So the atheist "movement"...

[MarsCydonia]

Humor me:
There's one thing I do not get. If Sparhafoc says Sargon is sexist, isn't that ok? Sparhafoc might know something we don't

 

[Sparhafoc]

As I said, get them on the witness stand first.

As I said: red herring.

We're talking about Sargon of Akkad's abuse calling them 'whores'.

Let's see if they're going to say the exact same thing under oath when they're under penalty of perjury. Outside the court, people can say any shit they want usually consequence free and without being challenged by an attorney.

Double standards.

Plenty of people sing a completely different tune once they're actually there.

Red herrings in abundance.

Yes, there is a need to prove that they are victims, especially when you keep saying they're "victims" and keep saying that Sargon is abusive to "victims".

No, it's one of the many red herrings you've employed to deflect criticism from the object of your hero worship.

Calling a group of women 'whores' is sexist. Calling a group of women 'whores' because they are the victims (as I said, you can use the word 'allegedly') is both sexist and truly nasty.

Or to people who just find it suspicious that so many people that are allegedly victims of a crime all waited until 2017 to report the crime.

I find it surprising that it's Wednesday, and that the price of fish has gone up, but the price of tea in China has dropped.

It's not about them being women.

Bullshit.

If 80 men reported being extorted for 10000$ by the same guy over a period of 30 years, I'd be kinda suspicious of their real motives too. I'd be like, really, it never occurred to any single one of you to maybe get wired up? What exactly makes this one guy so scary anyway? Is he in the mafia or what?

Again, this is just diversionary. We're talking about sexist abuse of a group of women, not the contents of your navel.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck.

Except none of that applies.

All of it applies - your dismissal of everything to deflect criticism from Sargon of Akkad is genuinely one of the most pathetic scenes I've ever had the misfortune to witness.

That it's wholly synthetic just makes it even worse.

Sargon's politics are pretty standard centrist positions, maybe a bit to the left but without going anywhere near crazy land SJWism.

No they're not - you'd have to be batshit insane to consider him centrist. For a start, classical liberalism is a word explicitly coined to contrast social liberalism. In the US, you'd call it libertarianism, and it's deep into the right wing. I assume you wholly misunderstand the nature of the political spectrum if you conceive of his position as centrist, and this is reiterated by suggesting that SJW's are 'far' to the left, when the core element of their position is authoritarianism, which is neither left nor right, but which affects ideologies on both sides.

Given how you repeatedly bring a naive, half-baked, childish level of insight to topics, I am not surprised that you're invoking a simplistic binary to talk about politics even when it clear has no bearing on reality.

What exactly do you find radical about his support of capitalism but with some social programs like universal healthcare and regulations, support for gay marriage, pro-equality but against identity politics and language policing, pro-choice, support for secularism, national autonomy, laws being decided by British people, not by EU, securing borders and immigration must benefit his country, not everyone comes in.

The same format of red herring you keep using. I can do it too, you know? I could use exactly the same form of specious argument with you to obfuscate and troll - it's lowest common denominator stuff. Again, as I've told you half a dozen times - the audience here is far too sophisticated for this inanity. Go play with your fellows in YT if you want this shit to float.

Where did I say I found it or anything 'radical'?

Where did I talk about capitalism, social programs, healthcare... etc etc etc in that fantasy paragraph?

It's all a manufactured distraction like 85% of the content of your posts. Sling shit, hope it sticks. It doesn't, Tree - it's not stuck once, but you keep repeating yourself expecting a different outcome.

In what way is he alt-right?

In the way Richard Spencer, the white-supremacist, called Sargon of Akkad 'our boy' and thanked him for providing an entry-point into the alt-right.
In the explicit way that the alt-right expressed their hatred narrative of their political opponents, so SoA uses the same words. Like, for example, blaming rapes on political correctness.
In the way that he has made videos both legitimizing the alt-right and legitimizing their fantasy claims, such as contending that the Democrats have been operating to some secret plan to change the ethnic fabric of the US for their political favour.
And most importantly, whether he is alt-right or not is the same issue as with whether he's sexist or not, and just playing up to the crowds. Over and over again, his audience has been shown to be comprised of alt-right white-supremacist numpties who are racist, anti-semitic and hate women. If it wasn't his intention to give such people a home (ironically, Kekistan) then he could easily do something about it.

That duck-like subject is quacking for all its worth, but we know how angry white-supremacists get when you call them racist.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And again, although I seem to be the only one of us two who is interested in answering the questions posed in your OP - if you want to set up a convention that appeals to as many people from the interest group as possible, it's not a wise idea to include those who are bigoted against large sections of your potential audience, because while you may gain those bigots, you lose the other groups who have no desire at all to be associated with them.

You can consider it market forces if you like, Tree.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Shrinking the Tent: How American Atheists Won’t Tolerate Intolerance

 

[Tree]

Shrinking the Tent: How American Atheists Won’t Tolerate Intolerance

I'm not buying it.

If their very first example of not tolerating intolerance is the issue of DACA, that's a bad start.

The current tolerance for bigotry is what emboldened the Trump Administration to suspend the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. There is no question that DACA has improved the lives of more than 800,000 men and women who were brought to this country as children. Our nation is made stronger by immigrants — many of whom came to the U.S. because of our commitment to religious freedom and government neutrality.

Maybe Mr. American Atheists should stick to what it originally planned, defending atheist rights and secularism. The idea that they're going to impose ideological purity on issues such as immigration is stupid. Are they going to tell atheists what flavor of ice cream they should like too?

It doesn't even matter if you support or reject DACA. Whether you think it's a good or bad policy, you can't be bigoted against "illegal immigrants". It's not a protected class, it's not identity like race or gender, you become an illegal immigrant purely through your actions, criminal in this case. There is no moral obligation to keep you in the US if your papers aren't in order. The fact that you came to the US illegally as a child is irrelevant, if you're now an adult and you're still here, still illegally. You can still be held 100% accountable for actions done past 18. The fact that DACA has "improved your life" is again irrelevant. Calling people intolerant for not supporting DACA is a sign you don't have a good argument to defend it with. Let people have a serious discussion, don't throw around accusations of "bigotry" and "intolerance" which is just an attempt to pretend the issue is settled.

Speaking of intolerance, I still wonder what they have to say about their former president disowning her son for being Christian.

 

[MarsCydonia]

From my end, ending DACA seems like a dick move but then I’m not from nor do I live in the U.S. so I imagine there are arguments for ending it.

So far I’ve heard “they were not born here”.

 

[Tree]

Humor me:
There's one thing I do not get. If Sparhafoc says Sargon is sexist, isn't that ok? Sparhafoc might know something we don't

I asked him to show the evidence.

In the way Richard Spencer, the white-supremacist, called Sargon of Akkad 'our boy' and thanked him for providing an entry-point into the alt-right.
In the explicit way that the alt-right expressed their hatred narrative of their political opponents, so SoA uses the same words. Like, for example, blaming rapes on political correctness.
In the way that he has made videos both legitimizing the alt-right and legitimizing their fantasy claims, such as contending that the Democrats have been operating to some secret plan to change the ethnic fabric of the US for their political favour.
And most importantly, whether he is alt-right or not is the same issue as with whether he's sexist or not, and just playing up to the crowds. Over and over again, his audience has been shown to be comprised of alt-right white-supremacist numpties who are racist, anti-semitic and hate women. If it wasn't his intention to give such people a home (ironically, Kekistan) then he could easily do something about it.

That duck-like subject is quacking for all its worth, but we know how angry white-supremacists get when you call them racist.

Okay, let's go through them all:

1. Richard Spencer endorsing Sargon of Akkad doesn't mean the reverse is true, i.e. doesn't mean Sargon endorses Spencer.

Seriously, how many of the women you wanted to date and have a relationship with actually returned your call? Same shit here. Unrequited love.

2. The use of the same words doesn't prove anything, political correctness is cancer and just because a racist says it doesn't make it untrue.
3. Who blamed "rapes on political correctness"? WTF? Explain.
4. Questioning the motives of Democrats when they support certain immigration policies doesn't make you alt-right.
5. See #1.
6. Sargon isn't responsible for his audience's actions unless he explicitly called on them to do something.
7. I doubt you have a good grasp of his audience anyway. He's what? 700k subs? Lots of people in that group.

From my end, ending DACA seems like a dick move but then I’m not from nor do I live in the U.S. so I imagine there are arguments for ending it.

So far I’ve heard “they were not born here”.

The argument against it is mainly that they're not citizens or legal residents. Seems pretty compelling to me.

There's also the argument that having a law like DACA is just going to encourage more illegal immigration. Bad incentives are created. All one then needs to do is send their child over the border illegally when they're still young. People should migrate legally.

Let's be clear, it's not a fair situation, but the ones to blame are their parents. They knew the laws and they shouldn't have come in the first place.

If a parent steals a million dollars and gives it to their kid, are you going to tell me we can't confiscate that money just because it was obtained before 18? We don't prosecute the kid, but he doesn't get to keep illegally obtained money.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Humor me:
There's one thing I do not get. If Sparhafoc says Sargon is sexist, isn't that ok? Sparhafoc might know something we don't

I asked him to show the evidence.

No you didn't, and your reply to Mars is a non-sequitur.

Don't lie about the conversation, Tree - there's a good chap. Don't forget there's still a written record in this very thread.

As I've said many times, it doesn't matter whether SoA is sexist, or whether that's just his schtick for the audience he's nurtured and which pays his upkeep.

Anyone honest will be able to find half a dozen iterations of me saying that.

And what are we talking about? An example of exactly that hyperbolic sexism SoA routinely employs to titillate his audience, so that actually does make evident my point, regardless of whether Tree wants to work overtime to protect his troll hero.

Finally, as can be seen 3 or 4 times, you didn't 'ask for evidence' you comically demanded 'proof'.

