Stormfront or SJW?

Can you tell the difference between the far-right and the far-left?

Wingnuts • April 2015 • Views: 4,175

There is a pretty awesome web game called “Stormfront or SJW” where you are presented with quotes from websites and have to guess whether the quote appeared on the Neo-Nazi Stormfront or is from a far-left “social justice warrior”.

I think this is such a great illustration of the recent partial convergence of rhetoric and ideas between the far left and the far right. Both are united in:

1) their lack of commitment to our Constitutional framework and for change to be achieved through democracy and elections

2) their reliance on conspiracy theories

3) their hostility to American involvement of any sort in international affairs

4) their omnipresent utter derangement toward Israel and Jews

People have often debated what is the proper geometric model for political views. Is it a one-dimensional left-right axis where depending on their opinions individuals somewhere on the linear continuum? Is it rather a two-dimensional political compass with economic and social issues on orthogonal axes? My view is that whatever the dimensionality, politics has a closed geometry where going far enough to the extreme links you directly up with the other extreme.

Recent Pages by fizziks:
The Lancet, Peer Review, and "Free Speech" - Journalists Display Their Ignorance

Jump to bottom

74 comments

KiTA Apr 30, 2015 10:41:31pm

Ah, yes, good old Horeshoe Theory. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? I never realized the Left had a Tea-Party type group until I met the Social Justice Warrior trolls and their psychotic ramblings.
en.wikipedia.org

I was going to post it a while back but I tend to attract trolls around here now that people know I’m a proud GamerGater. You should probably expect a good number of downvotes even though your post isn’t in the last bit objectionable. C’est la vie!

RadicalModerate Apr 30, 2015 11:17:52pm

Oh please.
Comparing SJWs to neo-Nazis is just beyond stupid. Until you can point me to a single instance where the Social Justice crowd advocates the mass purging of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, or of those of a particular sexual orientation, then the argument being made is a total non-starter.

Stormfronters advocate the removal by any means possible of all non-whites and subjugation of everyone they consider “lesser”, all in the name of the “preservation of the white race”. They openly advocate fascism. Never mind the fact that the whole “Social Justice Warrior” pejorative was coined by the far right to malign anyone who they perceived as having non-discriminatory viewpoints.

And KiTA, by admitting your support of GamerGaters, I would assume that you also support MRAs like Roosh Vorek and Paul Elam, (both of whom have entries on the SPLC) and support the stalking and harassment (up to, and including violent rape) of women who dare to speak their opinion that you might happen to disagree with. Because those very things are openly advocated by the GG crowd.

I will say it in no uncertain terms. The rank-and-file GamerGaters are some of the slimiest people I have had the misfortune of interacting with.

AyaReiko May 1, 2015 3:56:57am

re: #2 RadicalModerate

Really, relying on strawmanning to prop up your bullshit? That really just shows how little substance your side really has.

Or maybe it has escaped you that ACTUAL feminists have come out on the Gamergate side, only to be accused of being conservatives by the SJWs.

Nyet May 1, 2015 4:00:39am

While I acknowledge that sometimes the hard left and the hard right are very alike (and by hard left I don’t necessarily mean what you call an “SJW”), is your own rhetoric much better?

There is a litany of horrors perpetrated in recent centuries by one particular group that is almost completely unknown in the West, even among educated and informed people. That group is Arabs. The horrors include:

1) Starting the African slave trade

2) Continuing the African slave trade long after Western counties abolished it

3) STILL, in 2014, enslaving hundreds of thousands of black Africans in countries such as Sudan and Mauretania

4) Ethnically cleansing at least 750,000 Jews from Arab countries after 1948

5) The Barbary Corsairs’ kidnapping and enslaving millions of Europeans and others from the 1600s until the Barbary Wars

6) Launching a war in 1948 with the stated genocidal intent to “drive the Jews into the sea.”

7) Carrying out a cultural and now possibly physical genocide of the ancient Assyrian people

8) The recent near complete elimination of the ancient Mandean people

9) Collaborating with and supporting the axis powers during WW2

(It should be mentioned that the later was not nearly universal in the Arab world, but for reference neither was German support for the Nazi regime, and yet Germany took responsibility as a whole.)

————-

So, here we have an undeniable litany of horrors perpetrated by Muslim Arabs, any one of which would be widely acknowledged if it was perpetrated by a Western country. And yet from the Arab world we have heard no hint of responsibility, no hint even of recognition.

progressivezionist.blogspot. com/2014/06/its-time-for-recognition-truth-and.html

Nyet May 1, 2015 4:09:14am

re: #2 RadicalModerate

And KiTA, by admitting your support of GamerGaters, I would assume that you also support MRAs like Roosh Vorek and Paul Elam, (both of whom have entries on the SPLC) and support the stalking and harassment (up to, and including violent rape) of women who dare to speak their opinion that you might happen to disagree with. Because those very things are openly advocated by the GG crowd.

You know, I don’t really give a fuck about GG itself (“gaming journalism” lol who the fuck cares, 1st world problem and all that), but this is exactly what Killgore’s m.o. was regarding Occupy. Take some individual miscreants who “rape”, “stab”, “shit on cars” and “are antisemites” (all of which was factual BTW, because there were plenty of miscreants associated with Occupy, since, surprise surprise, there’s no way of controlling who joins in) and put the blame for them on everybody who associates with the group. I was against it then and I’m against it now. I’m pretty sure there are more honest ways to criticize GG than painting all participants as supporters of threats, doxxing, MRA and whatnot.

Frankly, GG’rs may be slimy douches in general (which does not necessarily mean harassers, doxxers etc.) for all I care, but are promoters of double standards all that far behind?

AyaReiko May 1, 2015 4:20:49am

re: #5 Nyet

So true. And that’s also the problem with modern “news” reporting in this day and age. It’s all sensationalist crap often built to push an agenda where the truth is optional.

Forget the problems with Wall Street, focus in on the lunatics who decided to show up. Brush aside the details of out of control cops across the nation, aim the cameras at the rioters. Ignore the rampant corruption in the Journalism industry, call anyone who opposes you and woman-hating sociopath and shut out anyone who disagrees. Rinse, repeat.

