. They use it as "I get to talk and no one can criticise me" way becuase they are THE tradition. And you can't criticise tradition. It's TRADITION. Thinking for yourself is a bad idea. You should do exactly what your elders tell you.. It's how you can tell Jordan Peterson is a conservative. Someone asks him to change something and he shuts down any argument, only allowing his viewpoint space to be heard. He thinks it's horrivle that young people are thinking for themselves.

Also note that people can fluctuate between each viewpoint depending on the topic. I'm liberal on gay marriage but conservative on polygamy. And I don't have a good reason why for the latter other than that monogamy is traditional marriage.

Vanilla ISIS:

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

He joined UKIP. Things I know about him, He made an offensive joke in a time where people who make offensive jokes like that are not usually joking, and he joined a right-wing political party that often shares Nazi ideals. I really am tired of explaining how joining a political party says ALOT about a person's views.

I have to admit, 19th century UK political history hasn't been a particular area of interest of mine (not enough glorious revolution), so I have learned something today. I hadn't considered that classical liberalism would not be considered left wing in modern political parlance.

Also reinforces in my mind that the particular political compass thing the "rational skeptic" (who do tend to get upset and shouty very easily) crowd likes to pull out is tenuous as best, but probably complete bullshit.

bastardofmelbourne:

Avnger:

Zontar:

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

My opinion on the wedding cake thing is...well, look, if a cake baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason, you can't exactly force them to bake the cake. They're not an employer of the person deciding whether to hire or fire them, and they're not a cop deciding whether to arrest them or let them go. They're a cake baker who is providing a service and a product and who enjoys the same general right to refuse to provide that service or product to people based on whatever they feel like.

The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people. He's just throwing out good business, and he'll suffer for it, the same as the people who refused to cater to Irish or Jewish people eventually suffered for it when their competitors took their market. Now if we were talking some industry where there's a near-monopoly and the person can't find a better deal elsewhere - like, say, utilities pricing, or getting a bank loan, or law enforcement - then none of that applies. The injustice wrought by locking a person out of a significant and necessary community service - like keeping the lights on or getting a mortgage or being able to call the cops without being shot - far outweighs the injustice wrought to the business by being compelled to do business with someone contrary to their values.

Basically, it depends on how vital the service is and what alternatives are available. I could see myself supporting a law saying that it would only be illegal to refuse to bake cakes for people if you were the only cake baker within a reasonable distance. But other than that? If I was a US cake baker and Donald Trump came in asking for the greatest and most bigly wedding cake in the history of bakery, I would want to have the right to tell him to take his wallet and buy a dildo to go fuck himself with.

Heres the thing, I do not trust Capitalism (cause that is what this defense is, a defense of capitalism) to prevent bigotry. Sometimes it seems to be slightly effective, I am certainly glad those busisness that due to capitalism have decided there is more money in defending LGBT and black and other minorities' rights rather than opposing them, but it is too inconsistent.

Major Tom:
I have to admit, 19th century UK political history hasn't been a particular area of interest of mine (not enough glorious revolution), so I have learned something today. I hadn't considered that classical liberalism would not be considered left wing in modern political parlance.

Also reinforces in my mind that the particular political compass thing the "rational skeptic" (who do tend to get upset and shouty very easily) crowd likes to pull out is tenuous as best, but probably complete bullshit.

Some interesting points. Marx was hoping that the 1848 revolution would encourage workers in Britian to rise up. They actually negotiated with the owners for a peaceful resolution. Unlike a lot of the continent. They did have work safety laws from '37 and read up on the Corn Laws. But their pay was most significantly affected by the industrial revolution so they had a lot to fight for to get back to the 'good old days'

Saelune:

Vanilla ISIS:

Saelune:
You mean the right-winged Nazi joined a party of right-winged Nazis?

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

He joined UKIP. Things I know about him, He made an offensive joke in a time where people who make offensive jokes like that are not usually joking, and he joined a right-wing political party that often shares Nazi ideals. I really am tired of explaining how joining a political party says ALOT about a person's views.

What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

Here Comes Tomorrow:

What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

Lip service to propriety? It could be that, it could be an elaborate dog whistle or maybe he had the fastest change of heart in all of history. You might remember the time when Putin was outspoken pro-GLBT, which doesn't make him any less anti-GLBT these days. Actions speak louder than words and recent actions carry significantly more weight than old words.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

No, but it also doesn't mean very much about where he stands on the political spectrum: it only excludes the absolute most extreme right. There's a gulf between Nazism and UKIP, and there's a yawning gulf between UKIP and the centre ground.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

People have joined or voted for the BNP, an explicitly neo-Nazi party with a paramilitary arm, while claiming to "reject Nazism".[1] Heck, the current leader of the BNP has made numerous statements disavowing Nazism or denying being a Nazi despite having published a pamphlet denying the holocaust and claiming a Jewish conspiracy is orchestrating the downfall of Western civilization, despite having spoken openly to party members about hiding his own anti-semitism and more unpalatable racist views and despite leading a party whose members routinely make Nazi salutes, talk about how great Hitler and the Nazis are and carry out violent attacks against minorities. Still not a Nazi guys, we know because he told us so!