Okay, let's go through them all:

1. Richard Spencer endorsing Sargon of Akkad doesn't mean the reverse is true, i.e. doesn't mean Sargon endorses Spencer.

i) Irrelevant, what it means is that the leader of a white supremacist movement sees SoA as espousing a position wholly consistent and supportive of their white-supremacist position.
ii) amusing how biased you are. Earlier, the fact that Matt Dilahunty was once part of a websitehe then left is sufficient to consider him forever stained by association, but when SoA is promoted by a white supremacist fuck-knuckle, Tree's going to work overtime writing non-sequiturs and handwaving to distract away from it.

Of course, no one actually said that SoA endorses Spencer, but hand-wave, hand-wave, hand-wave, therefore distraction.

Seriously, how many of the women you wanted to date and have a relationship with actually returned your call? Same shit here. Unrequited love.

Errr.... what is this, Tree?

2. The use of the same words doesn't prove anything, political correctness is cancer and just because a racist says it doesn't make it untrue.

Who's the racist in your sentence?

Regardless, no political correctness is not 'cancer' - please leave your 4chan style idiocy for the numpty groups you belong to because it just makes you look like an angsty teen here.

3. Who blamed "rapes on political correctness"? WTF? Explain.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad#Spat_with_the_Daily_Stormer

Spat with the Daily Stormer

Andrew Anglin, neo-Nazi founder & editor of the white supremacist Daily Stormer website, criticized Sargon for not being right-wing enough. Anglin put out an article titled, "Sargon of Akkad Needs to Address His Implicit Support for Pakistani Child-Rape". It reads:[177]

Sargon of Akkad, who is probably the best anti-feminist YouTuber, has put out another video about Rotherham. It’s good enough, but fails to deal with the core problem, which is that we are being invaded by an alien race. Instead of addressing the reality that these people engaged in this child-rape program because they were non-White Moslems who have a completely different biological make-up and thus a completely different moral framework, he blames it on political correctness.

Sargon's video indeed blamed the rapes on British society's supposed "political correctness".[178] Sargon of Akkad responded, saying:[179]

"A statement which anyone with two brain cells to rub together would be able to discern means that British authorities allowed this to carry on, because they were afraid of being called racist, in the face of Pakistani community leaders demanding that something be done. Again, I stress that this is a failure of the British authorities. Any community will have a subset of it that is a nefarious criminal element.

And the Daily Stormer shot back:[176]

On the whole, I believe that people who are criticizing modern liberalism, and not talking about the invasion, are wasting time. Obviously, here on the Daily Stormer, we talk about all sorts of issues with the modern system, from historical revisionism to gay “marriage.” However, the main issue, the one which we nail ceaselessly, is the replacement of our population with hordes of non-Whites. Because we can pass a law banning homosexuality, we can remove the vote from women, we can redistribute wealth. One thing we can never do, however, is reclaim our homelands once the hordes reach a saturation point and declare themselves rulers. There is simply no going back from that. Once it is done, it is done.

I was fine with Sargon being a reactionary who focused exclusively on the feminist issue. I have watched many of his videos, and not really disagreed with any of it. However, if that is where he feels comfortable, even if it is simply because he wants to remain on YouTube, that’s fine. But seeing him blame the British people for Pakistani child rape gangs was something that needed addressed [sic].

[....]
Sargon’s video relies heavily on the punchy dry-humor which makes Sargon a popular YouTube personality. He is not known for introducing new ideas, and that is fine, we like to watch his videos anyway because he recycles other people’s ideas in a way which is fun. Often very fun. Regrettably, with this video, the ideas he recycles are tired SWJ memes which could have been pulled directly from any random Tumblr blog.

In the end, Anglin has this to say about Sargon:[165]

I have now pretty well agreed not to argue with Sargon of Akkad any further, as I don't really see any point to it, and feel that on some level he is leading people in our direction (as we are the obvious conclusion of reactionary thought), so there is no reason to try and obliterate him.

The yellow is where SoA blames the serial rapes on the British authorities because of their fear of being seen as politically incorrect.

And again, we've got another neo-Nazi source explicitly supporting SoA, plus they also repeat the refrain that SoA is bringing people to their neo-Nazi fold.

What's the sum of Tree's rejection of this? Tree's insistence, that's all he's got to offer.

4. Questioning the motives of Democrats when they support certain immigration policies doesn't make you alt-right.

Your responses are hilarious, Tree. Did you know it takes about two to three times as much brain power to blag as it does to respond honestly?

Of course, I didn't say that questioning the motives of Democrats amounts to being alt-right, I said that declaring they have a secret nefarious agenda to change the ethnic fabric of the US in their political favour is an alt-right refrain.

I'm beginning to wonder who you think you might be fooling with these transparent evasions - to be honest, I'd be surprised if you are even fooling yourself.

5. See #1.

Yes, please do see 1.

6. Sargon isn't responsible for his audience's actions unless he explicitly called on them to do something.

He is responsible for nurturing a community that is explicitly based on the topics they thrive on. He is also responsible for curating his community's replies, and for encouraging or discouraging behavior through his words.

Thunderf00t is a great example here. Once upon a time, I was an avid watcher of his channel. He used to post great science videos, talked a lot about Creationism and why it was wrong. Then he got into this protracted nastiness with a guy called VenomFangX which ultimately made them both look like stupid little children squabbling over pettiness. When Thunderf00t 'won', instead of moving on and going back to his old content, he then started doing the same thing with feminists. Over a very short time, his community changed from people interested in science discussing various scientific notions, to vicious alt-right style trolls who spent all their time abusing people, calling for things like murder and rape, and Thunderf00t did nothing about it which ultimately means he tacitly supports it by providing it a venue.

SoA has similarly gone down a path of extremism, where his community has essentially been self-selected to be the most extreme, vicious and deranged individuals. Such people are there for the hate, for the thrill they get in abusing and demeaning women - or at least a certain subset of them.

Wave your hands some more, Tree. We're supposedly talking about why SoA isn't welcome at 'atheist' conventions, but rather than actually showing any interest as to why that is - it seems you're more interested in blindly sticking up for your guy, regardless of how inept you are at doing it.

7. I doubt you have a good grasp of his audience anyway. He's what? 700k subs? Lots of people in that group.

I doubt you'd have a single coherent argument if you spent 10 times the energy and time blindly supporting this troll, but you're still going to make as much noise as possible to distract from the cogent answers being given in response to the OP.

From my end, ending DACA seems like a dick move but then I’m not from nor do I live in the U.S. so I imagine there are arguments for ending it.

So far I’ve heard “they were not born here”.

The argument against it is mainly that they're not citizens or legal residents. Seems pretty compelling to me.

And what about those who have only ever known the USA? Whose parents brought them when they were kids, who innocently spent their lives in the US, who went to school, got jobs, friends, partners etc.

Do you have no empathy for their situation?

There's also the argument that having a law like DACA is just going to encourage more illegal immigration. Bad incentives are created. All one then needs to do is send their child over the border illegally when they're still young. People should migrate legally.

Yeah, it's a poor argument because people who are going to risk crossing illegally into the USA in search of a better life are not going to worry about whether or not it will work out in 20 years time for their kids. They need that better life now.

Let's be clear, it's not a fair situation, but the ones to blame are their parents. They knew the laws and they shouldn't have come in the first place.

Indeed, and it seems downright Biblical to visit the sins of the parents onto their innocent children.

If a parent steals a million dollars and gives it to their kid, are you going to tell me we can't confiscate that money just because it was obtained before 18? We don't prosecute the kid, but he doesn't get to keep illegally obtained money.

No, what 'we' are saying is that you don't send the kid to jail because their parents stole that money.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Maybe Mr. American Atheists should stick to what it originally planned, defending atheist rights and secularism. The idea that they're going to impose ideological purity on issues such as immigration is stupid. Are they going to tell atheists what flavor of ice cream they should like too?

Maybe just disbelieving in gods is not really a coherent platform in the first instance.

Perhaps, they might want to try standing for something... you know, a necessary result of the rejection of divine entities: like, say, humanism.

Is humanism about ideological purity?

I mean, I guess if someone's a racist bigot, then not being a racist bigot might appear to that person as an ideology in the same way that theists claim that atheism is a religion.

 

[Tree]

i) Irrelevant, what it means is that the leader of a white supremacist movement sees SoA as espousing a position wholly consistent and supportive of their white-supremacist position.
ii) amusing how biased you are. Earlier, the fact that Matt Dilahunty was once part of a websitehe then left is sufficient to consider him forever stained by association, but when SoA is promoted by a white supremacist fuck-knuckle, Tree's going to work overtime writing non-sequiturs and handwaving to distract away from it.

It's not guilt by association, Sargon didn't endorse Spencer, Matt however fully embraced Atheism Plus and that was even after they kicked him.

Of course, no one actually said that SoA endorses Spencer, but hand-wave, hand-wave, hand-wave, therefore distraction.

And communists/antifa... guess who they endorsed during the 2016 US presidential campaign? We can play this game all day.

Errr.... what is this, Tree?

I honestly don't know how to make this any more clearer. Endorsement doesn't mean shit if it's not mutual.

Who's the racist in your sentence?

Spencer.

Regardless, no political correctness is not 'cancer' - please leave your 4chan style idiocy for the numpty groups you belong to because it just makes you look like an angsty teen here.

If you think it's a positive thing to have racist and sexist double standards masked as "pro-equality" (e.g. "fuck whites" "whites should pay reparations" "calling whites crackers isn't racist" "I drink your male tears" "it's not racist/sexist cause white males have power+privilege" "prostitution is sexism" etc), cry wolf about a fascist takeover, label people bigots because they don't believe a 3rd or 4th gender exists, label things racist when they're not and so much more - what can I say? You're just not a reasonable person.

Sargon of Akkad, who is probably the best anti-feminist YouTuber, has put out another video about Rotherham. It’s good enough, but fails to deal with the core problem, which is that we are being invaded by an alien race. Instead of addressing the reality that these people engaged in this child-rape program because they were non-White Moslems who have a completely different biological make-up and thus a completely different moral framework, he blames it on political correctness.