RadicalModerate May 1, 2015 5:06:56am

re: #5 Nyet

You know, I don’t really give a fuck about GG itself (“gaming journalism” lol who the fuck cares), but this is exactly what Killgore’s m.o. was regarding Occupy. Take some individual miscreants who “rape”, “stab”, “shit on cars” and “are antisemites” (and there were plenty of miscreants associated with Occupy, because, surprise surprise, there’s no way of controlling who joins in) and put the blame for them on everybody who associates with the group. I was against it then and I’m against it now. I’m pretty sure there are more honest ways to criticize GG than painting all participants as supporters of threats, doxxing, MRA and whatnot.

Frankly, GG may even be douches in general for all I care, but promoters of double standards aren’t that far behind.

The issue is that unlike Occupy, which was very much a leaderless movement that pretty much anyone with an axe to grind against “the 1%” associated with - and as a result did have a very small minority of miscreants, the “Gamergate” community is very much one that has been taken over by the “men’s rights” movement, which is literally a cesspool of misogyny. To call it the equivalent of the Tea Party movement for the MRAs is not at all inaccurate.

The beforementioned Roosh Vorek is one of the main leaders of “Gamergate” movement, and not coincidentally he is also one of the most vocal in the men’s rights advocate movement, running the utterly vile “Return of Kings” website.

Just consider this - do you really want to be in the same camp as Charles C Johnson and Alex Jones on this discussion? Because both are well documented as being in the “pro-gamergate” group.

KiTA May 1, 2015 5:39:55am

re: #5 Nyet

Take some individual miscreants who “rape”, “stab”, “shit on cars” and “are antisemites” (and there were plenty of miscreants associated with Occupy, because, surprise surprise, there’s no way of controlling who joins in) and put the blame for them on everybody who associates with the group. I was against it then and I’m against it now. I’m pretty sure there are more honest ways to criticize GG than painting all participants as supporters of threats, doxxing, MRA and whatnot.

Thank you so much for this. You don’t know how hard it is to come to a website where I’ve felt welcome and suddenly get called a woman hating piece of dirt who’s “less than a shitstain” because I happen to play Minecraft in the afternoon and don’t think games journalists should be reviewing video games their roommates / SOs make without at least acknowledging that.

re: #7 RadicalModerate

The beforementioned Roosh Vorek is one of the main leaders of “Gamergate” movement, and not coincidentally he is also one of the most vocal in the men’s rights advocate movement, running the utterly vile “Return of Kings” website.

Just consider this - do you really want to be in the same camp as Charles C Johnson and Alex Jones on this discussion? Because both are well documented as being in the “pro-gamergate” group.

I have no idea who Roosh Vorek is, and I actually AM a leader of GamerGate. I had to google him — the only thing I found was that he runs some blog about picking up women (not my thing really) and has covered the hashtag a few times. He’s hardly a “leader of GamerGate,” despite what the SJW trolls wish were true.

Ironically the “leader of gamergate” thing became a joke a few months back, after SJW shills kept trying to get us to name “leaders” so they could tie us to individuals and they could harass our “leaders” into oblivion. We rejected that then, and reject it now. For a while, one of our discussion boards was set to forced anonymous posting, with all usernames changed to “Leader of GamerGate” to mock the attempt.

I do find the irony of you doing exactly what Nyet was pointing out as being intellectually dishonest — guilt by association — in your reply to him to be absolutely delicious, though.

Nyet May 1, 2015 6:04:37am

re: #7 RadicalModerate

And they are leaders why? Because someone said so? Or because they themselves said so (because of course they would)?

The fact remains that there is no official org called GamerGate Inc., so all so-called leaders are by necessity self-appointed. Some, like Roosh (who, I read, attached himself relatively late by creating a site to make money) and Milo Ywhatever are actually piggybacking on this phenomenon.

I have yet to see anything that would preclude one from being a GG’r while despising the said individuals and their methods, as well as opposing doxxing etc. And that’s my whole point. There are lots of bad folks associated with GG but from this it simply does not follow that any particular individual supports threats, harassment, doxxing etc. (which remains true even if most GG’rs are bad, slimey douches - because there are different kinds of bad; you may be an asshole without being a supporter of criminals). And you accused Kita of these things specifically because he’s a GG’r. That’s a logical fallacy.

Just as well, because OWS was started by the antisemitic org AdBusters, had folks like Norman Finkelstein speak at its protests, had some terrorist or otherwise criminal supporters, does not allow the assumption that an average participant was some kind of an evildoer. (The same applies to a whole range of other phenomena, like Islam etc.)

Just consider this - do you really want to be in the same camp as Charles C Johnson and Alex Jones on this discussion? Because both are well documented as being in the “pro-gamergate” group.

First of all the “you” is misplaced, as I have unequivocally indicated where I stand vis a vis GG.

I’m not on GG’s side, just like during the Occupy times I wasn’t on OWS’ side, which didn’t stop me from taking shots at KT’s BS tactics. Second, do you not understand that this is as much a logical fallacy as “[insert baddie’s name] took this position, do you really want to be on his side”?

This is not about taking sides or tribalism. It’s about the basic intellectual consistency.

Nyet May 1, 2015 6:13:48am

And to be sure, “by this time he stinketh” - that brand is dead in the PR sense, so I guess I don’t understand the folks who cling to it. But my stance against overgeneralization/collective responsibility remains. If I stop applying it here, why should I apply it anywhere else?

KiTA May 1, 2015 6:15:30am

re: #10 Nyet

And to be sure, “by this time he stinketh” - that brand is dead in the PR sense, so I guess I don’t understand the folks who cling to it. But my stance against overgeneralization/collective responsibility remains. If I stop applying it here, why should I apply it anywhere else?

By brand, do you mean GamerGate, or something else?

RadicalModerate May 1, 2015 6:36:52am

re: #9 Nyet

Just a couple of points.

The “you” I had wasn’t a targeted at you specifically, it was directed as a general identifier toward those individuals who leap to defend the Gamergate tactics -I apologize if you interpreted it that way, it was not intended.