Denouncing or disavowing Nazism isn't a dog whistle, but it is very often a lie, because the far right and neo-Nazis know that in order to be electable and for their ideas to reach a mainstream they need to hide the more unpleasant aspects of their politics. Heck, the actual Nazis did this after the Munich putsch, it's how they got into power.

UKIP is far right in UK politics. On paper, it is not the same far right as the BNP, although a frightening number of its politicians, counsellors and members have been caught saying things that wouldn't be remotely out of place in the BNP and as with all the far right there is significant crossover at the grass roots level. Joining or supporting UKIP is an expression of far right politics, particularly after the Brexit referendum when there is really no other reason to do so.

Now, as I said in the thread about him, I don't know if this guy is a Nazi, and that's kind of the point, Nazis want us to never be sure if someone is a Nazi or not. I suspect he probably thinks he isn't. But when you spend all your time going after ethnic and sexual minorities under the guise of "anti-SJW" crusading, when you tolerate or attract an explicitly neo-Nazi audience without calling them out, when you willingly share a platform with people who have joined Nazi parties or founded far-right paramilitary groups and when you join and advise people to vote for a far right party famous for tolerating its members racism, sexism and queerphobia, then that gives some indication as to the kind of person you are, and it's not "left wing".

[1] I mean, at risk of crossing threads, Tommy Robinson did

Here Comes Tomorrow:

Saelune:

Vanilla ISIS:

He's left leaning though.
I love it when people judge others without knowing anything about them.

He joined UKIP. Things I know about him, He made an offensive joke in a time where people who make offensive jokes like that are not usually joking, and he joined a right-wing political party that often shares Nazi ideals. I really am tired of explaining how joining a political party says ALOT about a person's views.

What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

Ever heard of lying?

Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

When did he do that? You have a link?

Sargon got kicked out of UKIP for apparently being to extreme for them lol if true!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7srR3GsIDxw

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

Didn't he just join UKIP? Is that what he is redeeming - not being a... Idk.. Liberal? Conservative? I thought redemption required some sort of act to rectify the situation? I've seen none.

Are you talking about being redeemed in the future? Like, Dankula can't ever be redeemed? That's up to him. I usually based my judgements on past actions of a person and not the imaginary future ones.

If you want me convinced - I need proof that he's not acting a certain way. He joined a group that will try to protect his freedom of speech but will curtail all other speech judged inappropriate by UKIP. Start with defending everyone's right to speech, including minorities. That's simple enough.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

They have provided evidence and rationale for their opinions. You have not. Take your own advice here

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

The day he leaves UKIP and says it was the wrong move and he's sorry for being a member of a racist party, I will definitely re-assess him. But as trunkage points out, he just joined UKIP and so he has done nothing to redeem himself, if anything he's shown his true colors.

Saelune:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
Right so from what I'm seeing once you lot have made your mind up about someone there's nothing they can say to convince you otherwise. Everyone is beyond redemption. Amazing.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Both of you should take care not to escalate the personal attacks here further, alright?

WolvDragon:

Isn't the NHS extremely popular in the UK? I imagine just about everyone is for it. You prob be considered crazy over there if you weren't for socialized medicine.

Across pretty much the entirety of Europe, support for socialised medicine is orthodox in right wing parties. Obviously, there's also a much more laissez-faire fringe to the right that is against it, although I'd estimate that's very much a minority of the right (I'd guess about 5-10% of the total population).

I don't think any Conservative Party MPs would dare suggest the NHS should be axed even if they felt that way: it's a guaranteed vote killer that would get them in plenty of trouble with the party leadership. A few of the MEPs have, because they're less noticed and less likely to be mauled if seeking re-election.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
What about the time he rejected nazism and far right ideals on a public stage in front of hundreds of people? Was that an elaborate dog whistle?

One can reject Naziism whilst still have numerous beliefs in common with Naziism.

That said, I don't think Sargon is a Nazi, or for the most even that close to one, and UKIP is not a fascist party. On the other hand, UKIP and many of its members do have a substantial number of fairly unpalatable views, which tend to be less talked about and considered.

This is an area where labels are often not appropriate. A lot of ideologies overlap, or are shared by various political factions with otherwise quite different views. A lot of the current nexus of the right are really anti-progressives who mostly seem to be motivated by opposing feminism, black activism, Muslims, etc. However, after that, there can be considerable disparity about where they are coming from along the conventional left-right scale. But where they generally seem to end up is bolstering the right much more than the left.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here