So let me get this straight, even after the alt-right criticize Sargon for not blaming the rapes on "non-Whites", you still think he's alt-right... What?

The yellow is where SoA blames the serial rapes on the British authorities because of their fear of being seen as politically incorrect.

Why is this an alt-right position?

I don't care if you disagree with it, tell me why it's a uniquely alt-right position to say British authorities didn't act because of their fear of being seen as politically incorrect?

The burden is on you to show me Sargon is alt-right. Remember that. So far you're coming up empty handed.

And again, we've got another neo-Nazi source explicitly supporting SoA, plus they also repeat the refrain that SoA is bringing people to their neo-Nazi fold.

SoA is only bringing people to SoA's position. What the do after is their problem, their responsibility.

Your responses are hilarious, Tree. Did you know it takes about two to three times as much brain power to blag as it does to respond honestly?

Of course, I didn't say that questioning the motives of Democrats amounts to being alt-right, I said that declaring they have a secret nefarious agenda to change the ethnic fabric of the US in their political favour is an alt-right refrain.

I'd like to see the exact words used cause I wouldn't be surprised if you're twisting a few things. But, it's not hard to notice two things:

1. Democrats support legalizing 12+ million illegal immigrants, so stop deportations and then giving them a path to US citizenship.
2. Most of them are expected to vote Democrat if given the power.

At the very least, you have to admit this is a major conflict of interest to just artificially give a large number of people citizenship who have no claim to it, KNOWING that most of them will vote for your party. Do you think they want to legalize them out of the kindness of their hearts? Don't be naive.

He is responsible for nurturing a community that is explicitly based on the topics they thrive on. He is also responsible for curating his community's replies, and for encouraging or discouraging behavior through his words.

Both Corbyn and Sanders foster communists then. Any word about that?

Thunderf00t is a great example here. Once upon a time, I was an avid watcher of his channel. He used to post great science videos, talked a lot about Creationism and why it was wrong. Then he got into this protracted nastiness with a guy called VenomFangX which ultimately made them both look like stupid little children squabbling over pettiness. When Thunderf00t 'won', instead of moving on and going back to his old content, he then started doing the same thing with feminists. Over a very short time, his community changed from people interested in science discussing various scientific notions, to vicious alt-right style trolls who spent all their time abusing people, calling for things like murder and rape, and Thunderf00t did nothing about it which ultimately means he tacitly supports it by providing it a venue.

The same is true for the anti-Thunderf00t crowd. Every crowd has abusive people in it.

Probably one of the worst comments is the one where some guy said he can't wait for Thunderf00t and the "other white men of the atheist community" to DIE so that women and minorities can take their place.

Thunderf00t also dealt with letter writing campaigns to his employer on the idea that if you just complain enough his employer will fire him or force him to shut down his channel. How fucked up is that?

SoA has similarly gone down a path of extremism, where his community has essentially been self-selected to be the most extreme, vicious and deranged individuals. Such people are there for the hate, for the thrill they get in abusing and demeaning women - or at least a certain subset of them.

And anti-SoA crowd has people who are openly communist and want to murder me and take my property if given the power.

Your point?

And what about those who have only ever known the USA? Whose parents brought them when they were kids, who innocently spent their lives in the US, who went to school, got jobs, friends, partners etc.

Do you have no empathy for their situation?

That can be made in favor of DACA, but it's not compelling enough. I look at the bigger picture here. If you bend the rules for 1 you have to do it to everyone in that situation. You want to talk amnesty? Secure the border first to stop the flow or it's just going to encourage further illegal immigration.

Now there's another reason against DACA which is that if you're giving people incentives to bring their child to the US illegally since they now know nothing will be done to them. The US is already in debt and the idea that it's now obligated to take care of children who aren't even citizens is insane. They already have a country, Mexico (usually that's where most of the illegals come from), the Mexican government should deal with its problems, NOT export them to other countries.

Yeah, it's a poor argument because people who are going to risk crossing illegally into the USA in search of a better life are not going to worry about whether or not it will work out in 20 years time for their kids. They need that better life now.

Yeah? And I want a million dollars for free. That would also make my life better.

We can't all get what we want and certainly not at others' expense. Illegal immigration is done at the expense of the host country. First, they don't have the consent of people to be there so that's akin to trespassing. Second, they use public infrastructure without paying any taxes for it. Third, they can bring diseases into the country unchecked which are uncommon or unheard of for that country. Fourth, they haven't gone through an interview process which means we know literally nothing about their intentions and why they're in the country.

Indeed, and it seems downright Biblical to visit the sins of the parents onto their innocent children.

That depends on what the parent does. There are some things that will affect the child and some that won't.

If he set you up with false expectations, let's say "this is your country" or "this million dollars is yours", then you're inevitably going to have a shock when you become an adult and find out it was bullshit. Nothing we can do about that. We are under no obligation to entertain lies that your parents fed you.

No, what 'we' are saying is that you don't send the kid to jail because their parents stole that money.

That's fine, because I never said illegal immigrants who came illegally as children should be prosecuted.

That doesn't mean they can't be sent back.

It's just like mob children. What do you think happens to daddy's accounts when he goes to prison? It's probably all going away too. Sucks for you, but your daddy broke the law to obtain all that wealth so now it's going to be confiscated.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And communists/antifa... guess who they endorsed during the 2016 US presidential campaign? We can play this game all day.

I dunno - why don't you play the Whataboutism game and tell me?

Incidentally, which source spoonfed you the age-old political boogeyman of communists playing a part in the USA's political process, and which somehow got you to regurgitate the notion that ANTIFA are parallel to neo-Nazis?

Are you a neo-Nazi, Tree?

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's not guilt by association, Sargon didn't endorse Spencer,...

No, he just publicly holds positions the neo-Nazis and white-supremacists endorse!

Of course, everyone can read how I've already made it clear that this was your strawman, anyway. I didn't say SoA endorsed Spencer - quite the contrary; I said Spencer endorsed SoA for his publicly stated political positions.

Your attempts are not actually causing any distraction, because the question remains as to why white-supremacist neo-Nazis would endorse SoA, and in turn, whether the same reasons why they'd endorse him would be sound reasons for conventions aimed at a wider target audience to not give him a platform.

Matt however fully embraced Atheism Plus and that was even after they kicked him.

Atheism plus, for all its idiocy, is hardly fucking parallel to white supremacist neo-Nazis, is it Tree?

Or do you want to argue that they are functionally equal?

Do let me know if you can end the Whatabout game to engage in any level of reasoned discourse anytime soon.

Of course, no one actually said that SoA endorses Spencer, but hand-wave, hand-wave, hand-wave, therefore distraction.

And communists/antifa... guess who they endorsed during the 2016 US presidential campaign? We can play this game all day.

Of course, it is just a game on your part, and like all games, is not an accurate rendition of reality nor is it meant to be.

Communists are the 1950's boogeyman offered up by the right in the USA to make people afraid, and suspicious. Recently, the manufactured boogeyman was leaning towards Muslims until recently when all the numpties started worrying about what Social Justice warriors are going to do.

As for ANTIFA, it's highly expository that you think that a group of vandals equates to a group of murderous, ethnocentric fascists who want to purify the nation for just one skin colour.

Errr.... what is this, Tree?

I honestly don't know how to make this any more clearer. Endorsement doesn't mean shit if it's not mutual.

Your hands are waving again, Tree.

You wrote:

Seriously, how many of the women you wanted to date and have a relationship with actually returned your call? Same shit here. Unrequited love.

What, pray do tell, has this got to do with endorsement, or in fact anything in this exchange?

Methinks you accidentally copied and pasted from somewhere. But it's an amusing slip on your part.

Regardless, no political correctness is not 'cancer' - please leave your 4chan style idiocy for the numpty groups you belong to because it just makes you look like an angsty teen here.

If you think it's a positive thing to have racist and sexist double standards masked as "pro-equality"

Where did I say that it was?

(e.g. "fuck whites" "whites should pay reparations" "calling whites crackers isn't racist" "I drink your male tears" "it's not racist/sexist cause white males have power+privilege" "prostitution is sexism" etc), cry wolf about a fascist takeover, label people bigots because they don't believe a 3rd or 4th gender exists, label things racist when they're not and so much more - what can I say? You're just not a reasonable person.

Where did I say any of that? Oh wait, it's Tree and his usual strawmanning.

Clearly, when you are under the illusion that you get to fabricate wholesale the world in such a demented way, and do so in order to question my reasonableness, then you are incapable of pretending to be an arbiter of reasonableness, especially when such nonsense suggests you couldn't be expected to know your arse from your elbow.

Political correctness isn't the things you listed. You know how you can independently verify that? By going and having a look in a dictionary.

Instead, what you've done is trot out a load of regurgitated fap that you uncritically bought into from alt-right trolls like SoA. Sadly, reality rather causes some problems for your screed.

Sargon of Akkad, who is probably the best anti-feminist YouTuber, has put out another video about Rotherham. It’s good enough, but fails to deal with the core problem, which is that we are being invaded by an alien race. Instead of addressing the reality that these people engaged in this child-rape program because they were non-White Moslems who have a completely different biological make-up and thus a completely different moral framework, he blames it on political correctness.

So let me get this straight, even after the alt-right criticize Sargon for not blaming the rapes on "non-Whites", you still think he's alt-right... What?

You need to read what was actually written, Tree - you like playing this game, but it doesn't wash. Your red herring / strawman tactics might work better in an environment where people aren't expected to read through the prior conversations, but here you can't imagine anyone's going to read just the last post and make up their mind based on your rendition... or even more bewilderingly... you can't expect me to suddenly become convinced that I said any of the above.

So who do you think you are fooling, Tree?

The yellow is where SoA blames the serial rapes on the British authorities because of their fear of being seen as politically incorrect.