There is a significant amount of bad press that is coming out about the movement lately, most recently the fact that the GG members getting tossed from the Calgary Comic Expo by the Calgary Police Department - and banned from attending any future events.

calgaryherald.com

It should be noted that the group announced their intention to attend the convention was on the militant MRA “A voice for men” website.

An aside, this entire discussion got derailed because there were a couple of individuals who updinged the page article that attempted to equate neo-Nazis to the social justice movement - an utterly dishonest false equivalence if I ever saw one.

Nyet May 1, 2015 6:52:17am

re: #12 RadicalModerate

There is no doubt that there are lots of MRAs among GG’rs.

My whole point basically boils down to this: assuming that being a GG’r makes the prior probability of the person being an asshole with some wrong views about women and society higher (which could be true as of now, e.g. because of the self-selection after all the negative press you mention; it is still, however, a prior probability - one still has to investigate on a case by case basis), it still doesn’t mean that they support the criminal actions.

iossarian May 1, 2015 7:00:05am

Websites like this totally miss the point IMO that what’s important isn’t what rhetoric you use or actions you take (because you know who else used to breathe oxygen, right?). It’s what you’re actually trying to accomplish.

Stormfront want white people to achieve control and dominion over other people.

So-called social justice warriors want men to act less like assholes towards women some of the time.

I support the latter aim, not the former.

KiTA May 1, 2015 7:24:05am

Amazing how this diary went from -2 to -12 instantly. On Reddit we call that “brigading” and “downvote trolling,” when someone brings attention to something they don’t like and gets other people to intentionally downvote it.

Specially since that’s what just happened, albeit without apparent malicious intent.

re: #12 RadicalModerate

There is a significant amount of bad press that is coming out about the movement lately, most recently the fact that the GG members getting tossed from the Calgary Comic Expo by the Calgary Police Department - and banned from attending any future events.

calgaryherald.com

It should be noted that the group announced their intention to attend the convention was on the militant MRA “A voice for men” website.

Actually, they announced it on their own website, wherein they took donations to attend.

As an aside, note how they didn’t even attempt to contact the HBB people for their stance on things. Demonization of “the other,” tribalism, etc etc. You can usually tell when there’s a attempt at framing a narrative going on when you see bad journalism like that.

You’re not supposed to consider that they might have had an alternate viewpoint, that the facts might not line up with the official story, you’ve been told they’re “scum” and dammit, you’re supposed to Listen and Believe.

KiTA May 1, 2015 7:28:31am

re: #14 iossarian

So-called social justice warriors want men to act less like assholes towards women some of the time.

The cure for misogyny is not misandry. And SJWs are not Feminists, they are trolls that use Feminism to bully and harass people.

Nyet May 1, 2015 7:30:04am

re: #15 KiTA

Amazing how this diary went from -2 to -12 instantly. On Reddit we call that “brigading” and “downvote trolling,” when someone brings attention to something they don’t like and gets other people to intentionally downvote it.

Is there anything wrong with that? This is a troll page by a bigoted person. Those tend to be downdinged.

KiTA May 1, 2015 7:42:17am

re: #17 Nyet

Is there anything wrong with that? This is a troll page by a bigoted person. Those tend to be downdinged.

How is this a troll page? It’s an honest discussion about a very real thing.

Horseshoe Theory is a real thing — when you get to the really psychotic TERF style harassers — the Social Justice Warriors — you can swap out “Men” (or “cis”) for your minority of choice and the statements are pretty equivalent. And horrifying.

Nyet May 1, 2015 7:59:15am

re: #18 KiTA

How is this a troll page? It’s an honest discussion about a very real thing.

Horseshoe Theory is a real thing — when you get to the really psychotic TERF style harassers — the Social Justice Warriors — you can swap out “Men” (Or the bullshit “cis” term they’ve been trying to push) for your minority of choice and the statements are pretty equivalent. And horrifying.

Sigh. If you don’t already get it, it’s probably useless to explain. But I’ll try.

Neo-Nazis are about killing and/or literally subjugating other people. What you call “SJWs” aren’t. Comparing them is bullshit. And trolling.

Nyet May 1, 2015 8:02:14am

Oh, and get your acronyms straight. What you call “SJWs” are by def enemies of the TERFs.

Black d20 May 1, 2015 8:03:44am

Not news, needs pruning.

Nyet May 1, 2015 8:09:36am

The irony: you’re doing to what you call “SJWs” the same thing you object to when it is done to you as a gamergater.

fizziks May 1, 2015 8:25:23am

Wow, the reaction to this is incredible, and ridiculous.

At no point here did I claim that neo-Nazis and SJWs were the same or represented the same level of threat. I even said (highlighting for emphasis now):

I think this is such a great illustration of the recent partial convergence of rhetoric and ideas between the far left and the far right

So then the point was entirely missed that if you play the web game it is actually really difficult to tell the difference between far-left and Stormfront rhetoric. Did anyone actually follow the link and play the game? If you don’t think that represents a problem then say so, but nobody commenting negatively here took the time to address the main and salient point, the convergence of rhetoric.

Nor did anyone comment on how the far-left and far-right are converging ideologically in the four broad realms that I mentioned. Anybody want to say anything about that?

Oh well, your loss if you don’t want to engage with any ideas outside of a very narrow comfort zone of making fun of a handful of far-right idiots who post on twitter and who hardly anybody has heard of.

Black d20 May 1, 2015 8:30:48am

re: #23 fizziks

I feel no need to comment on either end of the horseshoe because they’re fringe elements that will ultimately be dealt with as needed. For now though, the rightward one is far more dangerous to life and liberty, so I’ll pass on a game that boils down to ‘they’re saying stuff like this too!’ when there’s no comparable bite between the two in real-world action.

Black d20 May 1, 2015 8:31:52am

(I’d also like to state how hard it was to resist making an Ethics joke. Just leaving that out there.)

Nyet May 1, 2015 8:39:10am

re: #23 fizziks

Wow, the reaction to this is incredible, and ridiculous.

At no point here did I claim that neo-Nazis and SJWs were the same or represented the same level of threat. I even said (highlighting for emphasis now):

LOL. No, you merely made a page called “Stormfront or SJW”.

So then the point was entirely missed that if you play the web game it is actually really difficult to tell the difference between far-left and Stormfront rhetoric. Did anyone actually follow the link and play the game?

I did. It consisted of:
1. some authentic sources;
2. some screenshots of anonymous comments of unknown provenance.

While there were some choice examples of bigotry there, It is not clear how the author of the “game” arrived at the conclusion that the screenshot quotes were made by SJWs. That is, unless he defined SJWs as “hateful cranks” in the first place, in which case it’s one big tautology.

If one defines SJWs as actually pursuing social justice (even if by annoying/misguided means), most of the quotes were NOT by SJWs. “Die cis scum” does not fall under any known def of social justice.

If you don’t think that represents a problem then say so, but nobody commenting negatively here took the time to address the main and salient point, the convergence of rhetoric.

Well, I did highlight your anti-Arab rhetoric which could have been written by a Stormfronter about Jews (or Arabs, for that matter). You chose not to comment on that.

fizziks May 1, 2015 8:48:06am

re: #26 Nyet

If one defines SJWs as actually pursuing social justice (even if by annoying/misguided means), most of the quotes were NOT by SJWs. “Die cis scum” does not fall under any known def of social justice.

Excellent display of the ‘no true scotsman’ logical fallacy there. The quotes were from commenters on far-left blogs. You may not want the far left to comprise people who have the various opinions highlighted, but unfortunately it does.

As for my “anti-Arab” rhetoric, do you deny the historical truth of any of the points listed there? If not, then rather than taking that section alone out of context you should consider the entire piece, which is that if Nazi Germany has paid reparations for the atrocities of the past, and there is a serious movement afoot to have the United States pay reparations for the atrocities of the past, then why is the Arab world being let off the hook for similar scale or even worse atrocities, even ongoing?

CuriousLurker May 1, 2015 8:54:57am

re: #4 Nyet

While I acknowledge that sometimes the hard left and the hard right are very alike (and by hard left I don’t necessarily mean what you call an “SJW”), is your own rhetoric much better?

progressivezionist.blogspot. com/2014/06/its-time-for-recognition-truth-and.html

You found that too, huh? Did you see the Disqus profile?

Nyet May 1, 2015 8:58:41am

re: #27 fizziks

Excellent display of the ‘no true scotsman’ logcal fallacy there. The quotes were from commenters on far-left blogs.

Bullshit. Even if we grant the far left label, far left does not equal SJW.

Also, as I have pointed out, many of the entries were screenshots of anonymous comments. What did you do to verify that they were actual comments by actual people who were otherwise engaged in a struggle for what they see as social justice? Let me guess: nothing.

As for my “anti-Arab” rhetoric, do you deny the historical truth of any of the points listed there?

Something also a Stormfronter would say when confronted about his list of “Jewish atrocities”. To which I would reply: no, you doofus, there are no “Jewish atrocities” because Jews are not a monolith, are not responsible for each other and collective responsibility is a fascist concept.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:00:10am

Also this is full of logical fallacy:

Well, I did highlight your anti-Arab rhetoric which could have been written by a Stormfronter about Jews (or Arabs, for that matter).

It could have been written about Jews, but in that case it would have been historically false, since Jews did not start the African slave trade nor are currently perpetrating a genocide against the Yezidis, for example. As it stands, however, it is historically true. There is a crucial difference there - the difference between truth and falsehood - which you either don’t understand or you do understand in which case your post is dishonest.

Nyet May 1, 2015 9:03:34am

re: #30 fizziks

Also this is full of logical fallacy:

It could have been written about Jews, but in that case it would have been historically false, since Jews did not start the African slave trade nor are currently perpetrating a genocide against the Yezidis, for example. As it stands, however, it is historically true. There is a crucial difference there - the difference between truth and falsehood - which you either don’t understand or you do understand in which case your post is dishonest.

So say all bigots.

Read my comment above. Meditate on it until enlightenment.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:04:31am

re: #31 Nyet

In other words, I am correct about the world of difference between truth and falsehood and you were incorrect.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:05:58am

re: #1 KiTA

Ah, yes, good old Horeshoe Theory. It’s fascinating, isn’t it? I never realized the Left had a Tea-Party type group until I met the Social Justice Warrior trolls and their psychotic ramblings.
en.wikipedia.org

I was going to post it a while back but I tend to attract trolls around here now that people know I’m a proud GamerGater. You should probably expect a good number of downvotes even though your post isn’t in the last bit objectionable. C’est la vie!

Wow, it turns out you called it! Thanks for the positive feedback.

Black d20 May 1, 2015 9:06:11am

re: #27 fizziks

Well, consider Nazi Germany was an utterly defeated nation and had no choice. While the US does owe the many surviving Nations (who’re mostly in dire straits), I don’t expect a moral imperative to force modern political hands. So the questions become ‘How?’ and ‘How far do we take this call for restitution?’.

Do we include restitution for non-Hamas-affiliated Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli actions? Iraqi and Afghani civilians slain due to the actions of OEF and such? Do we try to force Japan to give back for the Rape of Nanking? And if so for these and so, so many other past horrors, how?

Nyet May 1, 2015 9:08:39am

re: #32 fizziks

In other words, I am correct about the world of difference between truth and falsehood and you were incorrect.

No, “Arabs did bad thing A” is as much a falsehood as “Jews did bad thing B”. Particular individuals did particular bad things. It’s not about whether A or B happened. It’s about ascribing them to whole ethnic, racial or religious groups and then asserting the fascist principle of collective responsibility. This is the essence of bigotry/racism.

Chew on this for a while.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:16:46am

re: #34 Black d20

Well, consider Nazi Germany was an utterly defeated nation and had no choice. While the US does owe the many surviving Nations (who’re mostly in dire straits), I don’t expect a moral imperative to force modern political hands. So the questions become ‘How?’ and ‘How far do we take this call for restitution?’.

Do we include restitution for non-Hamas-affiliated Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli actions? Iraqi and Afghani civilians slain due to the actions of OEF and such? Do we try to force Japan to give back for the Rape of Nanking? And if so for these and so, so many other past horrows, how?