Why is this an alt-right position?

I don't know... maybe because they're angsty little teenagers, or at least emotionally so, who hate foreigners as it's convenient and acceptable in their circles to do so?

I don't care if you disagree with it, tell me why it's a uniquely alt-right position to say British authorities didn't act because of their fear of being seen as politically incorrect?

I didn't say it was a uniquely alt-right position, so why would I need to tell you that now because you want me to? Do you usually make such little sense? Perhaps you might want to try responding to what I write instead of continuously making up positions for me?

The burden is on you to show me Sargon is alt-right. Remember that. So far you're coming up empty handed.

Because Tree says so? Tree needs a healthy dose of Get Over Yourself. You might want to believe you're the judge, jury, and executioner, but again, reality's going to offer you somewhat of an obstacle in maintaining that delusional belief.

Incidentally, your refusal to acknowledge facts doesn't mean I haven't supplied them - rather, it provides some explanation as to how you came by such a demented world view in the first instance.

And again, we've got another neo-Nazi source explicitly supporting SoA, plus they also repeat the refrain that SoA is bringing people to their neo-Nazi fold.

SoA is only bringing people to SoA's position. What the do after is their problem, their responsibility.

More hand-waving distractions.

Why do neo-Nazi, white-supremacists line up to endorse SoA, Tree?

You don't seem to want to answer that, just find a way to obfuscate away from it.

Your responses are hilarious, Tree. Did you know it takes about two to three times as much brain power to blag as it does to respond honestly?

Of course, I didn't say that questioning the motives of Democrats amounts to being alt-right, I said that declaring they have a secret nefarious agenda to change the ethnic fabric of the US in their political favour is an alt-right refrain.

I'd like to see the exact words used cause I wouldn't be surprised if you're twisting a few things.

I can imagine why given the utterly perverse degree of make-believe you try to foist off as facts.

But, it's not hard to notice two things:

1. Democrats support legalizing 12+ million illegal immigrants, so stop deportations and then giving them a path to US citizenship.
2. Most of them are expected to vote Democrat if given the power.

At the very least, you have to admit this is a major conflict of interest to just artificially give a large number of people citizenship who have no claim to it, KNOWING that most of them will vote for your party. Do you think they want to legalize them out of the kindness of their hearts? Don't be naive.

Methinks you've oversimplified this a tad, Tree. Or is it just that you are simple?

There's that little bit about them already living in the USA, how they are already members of the community, how they've lived their entire lives in the US. You know - those elements of humanity and compassion.... the things that make us different than our stone-age forebears?

Perhaps the motive you see says more about you than it does about them or about those who do possess humanity?

He is responsible for nurturing a community that is explicitly based on the topics they thrive on. He is also responsible for curating his community's replies, and for encouraging or discouraging behavior through his words.

Both Corbyn and Sanders foster communists then. Any word about that?

Communists aren't bad people just by being communist, so perhaps save your whataboutism distractions for whoever it is you normally regurgitate this claptrap at?

Thunderf00t is a great example here. Once upon a time, I was an avid watcher of his channel. He used to post great science videos, talked a lot about Creationism and why it was wrong. Then he got into this protracted nastiness with a guy called VenomFangX which ultimately made them both look like stupid little children squabbling over pettiness. When Thunderf00t 'won', instead of moving on and going back to his old content, he then started doing the same thing with feminists. Over a very short time, his community changed from people interested in science discussing various scientific notions, to vicious alt-right style trolls who spent all their time abusing people, calling for things like murder and rape, and Thunderf00t did nothing about it which ultimately means he tacitly supports it by providing it a venue.

The same is true for the anti-Thunderf00t crowd. Every crowd has abusive people in it.

More whataboutism? Is this all you've got?

And since when was there an 'anti-Thunderf00t' crowd?

Regardless of your energetic hand-waving, regardless of if someone else does X too, it's still an admission that there's a problem - albeit one you are trying your best to distract from.

Probably one of the worst comments is the one where some guy said he can't wait for Thunderf00t and the "other white men of the atheist community" to DIE so that women and minorities can take their place.

Where some guy said X and Y? Oh, that famous person 'some guy' with a Youtube channel extolling hatred of groups of people?

Thunderf00t also dealt with letter writing campaigns to his employer on the idea that if you just complain enough his employer will fire him or force him to shut down his channel. How fucked up is that?

Yes, fucked up and really pathetic of the couple of people who did that. But still not in the same ball park as neo-Nazi white supremacists. Do you comprehend that, Tree?

SoA has similarly gone down a path of extremism, where his community has essentially been self-selected to be the most extreme, vicious and deranged individuals. Such people are there for the hate, for the thrill they get in abusing and demeaning women - or at least a certain subset of them.

And anti-SoA crowd has people who are openly communist and want to murder me and take my property if given the power.

Your point?

Well, one point arising from your response is that you are batshit insane and that I'd appreciate it if you could you try not covering me with your saliva as you rant about your manic delusions?

Is your whole reply going to be whataboutism?

And what about those who have only ever known the USA? Whose parents brought them when they were kids, who innocently spent their lives in the US, who went to school, got jobs, friends, partners etc.

Do you have no empathy for their situation?

That can be made in favor of DACA, but it's not compelling enough. I look at the bigger picture here. If you bend the rules for 1 you have to do it to everyone in that situation. You want to talk amnesty? Secure the border first to stop the flow or it's just going to encourage further illegal immigration.

You're reasserting the contention I already pointed out was stupid pretending there's a link between DACA and illegal immigration, and you're not addressing anything other than stating that it's not good enough. Since when was humanity, and empathy not good enough?

Now there's another reason against DACA which is that if you're giving people incentives to bring their child to the US illegally since they now know nothing will be done to them.

It's not an incentive to not throw their kids out of the country 20 years later, Tree. Your 'arguments' are not making any sense at all.

The US is already in debt and the idea that it's now obligated to take care of children who aren't even citizens is insane. They already have a country, Mexico (usually that's where most of the illegals come from), the Mexican government should deal with its problems, NOT export them to other countries.

Firstly, the US's debt is nothing to do with immigration, not least because immigrants are an essential part of many US economies - rather, the US's debt is because you refuse to pay enough taxes and constantly let rich people cut taxes on rich people, seek to use an expensive, bloated military to police the world, and because your politicians only allow capitalism and consequent restricted profits to operate on the way up, but the moment big companies begin to fail, your politicians bail them out with a corporate safety net.

The US debt is not related to immigration, but blaming the foreigner for one's ills is at the core of the creeping economic and social malaise which is actively harming the US, its people, and its status in the world. Blaming everyone else for one's problems is part of a decadent, backbiting binary partisanship that drongos use instead of thinking. To think, in just two generations we've gone from a Republican hero, best remembered for his part in 'tear down this wall', to blind support for a cretin who wants to build them. Trump used Reagan's slogan because so many Republicans love Reagan, but yet so few of them seem to understand how Trump is contrary to everything great about the USA.

It's also rather ironic that, after spending so much of the national treasure on invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, you are arguing elsewhere that the same thing should be done to North Korea. Do you not understand the relationship between your nation's dramatic debt and its military actions around the globe? Studies around 2 years ago suggested that the actual cost so far of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would be between 4 and 8 trillion dollars, and its shattered both regions, creating a vacuum which lead to the rise of Islamic State, which in turn cost yet more to defeat.

Stop blaming a few million Mexicans for your nation's ills, Tree. By and large, they come to work, and if there weren't jobs for them, then they wouldn't be there.

Yeah, it's a poor argument because people who are going to risk crossing illegally into the USA in search of a better life are not going to worry about whether or not it will work out in 20 years time for their kids. They need that better life now.

Yeah? And I want a million dollars for free. That would also make my life better.

Yeah, that's your stupid argument, so perhaps you could try responding to my argument which isn't functionally delusional?

DACA is not going to provide an incentive to people who are desperate now, Tree. Please employ some elementary logic.

We can't all get what we want and certainly not at others' expense.

This is another manufactured diversion. Your claim was that DACA would be an incentive, I pointed out that was not so - so why are you wittering on about getting stuff for free?

Illegal immigration is done at the expense of the host country.

No, there's no specific or necessary cost involved. Quite the contrary to building a multi-billion dollar wall.

First, they don't have the consent of people to be there so that's akin to trespassing.

Yeah, more silliness. It's not akin to trespassing as that's, for the most part, considered just a misdemeanor.

Second, they use public infrastructure without paying any taxes for it.

Well then, that's an argument for accepting them as legal, because then they'd pay taxes for infrastructure. Of course, the actual infrastructure they use is minimal as they don't have the necessary paperwork to receive most benefits.

Of course, they also work, buy stuff, pay rent, and generally operate economically as any other member of society.

Third, they can bring diseases into the country unchecked which are uncommon or unheard of for that country.

Wow. Just wow.

Fourth, they haven't gone through an interview process which means we know literally nothing about their intentions and why they're in the country.

These are really odd reasons, not least because you were supposedly expanding on your initial topic sentence as to how illegal immigrants cost the public money. The reason we don't know 'their' intentions, Tree, is because they are not a homogeneous mass, but individual people with specific reasons arising from their backgrounds. The majority are looking for a better life... you know, the same reason why your ancestors went to the USA!

Indeed, and it seems downright Biblical to visit the sins of the parents onto their innocent children.

That depends on what the parent does.

No, it really doesn't, Tree.

There are some things that will affect the child and some that won't.

Stop making declarations as if they were facts and starting owning your opinions.

If he set you up with false expectations, let's say "this is your country" or "this million dollars is yours", then you're inevitably going to have a shock when you become an adult and find out it was bullshit. Nothing we can do about that. We are under no obligation to entertain lies that your parents fed you.

Red herring. This is not a response to my post about how we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents. At best, it's a non-sequitur... but I think it's clear to anyone reading now that this is just Tree's way of refusing to admit any error, and the usual manner in which his cognitive bias protects him from uncomfortable reality.