These are all good questions and thank you for engaging with the actual ideas, a task that seems to be beyond some of the people here.

What I would say to that is that obviously human history is basically a story of people committing injustice to other people. When it comes to reparations the standard seems to be converging to the ability to make restitution to living communities that were affected. In the case of atrocities committed by Arabs, the Yezidis and Assyrians are here and in need right now, and many of the million Jews who were ethnically cleansed after 1948 are still around too.

As for the Palestinians killed by Israeli military action, I would of course say that they were killed in the process of defensive actions which is fundamentally different. There is also the issue of systematic atrocity, which I don’t believe the actions of the US military rise to.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:20:12am

re: #35 Nyet

No, “Arabs did bad thing A” is as much a falsehood as “Jews did bad thing B”. Particular individuals did particular bad things. It’s not about whether A or B happened. It’s about ascribing them to whole ethnic, racial or religious groups and then asserting the fascist principle of collective responsibility. This is the essence of bigotry/racism.

Chew on this for a while.

We have no problem saying “Germany did this” and reparations were paid by Germany in spite of the fact that not all Germans had a hand in or supported the atrocities of the WW2 era.

And anyway, I disagree with your claim that A is just as much of a falsehood as B. Arabs DID start the African slave trade, Not all of them, but in the same way that we say “The Chinese invented gunpowder” we don’t mean every single Chinese person, it is perfectly reasonable and historical fact to say that Arabs started the African slave trade. However Jews did not start the African slave trade.

Black d20 May 1, 2015 9:22:28am

re: #36 fizziks

I know it’s super-simple of me, but innocent life is innocent life. I fail to see the differences you do, and so I think more questions’ll just make me angry at you.

I have Baltimore news to be happy about, so no point in dampening that! Enjoy chatting with Nyet!

Nyet May 1, 2015 9:27:24am

re: #37 fizziks

We have no problem saying “Germany did this” and reparations were paid by Germany in spite of the fact that not all Germans had a hand in or supported the atrocities of the WW2 era.

And anyway, I disagree with your claim that A is just as much of a falsehood as B. Arabs DID start the African slave trade, Not all of them, but in the same way that we say “The Chinese invented gunpowder” we don’t mean every single Chinese person, it is perfectly reasonable and historical fact to say that Arabs started the African slave trade. However Jews did not start the African slave trade.

Germany is a state, doofus. A state can have obligations, an ethnic group cannot. Germany robbed and murdered Jews and other peoples, which is why it had to pay. You, however, didn’t identify any particular Arab state responsible for crimes (which would have been absolutely legitimate), but rather explicitly explained that you mean a particular ethnic group.

There is no analogy with “The Chinese invented gunpowder” whatsoever. The collectivist language is inherently suspect, but we overlook it in this case because inventing powder is not something negative. Saying “Chinese as a group murdered tens of millions of people and are therefore responsible” would be racist.

Nyet May 1, 2015 9:28:45am

re: #36 fizziks

As for the Palestinians killed by Israeli military action,

I notice that you (rightfully) don’t write “killed by Jews”. You know that would be racist.

CuriousLurker May 1, 2015 9:32:14am

Speaking of SF, they turned up in my Google alerts this morning WRT Geller.

I only looked at the cached version of the page, but they seem to be cheering her on. They’re hoping that her stupid contest will cause American Muslims to begin attacking American Jews, causing all the Jews to make Aliyah, which (they hope) will lead to the election of nationalists all over the Western world. They believe that this, in turn, will result in Muslims being thrown out, conveniently leaving the West’s white supremacists happily Jew- and Muslim-free.

Bigotry is bigotry, no matter who you are or who you aim it at.

fizziks May 1, 2015 9:32:42am

re: #40 Nyet

I notice that you (rightfully) don’t write “killed by Jews”. You know that would be racist.

I was responding directly to the commenter who used the phrase “Israeli actions”. Plus the Israeli military contains not just Jews but Druze and Circassians. But you knew that. Or did you?

Nyet May 1, 2015 9:39:47am

re: #42 fizziks

I was responding directly to the commenter who used the phrase “Israeli actions”. Plus the Israeli military contains not just Jews but Druze and Circassians. But you knew that. Or did you?

Wow, suddenly nuance appears. Of course, since all of the events you listed, real or alleged, also had some minuscule numbers of non-Arabs participating (purely by the law of large numbers), by this standard you would have to list them all instead of merely saying “Arabs”. But who said racists were consistent…

Nyet May 1, 2015 10:00:29am

BTW:

jcpa.org

The percentage of Druze serving in the IDF is proportional to their percentage in the general population — about 1.7 percent. So how many Druze are truly called to serve in the territories and conflict with the Palestinians? The percentage is negligible.

fizziks May 1, 2015 10:48:31am

re: #39 Nyet

Ok now that the namecalling has come out I’m going to take a break. I do want to commend you though for at least acknowleging the current genocide of the Yezidis and Assyrians and the recent ethnic cleansing of Jews from the ME. Most people on the far left simply revert to denial of these.

Nyet May 1, 2015 10:58:46am

re: #45 fizziks

Ok now that the namecalling has come out I’m going to take a break. I do want to commend you though for at least acknowleging the current genocide of the Yezidis and Assyrians and the recent ethnic cleansing of Jews from the ME. Most people on the far left simply revert to denial of these.

Well, I don’t consider myself to be far left even in the milder American sense (much less in the more “extreme” worldwide sense). I have a problem with Chavez fans, Ukraine-bashers and such, and I’ve seen plenty of them on the actual far left. Though of course it’s all relative. For the far right I’m probably far left.

And “racist” is not namecalling when one can substantiate the use of the label. As I did.

CuriousLurker May 1, 2015 11:08:05am

re: #46 Nyet

And “racist” is not namecalling when one can substantiate the use of the label. As I did.

Maybe he was referring to “doofus” in your #39.

Oh, the injustice. //

palomino May 1, 2015 5:14:11pm

Awww, the little gamer boys got their feelings hurt by those meanies, the SJWs.

So of course the natural response is to claim you were persecuted and that those who criticize you are like Nazis. From zero-to-self-Godwin in 4 seconds flat.