No, what 'we' are saying is that you don't send the kid to jail because their parents stole that money.

That's fine, because I never said illegal immigrants who came illegally as children should be prosecuted.

That doesn't mean they can't be sent back.

Which is punishing them for the crimes of their parents.

It's just like mob children. What do you think happens to daddy's accounts when he goes to prison? It's probably all going away too. Sucks for you, but your daddy broke the law to obtain all that wealth so now it's going to be confiscated.

I wonder whether your red herrings are intentional, specifically crafted to evade addressing rebuttals to your points, or whether you actually are so intellectually mired in bullshit that you believe you're answering in good faith?

We're not talking about 'daddy's accounts' Tree, we're talking about - in your never ending shifting analogy - that we don't punish the children of mobsters just because their parents committed a crime.

 

[Tree]

Of course, everyone can read how I've already made it clear that this was your strawman, anyway. I didn't say SoA endorsed Spencer - quite the contrary; I said Spencer endorsed SoA for his publicly stated political positions.

I didn't strawman you, you said Sargon is alt-right, not my fault you can't back it up.

Now, this comment of yours proves what? Do you believe that one should hold the exact opposite view of everything Spencer believes in in order to qualify as not-alt-right? Because that's an absurd standard.

No need to address this nonsense any further until you actually explain what your point is.

Your attempts are not actually causing any distraction, because the question remains as to why white-supremacist neo-Nazis would endorse SoA, and in turn, whether the same reasons why they'd endorse him would be sound reasons for conventions aimed at a wider target audience to not give him a platform.

It's very clear to me at least why they "endorse" him. They're desperate and will endorse virtually anyone who wants even a little bit of immigration control. Kind of how communists will vote for a center left candidate if that's the best they can get. It's like a desperate man lost in the desert who'll do anything for a tiny amount of water, even if it's not enough to survive on.

Atheism plus, for all its idiocy, is hardly fucking parallel to white supremacist neo-Nazis, is it Tree?

Or do you want to argue that they are functionally equal?

Do let me know if you can end the Whatabout game to engage in any level of reasoned discourse anytime soon.

I shouldn't have to pick between fascists and Marxists.

It's hard to say which is worse precisely, but both of them pretty much lead to the same thing if you give them the power they crave: totalitarianism, which tends to come out of any movement that's highly collectivist.

Communists are the 1950's boogeyman offered up by the right in the USA to make people afraid, and suspicious. Recently, the manufactured boogeyman was leaning towards Muslims until recently when all the numpties started worrying about what Social Justice warriors are going to do.

It's amazing how the only ideology you recognize as dangerous is fascism.

Hint: it's not the only one.

Please stop being naive and get a clue.

As for ANTIFA, it's highly expository that you think that a group of vandals equates to a group of murderous, ethnocentric fascists who want to purify the nation for just one skin colour.

Antifa are not merely a group of vandals, they hold a far left ideology where they want to expropriate everyone that owns any property and basically implement a communist "utopia"... and kill everyone that gets in their way.

They are no less murderous in their aspirations than the fascists.

So one group wants to kill you based on race, the other wants to kill you if you own any property. Again I should NOT have to pick between fascists and Marxists. Fuck them both. They're both bad, they both lead to mass murder if you give them enough time.

Political correctness isn't the things you listed. You know how you can independently verify that? By going and having a look in a dictionary.

Doesn't change the fact that it's how the far left uses it in practice.

And practice tends to beat theory.

I didn't say it was a uniquely alt-right position, so why would I need to tell you that now because you want me to? Do you usually make such little sense? Perhaps you might want to try responding to what I write instead of continuously making up positions for me?

Then stop claiming this somehow proves Sargon is alt-right.

Incidentally, your refusal to acknowledge facts doesn't mean I haven't supplied them - rather, it provides some explanation as to how you came by such a demented world view in the first instance.

I have a demented worldview if I don't believe Sargon is alt-right... okay. Explain.

Why do neo-Nazi, white-supremacists line up to endorse SoA, Tree?

You don't seem to want to answer that, just find a way to obfuscate away from it.

As I said, desperation. They'll support anyone who wants even a little bit of immigration control and is against open borders.

A starving man will eat a cockroach if that's all that is available to him. It won't matter if the cockroach keeps him alive or not. Anything will seem better than nothing.

There's that little bit about them already living in the USA, how they are already members of the community, how they've lived their entire lives in the US. You know - those elements of humanity and compassion.... the things that make us different than our stone-age forebears?

Perhaps the motive you see says more about you than it does about them or about those who do possess humanity?

This changes their legal status how exactly? And what about compassion for American citizens who have to endure millions trespassing on their soil for decades?

Does this mean I can just break into your house and get to stay there as long as I renovate everything to a high standard? Come on. This is just not a good argument. It's an emotional appeal.

Communists aren't bad people just by being communist, so perhaps save your whataboutism distractions for whoever it is you normally regurgitate this claptrap at?

I fundamentally disagree. Communism and fascism have comparable bodycounts and deplorable tenets.

The idea that every business owner is an exploiter and needs to have his property taken by force and killed if he resists is just as morally reprehensible as ethnic cleansing. Only a bad person or an idiot would believe communism is good.

Which is punishing them for the crimes of their parents.

Deportation doesn't require a criminal conviction nor does it need to be punishment for a crime.

All deportation requires is that you're in the country illegally and you're caught by ICE in this situation. How you got there, whether you intentionally crossed the border illegally, overstayed your visa, came as a child when you didn't know what you were doing or were kidnapped by someone (as an adult) and forced to go to the US - none of this changes that fact. Don't even consider it a punishment, consider it restoring US sovereignty to pick its immigrants.

It's akin to removing a baby from someone's property that he happened to wander into. The baby obviously can't be held criminally liable for trespassing but the police will still remove him from the property and return him to his actual home.

We're not talking about 'daddy's accounts' Tree, we're talking about - in your never ending shifting analogy - that we don't punish the children of mobsters just because their parents committed a crime.

We don't hold them criminally accountable, but that doesn't mean they won't face other unexpected consequences, like some of their assets being confiscated ASSUMING:

1. their crime boss daddy gave them those assets
2. those assets were obtained through criminal activity

Red herring. This is not a response to my post about how we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents. At best, it's a non-sequitur... but I think it's clear to anyone reading now that this is just Tree's way of refusing to admit any error, and the usual manner in which his cognitive bias protects him from uncomfortable reality.

Let me tell you an uncomfortable reality.

Many of those kids have now grown up. If they didn't know they were illegally in the country before, they certainly do now, and even if they somehow still don't, it's very easy to inform them about it, all it takes is a letter from ICE.

So don't give me this crap. At some point it becomes your responsibility to realize you were never in the country legally and do something to fix that.

You didn't know before? Fine. Now you do. Make your choice. You can continue to stay in willful violation of the law or leave while you still can (i.e. before people decide you should probably have to face criminal charges too).


I think the fundamental problem with your worldview is you simply don't respect borders. What is the point of them if there is no consequence for breaking them? If that is honestly what you believe then you should run for office on a campaign to repeal all borders and just make 7 billion people US citizens. Let's see how well that goes for you and how many people vote for you once you actually reveal your true colors?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I didn't strawman you, you said Sargon is alt-right, not my fault you can't back it up.

You funny man.

The strawman was when you tried to intimate that I'd said SoA endorsed Spencer, whereas I had not only said the opposite, I'd also taken the time to write a sentence explicitly saying that the reverse of what I'd said was not true.

So you're now moving squarely into the realm of outright bullshit.

Regardless, as even single-celled organisms could have comprehended by now, what I am actually doing is explaining why a convention or organisation that seeks to appeal to a wider audience than white, middle-class angsty boys might not be interested in giving SoA a platform. It's an explanation you apparently have no interest in hearing, yet explain your OP it does.

Now, this comment of yours proves what? Do you believe that one should hold the exact opposite view of everything Spencer believes in in order to qualify as not-alt-right? Because that's an absurd standard.

Do you believe <mumblefuckery>?

No, Tree - I don't believe mumblefuckery, that's why you keep writing mumblefuckery on my behalf.

But do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA - if you wave your hands around continuously, there may well be a passing moron who is persuaded by your antics.

No need to address this nonsense any further until you actually explain what your point is.

The only nonsense here is your endless red herrings and strawmanning, all to evade addressing the point that's been made half a dozen times.

Your attempts are not actually causing any distraction, because the question remains as to why white-supremacist neo-Nazis would endorse SoA, and in turn, whether the same reasons why they'd endorse him would be sound reasons for conventions aimed at a wider target audience to not give him a platform.

It's very clear to me at least why they "endorse" him. They're desperate and will endorse virtually anyone who wants even a little bit of immigration control. Kind of how communists will vote for a center left candidate if that's the best they can get. It's like a desperate man lost in the desert who'll do anything for a tiny amount of water, even if it's not enough to survive on.

Funny how you ignore the words they used explaining their position to put a sweet little positive spin on it.

Atheism plus, for all its idiocy, is hardly fucking parallel to white supremacist neo-Nazis, is it Tree?

Or do you want to argue that they are functionally equal?

Do let me know if you can end the Whatabout game to engage in any level of reasoned discourse anytime soon.

I shouldn't have to pick between fascists and Marxists.

You weren't asked to. You were asked to justify your implicit contention that Atheism Plus is somehow functionally equivalent to white supremacist neo-Nazis.

It's hard to say which is worse precisely, but both of them pretty much lead to the same thing if you give them the power they crave: totalitarianism, which tends to come out of any movement that's highly collectivist.

Your typical evasive strategy when pressed. Talk about something else.

Communists are the 1950's boogeyman offered up by the right in the USA to make people afraid, and suspicious. Recently, the manufactured boogeyman was leaning towards Muslims until recently when all the numpties started worrying about what Social Justice warriors are going to do.

It's amazing how the only ideology you recognize as dangerous is fascism.

Really is absolutely amazing, even to me. But given how you routinely profess to know my position better than me, you must be right, eh?

Of course, if I asked you to justify your assertion, you'll just ignore it because you're not really about honest discourse, are you Tree?

Hint: it's not the only one.

Red herring.

Please stop being naive and get a clue.

Please stop lying through your teeth and employing the entire catalogue of logical fallacies. You aren't winning anything. Anyone reading will see how you've made up my position for me half a dozen times only to castigate me for a position I never took.

As I already said, you won't convince anyone else, and you're hardly going to convince me that I believe what you assert I believe.

So it's probably best if you stop waving your penis around wildly and start processing what my position actually is.

Of course, it will mean that all the effort you went to in dragging your own windmill here to tilt at was wasted... but you might be surprised as to how it's actually worth paying attention to what your interlocutor says - not least because you don't look like a fucknugget for repeatedly making erroneous assumptions about them.

As for ANTIFA, it's highly expository that you think that a group of vandals equates to a group of murderous, ethnocentric fascists who want to purify the nation for just one skin colour.

Antifa are not merely a group of vandals, they hold a far left ideology where they want to expropriate everyone that owns any property and basically implement a communist "utopia"... and kill everyone that gets in their way.

That's just a flaccid delusion on your part indicative of how you buy into vacuous propaganda from numpty outlets without employing any degree of reasoning.. In reality, they're a bunch of kids who have, at worst, caused some property damage. Again, this is not remotely equivalent to the white-supremacist neo-Nazis who rammed a car into a bunch of people with intent to cause harm, nor is it reflective of the white-supremacist neo-Nazi history of beating, torturing, murdering and abusing Jews, African Americans, and other foreigners.

But do keep pretending that your whataboutism is honest discourse.

They are no less murderous in their aspirations than the fascists.

Says you, but then it's clear there's nothing so removed from reality that you won't say to protect your own.

So one group wants to kill you based on race, the other wants to kill you if you own any property. Again I should NOT have to pick between fascists and Marxists. Fuck them both. They're both bad, they both lead to mass murder if you give them enough time.

Of course, ANTIFA has never expressed any claim that they wish to kill people based on property ownership, so perhaps you might want to pull up your trousers as your vacuous prejudice is showing.

WHATABOUT...... WHATABOUT..... WHATABOUT?

Shame there's no one here thick enough to fall for your patter, Tree.

Political correctness isn't the things you listed. You know how you can independently verify that? By going and having a look in a dictionary.

Doesn't change the fact that it's how the far left uses it in practice.

Your contentions are delusional, febrile numptyism.

And practice tends to beat theory.

And in your case, delusion trumps them both.

I didn't say it was a uniquely alt-right position, so why would I need to tell you that now because you want me to? Do you usually make such little sense? Perhaps you might want to try responding to what I write instead of continuously making up positions for me?

Then stop claiming this somehow proves Sargon is alt-right.

I would never make such an intellectually vapid mistake, Tree.

I don't use the word 'proof' and I've explained to you several times why that is. The fact that you, once again, pretend that my position is something other than it is just means you lack the capacity to engage me honestly.

Incidentally, your refusal to acknowledge facts doesn't mean I haven't supplied them - rather, it provides some explanation as to how you came by such a demented world view in the first instance.

I have a demented worldview if I don't believe Sargon is alt-right... okay. Explain.

No, it's your repeated assertions about how you are sexually aroused by children that makes you a pedophile! But why do you need to keep talking about it?

See how it works?

If you can't honestly represent my position, then I am obviously not remotely obliged to expand on a position you've made up for me anymore than you would be in the above sentence.

I can do it to you just as easily, you know Tree?

Actually, I can do it a damn sight better because your competence is clearly faulty.

So once again, do you ever intend to accurately render my position? Or do you intend to keep tilting at windmills you've just made up?

Why do neo-Nazi, white-supremacists line up to endorse SoA, Tree?

You don't seem to want to answer that, just find a way to obfuscate away from it.

As I said, desperation. They'll support anyone who wants even a little bit of immigration control and is against open borders.

A starving man will eat a cockroach if that's all that is available to him. It won't matter if the cockroach keeps him alive or not. Anything will seem better than nothing.

It was a nicer attempt the first time, but the second time of explaining it away while ignoring their own words does seem rather contrived!

Fancy that! Tree writing a load of contrived bullshit! At this point, I'd be surprised if you ever managed to write a post that wasn't.

There's that little bit about them already living in the USA, how they are already members of the community, how they've lived their entire lives in the US. You know - those elements of humanity and compassion.... the things that make us different than our stone-age forebears?

Perhaps the motive you see says more about you than it does about them or about those who do possess humanity?

This changes their legal status how exactly?

It changes their legal status when our compassion, humanity and empathy cause us to change laws to accommodate those moral compunctions, Tree. You realize that's how laws operate, right?

And what about compassion for American citizens who have to endure millions trespassing on their soil for decades?

Well, first they're not being harmed by it anymore than they are being harmed by the legal immigration, or the history of mass migration to the USA.

Secondly, it's not 'their' soil, but it's nice to see you've started using the words of the white supremacist neo-Nazis as that does rather explain much of your posting history. Blut und boden all in one sentence!

Thirdly, unless you are a native american indian, your own family is an immigrant to the USA, so perhaps you should fuck off from trespassing on their soil as you have been for centuries? No? Goose is not interested in the gander because goose has his head up his arse? :lol:

In reality, immigration is not only a benefit, even a necessity to the economy, the USA is genetically founded on immigration.

However, as I already explained, at times of duress, particularly when decadence sets in, it is always the lowest common denominators who blame their ills on the foreigner. Always has been this way, always will be this way.

Does this mean I can just break into your house and get to stay there as long as I renovate everything to a high standard? Come on. This is just not a good argument. It's an emotional appeal.

Your argument isn't even an emotional appeal, it's just another red herring that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Again, as I only just explained to you, personal property is not equivalent legally, socially, or in any way, to illegal immigration into a country. It's amazing how thick your arguments require your listener to be.

And no, not an emotional appeal (although there would be nothing wrong with that if it were) but rather an argument based on morality. I understand why such an argument is anathema to you.

Communists aren't bad people just by being communist, so perhaps save your whataboutism distractions for whoever it is you normally regurgitate this claptrap at?

I fundamentally disagree.

Aye, I know, and that's why you're a complete fucking numpty who doesn't know his arse from his elbow.

Communism and fascism have comparable bodycounts and deplorable tenets.

Red herring.

We're not talking about communism and fascism.

We're talking about white supremacist neo-Nazis.

First you tried the whataboutism argument to bring in communists, to which I replied that it is not functionally equivalent to place white-supremacist neo-Nazis and communists on the same moral peg.

Recall momentarily, your prejudice does not validate the universe for other people. Just because you employ uninspected biases at the root of all your thoughts, no one is obliged to comply with the ensuing delusional claims about reality.

The idea that every business owner is an exploiter and needs to have his property taken by force and killed if he resists is just as morally reprehensible as ethnic cleansing. Only a bad person or an idiot would believe communism is good.

Your usual red herring where you witter about something else irrelevant as if it somehow relates to the point at hand.

Of course it's just par for the course that the alighted upon wittering is one no sane person on the planet would employ to describe communism. It's blind ideological mantra. Trite soundbites routinely employed by people who don't give a fuck about what's real, only what they can emote.

All prejudice and delusion and you seem to be wholly convinced of the notion that just because you can string some words together into a syntactically acceptable arrangement, that it lends the resulting sentence's meaning any validity or legitimacy. It really doesn't, Tree. At least not to reason oriented people.

But what's amazing is how locked in these vacuous little manufactured paradigms you are where you kick your legs and spin the wheel, but just never go anywhere. A marionette, pulled the same way by the same strings present on so many others, spouting ideological memes in simplistic soundbites designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, the person least knowledgeable about the workings of the world.

It also makes you very easy to predict, Tree.

For example, if I were to write a similarly vapid appraisal of capitalism: the idea that every business owner can exploit the natural world's resources and those people less economically wealthy or socially connected for their own private gains, and that those who seek to avoid this system will have their property taken by force, and killed if they resist is just as morally reprehensible as ethnic cleansing.... you wouldn't say 'ahh I see what you did there, fair point!' - you would angrily wave your willy around, probably call me a traitor, or a threat to the moral fabric of the youth as you've done before. :lol:

The difference, Tree, is that you can see only one side of a coin. That means you never actually get to see whether the coin you've been given is legitimate, or whether it's actually counterfeit and designed explicitly to deceive those lacking the expertise to judge. You actually have to be able to equally appraise both sides, see the merits and flaws in each before you can make even a passing attempt at capturing an approximation of complex reality.

You are blind both ways, Tree, because that's how prejudice operates. You see only the flaws in your enemy, and only the virtues in your own side, but the truly delusional thing is when you appear to think that even your enemy is obliged to acknowledge your biased perception as fact. I shudder to think how close-minded you must be to actually think a stranger on the internet is somehow obliged to conform to your nonsense, and simultaneously accept you as the arbiter of reality.

It reminds me of all those parents out there who get locked in these control dramas where they feel obliged to assert their opinion as gospel, brook no discussion or difference, then wonder why they're left sitting alone in a room for their old age, with no family any longer interested in being part of such a perverse egotism. They have no one but themselves to blame.

There's no one else interested in this discussion, Tree. If there was, they'd have replied. There's only me.

You are not convincing an unseen audience of the merit of your points, not least because merit isn't accrued by assertion but by evidence and logic... rather, you are nominally having a conversation just with me.

Ergo, you need to actually get through your skull the notion that I know my position better than you know my position, and consequently that you cannot just sit and fellate yourself repeatedly by pretending to my face that my position is what you say it is rather than what I say it is so all these specious forays into your imaginary make-believe don't distract me from the point at hand. And secondly, that you are electing to engage in a discussion about a topic. As such, you have to brook disagreement - you have to actually engage in what people say to you, and show some minimal comprehension of their position, or else it's not a discussion you need, it's a soapbox.