Not only is your post a sick joke with its Stormfront comparison, but you’re acting like a baby who just shit his diaper. Suck it up, the internet isn’t beanbag, it’s hardball. If you had just one percent of the intestinal fortitude of the fictional characters you play with, this conversation wouldn’t be occurring…because you’d be able to move on from your self-pity.

Congrats on figuring out that extremists on the left and right have some things in common. Most of us don’t figure that out until we’re about 10 years old. So you’ve done very well.

palomino May 1, 2015 6:00:55pm

re: #16 KiTA

The cure for misogyny is not misandry. And SJWs are not Feminists, they are trolls that use Feminism to bully and harass people.

Who the fuck made you the authority on what constitutes a real feminist?

You’re a toddler who can’t stand it when your own little community/subculture gets criticized on the internet. Tough shit. Welcome to the world that the rest of the human race lives in.

fizziks May 1, 2015 7:59:52pm

People are behaving ridiculously.

I don’t play video games and I am not involved in Gamergate. However I have nothing against those that do and are.

It seems that the individuals commenting with such hysterical hostility here don’t even understand that SJWs and the far-left generally are actually a much larger phenomenon than just the reaction to Gamergate. If those individuals would actually follow the link and play the game they would see that many of the far-left comments highlighted don’t even involve gender issues in the first place. They are often about racial issues, for example calls for racially segregated schools and opposition to mixed-race relationships, which are indeed eerily similar to Stormfront.

So, if anyone wants to engage with the actual ideas here - of the convergence of rhetoric - and positions in regard to the four broad issues I mentioned - between the far left and the far right, that would be great.

Nyet May 2, 2015 12:11:01am

Everybody here understands that debating such things with people, who themselves engage in hate speech about whole ethnic groups, is pretty useless.

palomino May 2, 2015 1:25:35am

re: #50 fizziks

What’s ridiculous is to lump SJWs in with white supremacists.

The game you find so fascinating is absurd. The quotes have so many blanks and ellipses that any meaning has been removed. And big fucking deal if you found stupid comments on the far left. Do you think you just uncovered something special that no one knew about? Anyone who’s spent 5 minutes on political sites knows there are millions of moronic comments from all kinds of people out there.

As for racism, are the SJWs making a broad argument that whites and blacks shouldn’t marry because whites are inferior? Of course not. How disingenuous of you to suggest as much.

You may think SJWs are full of shit. But their movement isn’t based on Nazi race ideology. And the notion of fighting for social justice isn’t inherently depraved like the racial theories spread by neo-Nazis. You’re overreacting to the SJWs. Just like most whites did during the 50s and 60s when they first saw the civil rights movement and thought, “OMG, what a bunch of dangerous socialist agitators.” Calm down, SJWs haven’t done a fucking thing to take away any of your rights. And they aren’t coming to haul you off to a (FEMA?) camp either. Put your obvious passion to good use and find something real to get so pissed off about.

Nyet May 2, 2015 2:24:59am

re: #52 palomino

Indeed. Since fizziks is a pro-Israel advocate, maybe this analogy will be more understandable: if we search around Arutz Sheva, Pam Geller’s blog, Breitbart and other such ultra-far-right resources, we will be able to quickly gather hundreds of comments about Arabs/Palestinians by ostensibly pro-Israel people, which, had they been written about Jews, could have come from Stormfront. Such comments not quite seldom include veiled (and sometimes even open) calls for genocide/wholesale slaughter, to say nothing of “mere” rampant racism. If one made screenshots of such comments and made a “game” out of them named “Pro-Israel or Stormfront?”, I think fizziks would be the first one to object (and rightfully so). That he doesn’t see how this is the same thing that he is doing is … curious.

fizziks May 2, 2015 9:53:19am

re: #53 Nyet

Alright, now we’re getting somewhere! Thank you for producing the first substantive reply in this entire thread.

You have raised a question of crucial importance in the internet age, which is to what extent comments and web postings assumed to be by the rank-and-file should be taken as indicative of the pathologies and dangers posed by political movements?

The consensus at Little Green Footballs seems to be that indeed comments and tweets eminating from the right wing of American politics should be taken as indicative of the dangers posed by that segment of the political spectrum. For example, these front page postings are based primarily on raising the alarm about anonymous comments which appear on right wing websites:

here
here
here
here
here
and of course many others.

Then there are the front page postings which point to ridiculous articles and tweets by (not necessarily prominent) right wingers as indicative of rot within the movement, recent examples of which include:

here
here
here
and of course many others.

And then there is the constant highlighting of the insane rantings of Charles C. Johnson (22.4K followers, less than 1/10th the followers of, for example, Louis Farrakhan), which is taken implicitly or even explicitly to be indicative of ideological rot within the American right. I trust I don’t have to link to examples of that, since there is always one or more at the top of the front page.

And you know what? I agree that what appears on blogs and comment boards is potentially relevant in evaluating the rationality and fitness of a political movement.

So if comments and articles that appear on right-wing blogs and articles are appropriate fodder for evaluating the rationality and fitness of the contemporary American (far) right, why is the same not true for the contemporary American (far) left? For every quote the ‘Stormfront or SJW’ web game links to the site in question. You can see that those sites appear to be sincere in, for example, their desire for racially segregated schools, their opposition to interracial relationships, their calls for legislation against or even culling ‘cis’ people, their calls to ‘abolish’ prisons, and so on. I believe that these opinions are relevant in evaluating what the far left means in the context of contemporary politics.

wrenchwench May 2, 2015 9:59:06am

re: #54 fizziks

The consensus at Little Green Footballs seems to be

Only trolls use that phrase.

fizziks May 2, 2015 10:24:19am

re: #55 wrenchwench

So no desire to engage with the question of whether comments and web postings assumed to be by the rank-and-file should be taken as indicative of the pathologies and dangers posed by political movements? You’re just going to dismiss anything that makes you slightly question your assumptions as being the result of ‘trolls’?

wrenchwench May 2, 2015 10:26:08am

re: #56 fizziks

So no desire to engage with the question of whether comments and web postings assumed to be by the rank-and-file should be taken as indicative of the pathologies and dangers posed by political movements? You’re just going to dismiss anything that makes you slightly question your assumptions as being the result of ‘trolls’?