So, drop the transparent red herrings already?

Let's see if you can write a single post without all your usual discoursive errors.

Which is punishing them for the crimes of their parents.

Deportation doesn't require a criminal conviction nor does it need to be punishment for a crime.

It's punishment to uproot them from the only country they know and have lived all their lives, send them to a country they don't know and have never even been to. It's punishment to enforce upon them something by the state they don't want to do just because their parents did something illegal.

All deportation requires is that you're in the country illegally and you're caught by ICE in this situation. How you got there, whether you intentionally crossed the border illegally, overstayed your visa, came as a child when you didn't know what you were doing or were kidnapped by someone (as an adult) and forced to go to the US - none of this changes that fact.

There are hordes of mitigating circumstances in the majority of cases in every nation on this planet, so don't just dredge up more prejudice and pretend your simplistic, half-baked renditions are anything to do with reality. These numerous mitigating circumstances is just as present with legal as with illegal immigrants, so once again, I reject your simplistic soundbite because it doesn't correspond to reality.

I am a legal immigrant to my country - absolutely everything is above board, through the correct channels, and with all proper documents. But there could of course be a wealth of mitigating circumstances which would affect my freedom to stay here, just as there could be a wealth of mitigating circumstances which might induce them to let me remain.

Similarly, there's an entire convention of rules when it comes to refugees, to the treatment of the sick, the elderly, the young, the pregnant, those in fear of their lives and so on, and so on.

But in this age of Trump, people like you have risen to the surface, pretending that our treatment of others doesn't reflect solely upon us - abandoning these precepts which have made the world a much nicer place over the last several decades, and returning us to an industrial treatment of fellow human beings.

So your make-believe simplistic scenario exists only in a world in which things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't exist.

If that's your fantasy scenario, then please understand that I and many others will fight you tooth and nail to ensure we don't return to such a nasty, backwards past. For all the concerns about what those funny foreigners are doing to our country, it's rather more telling that the clear and present danger to our morals, our standards and our way of life resides with home-grown fanatics.

Don't even consider it a punishment, consider it restoring US sovereignty to pick its immigrants.

Calling it another name might make you feel better, but that's ever the way of the tyrant. When the state inflicts an imposition on a person as retribution for an offense, it's punishment, Tree. Call it sugar, spice, and puppy dog eyes for all I care, but it won't change the fact.

It's akin to removing a baby from someone's property that he happened to wander into. The baby obviously can't be held criminally liable for trespassing but the police will still remove him from the property and return him to his actual home.

His actual home being where he's lived all his life, not some blud und boden fantasy of personhood being tied to that soil across the border.

Being American isn't just about being born there, Tree. It's about a set of cultural norms, a shared language and linguistic approach to the world which defines the populace. Some of these kids have only ever known that cultural basis - they are Americans as much as anyone else, in mind, thought and deed. They are not Mexican just because they happen to have been born there before being smuggled elsewhere by their parents.

We're not talking about 'daddy's accounts' Tree, we're talking about - in your never ending shifting analogy - that we don't punish the children of mobsters just because their parents committed a crime.

We don't hold them criminally accountable, but that doesn't mean they won't face other unexpected consequences, like some of their assets being confiscated ASSUMING:

1. their crime boss daddy gave them those assets
2. those assets were obtained through criminal activity

Unsurprisingly, you are still engaging in the same red herring. We are not talking about their assets being confiscated, we are talking about them being punished by the state for the crimes of their parents.

It's really telling that you won't just acknowledge your error here and instead you keep digging as if the outcome's going to be different.

Red herring. This is not a response to my post about how we don't punish children for the crimes of their parents. At best, it's a non-sequitur... but I think it's clear to anyone reading now that this is just Tree's way of refusing to admit any error, and the usual manner in which his cognitive bias protects him from uncomfortable reality.

Let me tell you an uncomfortable reality.

Many of those kids have now grown up. If they didn't know they were illegally in the country before, they certainly do now, and even if they somehow still don't, it's very easy to inform them about it, all it takes is a letter from ICE.

So don't give me this crap. At some point it becomes your responsibility to realize you were never in the country legally and do something to fix that.

Err, do what to fix it? :lol:

Your numpty-in-chief just took away the legal path to resolving it!

You didn't know before? Fine. Now you do. Make your choice. You can continue to stay in willful violation of the law or leave while you still can (i.e. before people decide you should probably have to face criminal charges too).

Have you ever had yourself tested for sociopathy?

I think the fundamental problem with your worldview is you simply don't respect borders.

I don't have a world view, Tree. World views are simplifying things necessary for those incapable of addressing the actual complexity present in every interaction.

Really, as I pointed out before, you're doing the religionist thing of calling those who reject their religion as in turn possessing a religion.

Your world view informs everything you believe, but I don't possess any such overriding doctrine to contain my thoughts. I am free to pick and choose based on what I consider to be the most valuable.

But on this issue, I concur. I don't respect borders aside from in terms of threat of pain and death. You know why? They're just lines on a piece of paper made up by someone who wanted to separate us. The world doesn't possess those lines; look all you want, you won't find a geological demarcation between you and a neighboring nation: those lines are purely of human invention. And like all human ideas, they're very much open to being inspected, changed, and abandoned if shown to be wrong or counterproductive.

When you start studying space, those lines disappear, the differences become trivial, and the commonality of humanity, the values we need in order to succeed as a species - these become the more essential components to drive thought rather than simply following along the ruts left by our ancestors' passing.

What is the point of them if there is no consequence for breaking them?

What is the point of borders if there is no consequence for... breaking borders?

Can you English that, please?

If that is honestly what you believe then you should run for office on a campaign to repeal all borders and just make 7 billion people US citizens. Let's see how well that goes for you and how many people vote for you once you actually reveal your true colors?

Would I then be President Red Herring, Handwaver-in-Chief of the Special Distraction Forces? I expect I'd be very comfortable in the Whatabout House, in the LOOK OVER THERE office.

Of course, in the meantime, I'd better hope no one looked into my tax returns, because otherwise it might show that I had never said anything about wanting to run for office, or enacting such a policy, and that it was all the usual guff Tree comes up with while his hands are moving around so frantically.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This thread has been fascinating. I've watched it from the beginning, occasionally twitching to respond, but controlling the symptoms of ny well established SIWOTI syndrome. It's a classic iteration of concern-trolling, nimbyist agent provocateur.

I'm glad I didn't get involved, because I might not have picked up on it had I been engaged in the content of the thread, and it's been an absolutely awesome case study in the behaviour of internet trolls. Might do a blog post on it when I've cleared the decks a bit.

 

[Tree]

This thread has been fascinating. I've watched it from the beginning, occasionally twitching to respond, but controlling the symptoms of ny well established SIWOTI syndrome. It's a classic iteration of concern-trolling, nimbyist agent provocateur.

I'm glad I didn't get involved, because I might not have picked up on it had I been engaged in the content of the thread, and it's been an absolutely awesome case study in the behaviour of internet trolls. Might do a blog post on it when I've cleared the decks a bit.

It's not concern trolling, it's actual concern and you should take note if you have any sort of interest in this kind of "activism". I'm not the first to say and I won't be the last. People are abandoning this "movement" or never wanted anything to do with it due to many of these issues.

You funny man.

The strawman was when you tried to intimate that I'd said SoA endorsed Spencer, whereas I had not only said the opposite

I didn't strawman you, there's a difference between strawman and pointing out the absurd conclusions of your beliefs.

So, once again you said Sargon is alt-right and then used Spencer's endorsement of him as evidence of him being alt-right.

I pointed out there is no way you can draw a valid conclusion from this premise that Sargon is alt-right. If you can't understand this point even after you've been given examples after examples, you're not worth my time.

But do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA

Your point?

What exactly are you hoping to prove by continuously bringing up this piece of information? We've already established this doesn't prove Sargon is alt-right, so what do you think it proves? Give me a clear answer.

You weren't asked to. You were asked to justify your implicit contention that Atheism Plus is somehow functionally equivalent to white supremacist neo-Nazis.

Well they're both based on heavily collectivist ideologies that in practice have always lead to dictatorships when allowed to flourish.

Atheism Plus is a far left movement and is based on ideas of class struggle applied to minority-majority and female-male relations with the minority (and women) being the "exploited class" and the majority (i.e. white male Christians) the "exploiter class".

The only reason you don't seem them for the danger they are is because they fooled you with nice-sounding surface-level talking points like "we're only against racism" and "we're for justice". They are anything but, they're liars, they're hypocrites, they're against free speech, and if you think about their policies, they're pretty damn racist because they want different standards for whites and non-whites. There was even a forum post back when they had it where most of them openly admitted to being Marxists, not that there was any surprise to people who can recognize a Marxist a mile away.

Really is absolutely amazing, even to me. But given how you routinely profess to know my position better than me, you must be right, eh?

Of course, if I asked you to justify your assertion, you'll just ignore it because you're not really about honest discourse, are you Tree?

Can you then please explain why you correctly view fascism as a danger but Communism as just a "boogeyman"?

The stance is absolutely inconsistent given the historical crimes of both ideologues.

See this video as well for why you're wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

Red herring.

No, it isn't.

Please stop lying through your teeth and employing the entire catalogue of logical fallacies.

Says the person who can't stop making logical fallacies.

You aren't winning anything. Anyone reading will see how you've made up my position for me half a dozen times only to castigate me for a position I never took.

There's a difference between strawman and pointing out the inevitable conclusions of your beliefs. You don't need to explicitly say it.

It's very clear to anyone with a brain:

1. you're against fascist ideologies and think they're dangerous (they are, nothing to argue there)
2. you won't hold communism to the same standard which you simply dismissed as a "boogeyman".