When did you make me question my assumptions? What are they?

fizziks May 2, 2015 10:29:34am

re: #57 wrenchwench

How about a substantive response to comment #54? Should comments and web postings assumed to be by the rank-and-file be taken as indicative of the pathologies and dangers posed by political movements? If yes (which is my position), then the critique of the far left that I’ve brought up here is valid. If not, however, then much of the content of the front page of LGF is invalid.

Charles Johnson May 2, 2015 10:36:52am

re: #58 fizziks

It’s ridiculous to suggest an equivalence between what appears in comments at every single right wing site and a few cherry-picked comments from liberal sites. The simple fact is that you’re talking about a tidal wave of hate speech on RW sites versus a six-inch shore break at liberal sites.

There is NO comparison.

And by the way, fuck this “SJW ” bullshit. If it’s intended to be an insult, it fails miserably. There is nothing wrong with supporting social justice.

FemNaziBitch May 2, 2015 10:50:05am

this

Please remember when talking Social Justice, one is talking about MY rights.

I do take this seriously. Label me as you will. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness are my birthright —I will not be quiet.

EPR-radar May 2, 2015 10:53:11am

re: #58 fizziks

How about a substantive response to comment #54? Should comments and web postings assumed to be by the rank-and-file be taken as indicative of the pathologies and dangers posed by political movements? If yes (which is my position), then the critique of the far left that I’ve brought up here is valid. If not, however, then much of the content of the front page of LGF is invalid.

Come on now, the answer is obvious. Right wing nut jobs on the internet don’t have much significance on their own. They are significant mainly because they are a leading indicator of where the GOP will be going in its ever-increasing extremism.

Since there is no comparable mechanism on the left for getting extreme-left ideas into the mainstream, this analogy fails miserably.

CuriousLurker May 2, 2015 11:20:20am

re: #55 wrenchwench

Only trolls use that phrase.

It’s really weird, the desire (need?) to show up at other people’s blogs to patronizingly shake your finger & tsk at the people there for not being in agreement with you. I mean, seriously, WordPress is free—you can register a domain for $10 or less, get a basic shared hosting account for $5 per month, and then start your own blog.

Can’t afford it or don’t have the know-how? WordPress offers a free version hosted on their servers. Blogger is free. Oh wait, but fizziks already knows that because he’s been on Blogger since 2007 and posting at The Progressive Zionist since 2011 (the same year he flounced from DKos).

You see, there’s a clique of about half a dozen current & former DKosers who, in addition to having become members of LGF, are also involved with The Progressive Zionist blog—which was created by Kravmavolley—as well as other pro-Israel blogs.

There’s nothing wrong with being a pro-Israel advocate, but not stating such up-front and instead trying to discredit others’ sincere and well thought out opinions is intellectually dishonest. That sort of behavior doesn’t benefit Israel any more than Muslim advocates refusing to acknowledge that violent extremism exists benefits Islam.

Nyet May 2, 2015 11:25:42am

re: #54 fizziks

You haven’t, really, produced any critique worth addressing.

You merely posted a link to someone’s site without any attempt at analysis. You have ignored the fact that many of the alleged quotes are but screenshots and are anonymous (anybody could have written them).

You ignored the difference between far-/hard-left and what you call “SJWs” (they are not equivalent; far-/hard-left can easily be sexist, homophobic, racist etc. - quite possibly some of those quotes come from non-“SJW” far-left).

You haven’t actually tried to ascertain whether the quotes are coming from the left at all (a black nationalist quote is not an automatically a left-wing quote, neither is an extremist quote from an alleged trans person, unless you mean that all trans persons are left-wing (Bruce Jenner begs to differ)).

Finally, you have failed to show the relevance. When we point out the behavior of the Breitbart commenters, the “hate density” is pretty much undeniable. You observe 1 thread and see hundreds of hate comments.

What’s the frequency of your alleged quotes? Right, we don’t know, because there was no attempt to count at all. 10 hate comments out of 3000 is not the same as 1000 hate-filled comments out of 3000.

That you yourself have been caught engaging in racist hate speech is but the icing on the cake.

Nyet May 2, 2015 11:27:01am

For the record: leftynyc of that blog has been nothing but an upstanding Lizard here.

CuriousLurker May 2, 2015 11:28:17am

re: #64 Nyet

For the record: leftynyc of that blog has been nothing but an upstanding Lizard here.

Agreed, that’s why I didn’t mention that nic (or others).

Aye Pod May 2, 2015 1:36:34pm

Attack of the manbabies!

fizziks May 3, 2015 8:42:38am

It is obvious from the desperate sarcastic tone and refuge to ad hominem criticisms that you all actually do, beneath the surface, recognize that I have a very good point, even though I didn’t initially set out to make it. It is simply inconsistent to make an industry of taking the extremist comments and tweets of the right wing as evidence of fundamental pathology within that movement, while dismissing the extremist content of the left wing as irrelevant.

There have been two attempted justifications for this inconsistency, one of which is a total logical fallacy and one of which is less so.

Most of your attempted justifications for this inconsistency have been based on the no true scotsman logical fallacy, claiming that those opinions encountered do not represent the ‘true’ left. The left only consists of what you want it to, and also of course anything posted on the internet could be from anyone. But if this applies to the left, then it most certainly applies to the right. There are certainly many right wingers who would claim that certain offensive viewpoints do not represent the ‘true’ right, or that no particular comment could be proven to be from a ‘true’ Conservative. I would find this defense to be inadequate to account for the extremism encountered from their movement, and likewise I find it an inadequate defense of the far left.

The other attempted justification for the double standard, which unlike the no true scotsman fallacy is not immediately dismissible, is that the magnitude of the problem is simply worse on the right than it is on the left. I actually agree with this as far as it goes. But it is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. What do you believe is the ratio of severity? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? If dozens of postings on the front page highlighting anonymous comments on right wing blogs is justified, then certainly one single posting highlighting anonymous comments on left wing blogs should not be so hysterically fought.