Yes, that makes you naive. Your stance is completely inconsistent. I would have an easier time understanding it if you thought both were "boogeymen" or both were dangerous. Just because you won't admit to being naive doesn't mean you're being strawmanned. To be clear, you're also naive on Islam and SJW ideology. SJWs are just neo-Marxists by the way, same shit as before. Islam has core similarities to fascism such as strong in-group preference at the expense of outsiders who must be conquered and made second class subjects, aggressive militarism and a severe lack of individual rights and political freedoms such as free and fair elections. It is wholly inconsistent to say one is bad and we need to fear it but the other one is a non-issue and you're just paranoid. And no that's not strawmanning you either, that is what your post implies.

That's just a flaccid delusion on your part indicative of how you buy into vacuous propaganda from numpty outlets without employing any degree of reasoning.. In reality, they're a bunch of kids who have, at worst, caused some property damage

No, they're not. This is a total whitewashing of antifa and its far left roots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascist

Everywhere you find antifa groups, they're either entirely run by far leftist ideologues or dominated by far leftist ideologues with maybe a handful of clueless useful idiots in there. It is not true at all that they're merely vandals doing property damage.

Here's a statement from a standard antifa site:

3. We oppose all forms of oppression and exploitation. We intend to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement of oppressed people centered on the working class against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. We want a classless, free society. We intend to win!

Gee, where have we heard this talk of classless society before?

Some of our organizing models and structure is private, but Antifa Philadelphia is an Anti-Authoritarian group. This means we do not have any hierarchies, official leadership, positions of power or subordinates. We are also explicitly Anti-Capitalist. Therefore our membership is overwhelmingly Anarchist. Non-anarchists have and can be members, supporters or allies, but if you are not prepared to operate in a horizontal manner, then this is not the group for you.

https://phillyantifa.org/frequently-asked-questions-suggested-readingsvideos-start-here/

Of course, ANTIFA has never expressed any claim that they wish to kill people based on property ownership, so perhaps you might want to pull up your trousers as your vacuous prejudice is showing.

WHATABOUT...... WHATABOUT..... WHATABOUT?

Shame there's no one here thick enough to fall for your patter, Tree.

Oh God, how can you be this naive? Everywhere this far left ideology has been tried there were mass purges of people. Russia, Cuba, Eastern bloc countries, North Korea, Zimbabwe, you name it. Never any exceptions. And of course they'll rarely if ever admit to it, what murderer wants to be exposed as one? Fool.

There is no way to expropriate people without mass murder because inevitably some will resist and won't relinquish their property. And rightfully so, why should they? It's theirs. Get your own.

 

[Deleted member 619]

It's not concern trolling,

That's exactly what it is. If that pushes your buttons, grow a thicker skin.

I'm not the first to say and I won't be the last. People are abandoning this "movement" or never wanted anything to do with it due to many of these issues.

Then they can feel free to fuck off. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck. I'm not part of any movement. I address my own concerns, and some of them are quite beautifully manifest in your trolling here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's not concern trolling, it's actual concern and you should take note if you have any sort of interest in this kind of "activism". I'm not the first to say and I won't be the last. People are abandoning this "movement" or never wanted anything to do with it due to many of these issues.

What kind of 'activism' are you wittering about?

What 'movement' are you wittering about? The 'atheist' one?

Then yeah, Hack's on point - you're concern trolling because, factually, the percentage of people not subscribing to a particular religion is increasing dramatically year on year.

But there's that hard fact of empirical reality getting in the way of the Gospel according to Tree again.

 

[Tree]

. Again, this is not remotely equivalent to the white-supremacist neo-Nazis who rammed a car into a bunch of people with intent to cause harm, nor is it reflective of the white-supremacist neo-Nazi history of beating, torturing, murdering and abusing Jews, African Americans, and other foreigners.

But do keep pretending that your whataboutism is honest discourse.

Did you forget about the antifa professor who hit someone with a bike lock over the head and almost killed him?

Anyway this post shows first of all how clumsy you are. "neo-Nazi history" LOL. NEO- means new, so just call them Nazis if you want to talk about Nazi history. Or to be safe, you can use the broader term of "fascist" which should apply to every category there.

With that said, the crimes of Communism are about as numerous as the crimes of the Nazis, they just picked different targets.

It changes their legal status when our compassion, humanity and empathy cause us to change laws to accommodate those moral compunctions, Tree. You realize that's how laws operate, right?

And how is that compassionate to American citizens?

This is why I'm not even remotely persuaded by emotional appeals.

It's not even compassionate to Mexicans. I get that Mexico is shit, but how is it ever going to improve if millions of people just leave? Doesn't make any sense. The people most disgruntled with their country are the most likely to actually change it for the better.

It's punishment to uproot them from the only country they know and have lived all their lives, send them to a country they don't know and have never even been to. It's punishment to enforce upon them something by the state they don't want to do just because their parents did something illegal.

And? Many tenants are asked to leave when they can no longer afford their rents. Those home were never theirs to begin with and it doesn't matter how long they lived in them.

You keep avoiding the issue that they never had a right to be inside the US in the first place. Their deportation would be a return to a situation that previously existed and legally speaking it's not necessarily a punishment. This is not a criminal trial where you are accused of X, can be tried by a jury, and if found guilty the punishment is deportation and you get a criminal record. It's a simple executive procedure. Are you in the country legally? Yes? Carry on. No? Then get out, similar to asking someone to leave your property when he doesn't have a right to be there.

It is not relevant how long they were able to fly under the radar. There are two very clear ways to obtain US citizenship: 1. birth 2. legal immigration following process where first of all you have to be WANTED, not everyone can come cause that would fuck up the economy and other things, then you have to prove yourself suitable for it, which means you need a certain level of education, be able to speak the language, a job and you need to learn US history and adapt to the culture and you need to live in the country for a long time.

The idea that it's enough to just live for X years or whatever inside the US is absurd. This alone doesn't prove you're wanted or that you're suitable for American life. Being in the country for a long time is just one tiny aspect of the naturalization process.

Will it be hard for them? Maybe, but that's not my problem. Maybe that will serve as an example to deter other parents from trying this stunt in the future.

Well, first they're not being harmed by it anymore than they are being harmed by the legal immigration, or the history of mass migration to the USA.

As I keep saying, illegal immigrants completely bypass the procedures the US has in place for taking immigrants. Or tourists for that matter. That can harm the country and it also shows they don't respect the country.

They could be bringing in drugs without anyone knowing it since they don't have to pass any checkpoints.
They could be trafficking other people inside the US for sex slavery or worse. Again if there's no checkpoint to pass through nobody will know.
They could be coming to commit crime rather than contributing.
They use public infrastructure like roads or hospitals without ever having paid taxes for it.
If there is a surge of low skilled workers - that drives down wages due to the unrealistic competition or makes it difficult for low skilled American citizens to find jobs so they go on welfare instead which everyone else then pays for.
They benefit from the security of the US' police force and military without either paying taxes or being asked to serve in the army like all other citizens are.

Secondly, it's not 'their' soil, but it's nice to see you've started using the words of the white supremacist neo-Nazis as that does rather explain much of your posting history. Blut und boden all in one sentence!

You are both legally and morally wrong. Each country belongs to its citizens and they decide who enters and who doesn't through their elected representatives. Congress has the power to make laws regulating how immigration and tourism is done. The president has broad executive powers to exclude any non-citizen or even entire groups of non-citizens simply by proclamation that allowing them to come would be detrimental to US interests.

And guess what? The guy who won is against open borders. Tough shit for you.

Nothing to do with white supremacy by the way. It's about citizenship and following the rules. The US has many many non-white citizens, nobody wants to deport them.

Thirdly, unless you are a native american indian, your own family is an immigrant to the USA, so perhaps you should fuck off from trespassing on their soil as you have been for centuries? No? Goose is not interested in the gander because goose has his head up his arse?

No, please get some basic facts right.

The USA formally came into existence as a country in 1776 and its founders were European. They not only established what territory would be part of the US but also what core principles it would be based on. The correct term is "founder" not "immigrant". There was no USA to migrate to before that. Now, before you had the USA as a state you had European settlements and before that North American territory was a largely untapped and uninhabited wilderness with no central government, no army, no police force, no clearly marked borders, no infrastructure. Just scattered tribes of Native Americans.

Ownership of something is not determined by proximity alone, you need to transform the world around you to claim ownership. Simply putting up the first tent on an empty untapped landmass doesn't give you a claim to the entire continent. At best it gives you a claim to the tent and the soil under it. If you want to build a real nation you need to build settlements, create infrastructure and mark your territory. Did the Natives have that? No. Ergo, they have no claim to the ENTIRE territory that is now know as the USA.

Were crimes done against them? Yes. But the idea that they owned the entire continent including untapped landmass by proximity alone and Europeans were "illegal immigrants" is beyond retarded.

This is just more regressive "fuck America" nonsense. Your professors I see indoctrinated you well.

I don't have a world view, Tree

This is just a lie, everyone has some kind of worldview.

To say you have no worldview at all is to say you have no basic cognitive orientation. How do you make sense of the world without it? You have to start from somewhere.

Maybe you should take some online tests or something to find out where you stand. A man with absolutely no worldview is a man without any personality to me. Stop being in denial.

Your world view informs everything you believe, but I don't possess any such overriding doctrine to contain my thoughts. I am free to pick and choose based on what I consider to be the most valuable.

What do you consider "most valuable"? There's your worldview.

And this has nothing to do with being religious or not. Religion is a very specific kind of belief. Worldview has to do with your core values, if you don't have that, I'm not sure that you even have a personality at all.

Your usual red herring where you witter about something else irrelevant as if it somehow relates to the point at hand.

No, it is 100% relevant to point out the moral issues with Communism when I have to deal with degenerates who try to argue that somehow Communists are good people unlike those fascists.

Truth is, they both suck.