Charles Johnson May 3, 2015 11:56:08am

re: #67 fizziks

What do you believe is the ratio of severity? 5 to 1? 10 to 1?

I’d estimate it at about 100,000 to 1, and I’m not kidding.

The rest of your comment, meh. Declaring victory because people pushed back against your absurd comparison is tedious.

CuriousLurker May 3, 2015 12:41:47pm

re: #67 fizziks

It is obvious from the desperate sarcastic tone and refuge to ad hominem criticisms that you all actually do, beneath the surface, recognize that I have a very good point, even though I didn’t initially set out to make it. It is simply inconsistent to make an industry of taking the extremist comments and tweets of the right wing as evidence of fundamental pathology within that movement, while dismissing the extremist content of the left wing as irrelevant.

Trying to have an open, honest discussion with one such as yourself is impossible because you didn’t come here for that, despite your protestations to the contrary. You’re utterly blind to yourself.

Your rather stunning ability to desperately cling to your narrative is only matched by your chutzpah in coming to a well-established blog belonging to some else only to complain about the owner’s choice of content. That you also choose to berate anyone who disagrees with you is less surprising, as are your attempts to justify your clearly expressed racism & bigotry (rather than acknowledging it for what it is). These things, when added up, say a great deal more about you than they do about us.

Your predictable obnoxiousness is boring. Go away.

EPR-radar May 3, 2015 1:07:47pm

re: #67 fizziks

…

The other attempted justification for the double standard, which unlike the no true scotsman fallacy is not immediately dismissible, is that the magnitude of the problem is simply worse on the right than it is on the left. I actually agree with this as far as it goes. But it is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. What do you believe is the ratio of severity? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? If dozens of postings on the front page highlighting anonymous comments on right wing blogs is justified, then certainly one single posting highlighting anonymous comments on left wing blogs should not be so hysterically fought.

As correctly indicated up-thread, this ratio is more like 100,000 to 1. In fact, this is a textbook example of a difference in degree that is so large as to became a difference in kind.

RWNJs are just about in full control of the Republican party, which may well win full power at the federal level in 2016.

Meanwhile, LWNJs exist, but no evidence has been provided of them having any real power.

Nyet May 3, 2015 2:13:45pm

re: #67 fizziks

It is obvious from the desperate sarcastic tone and refuge to ad hominem criticisms that you all actually do, beneath the surface, recognize that I have a very good point, even though I didn’t initially set out to make it. It is simply inconsistent to make an industry of taking the extremist comments and tweets of the right wing as evidence of fundamental pathology within that movement, while dismissing the extremist content of the left wing as irrelevant.

It is also inconsistent calling this out while ignoring own racist hate speech.

There have been two attempted justifications for this inconsistency, one of which is a total logical fallacy and one of which is less so.

Most of your attempted justifications for this inconsistency have been based on the no true scotsman logical fallacy, claiming that those opinions encountered do not represent the ‘true’ left.

Really? Can you cite any such justification as allegedly used here? Because I don’t see it. Seems like you’re building a big strawman there. (Not the bees!)

What has actually been pointed out is that:

1. You haven’t bothered to check whether all quotes do indeed stem from “the left”. They may, but you haven’t shown it. I did actually click on some source links and wasn’t convinced that they all come from the left. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s your job to prove your case.

2. You have very deliberately confused “SJWs” and “the left”. Not all “left” are what you call “SJWs”. These are not synonyms. Your title is about “SJWs” but you have yet to show that all alleged quotes come specifically from the “SJW” subset of “the left” - which you would have to do after performing step 1.

The left only consists of what you want it to, and also of course anything posted on the internet could be from anyone. But if this applies to the left, then it most certainly applies to the right. There are certainly many right wingers who would claim that certain offensive viewpoints do not represent the ‘true’ right, or that no particular comment could be proven to be from a ‘true’ Conservative.

That’s where the frequencies come into play. There have been attempts by the wingnuts to claim false flag (even false flag done by LGFers, heh), but the sheer numbers of the comments (and the fact that they’re often left by prolific users with thousands of comments on their record, posting them at dozens of conservative sites) pretty much precludes this silly CT. So this issue has been raised and answered before - many times.

This is of course incomparable with a dozen or so cherrypicked comments even if one assumed their content unambiguously puts them into the left-wing or “SJW” camp (which it often doesn’t).

I would find this defense to be inadequate to account for the extremism encountered from their movement, and likewise I find it an inadequate defense of the far left.

Of course the situations are not at all analogous.

The other attempted justification for the double standard, which unlike the no true scotsman fallacy is not immediately dismissible, is that the magnitude of the problem is simply worse on the right than it is on the left. I actually agree with this as far as it goes. But it is a difference in degree and not a difference in kind. What do you believe is the ratio of severity? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? If dozens of postings on the front page highlighting anonymous comments on right wing blogs is justified, then certainly one single posting highlighting anonymous comments on left wing blogs should not be so hysterically fought.

I would actually welcome any reasoned page about that. I have many problems with lots of far-left rhetoric. E.g. I almost gave up on reading dailykos after I saw the level of support for Chavez there. So if someone (not you; that ship has sailed) made a page about this, showing that such comments appear often enough and are made by prominent users, and if that page didn’t contain idiotic hyperbole, I might upding. Same with their rhetoric about Israel, etc. (I can speak only for myself, of course.)

You, on the other hand, posted a half-baked page with problematic sources (as I have outlined in an earlier comment) and with unreasonable hyperbole to boot. That kind of thing doesn’t really fly here.

CuriousLurker May 3, 2015 2:56:06pm

re: #67 fizziks

If dozens of postings on the front page highlighting anonymous comments on right wing blogs is justified, then certainly one single posting highlighting anonymous comments on left wing blogs should not be so hysterically fought.

I hate this kind of crap—it reminds me of the old LGF. You’re using familiar tactics, attempting to paint push-back as apologia. You’re also mischaracterizing the responses you got. While you may not have liked the tone of some of the responses, no one was “hysterically” fighting against a post highlighting extreme comments on left-wing blogs—stop trying to create melodrama already, it makes you look foolish.

Here’s what actually happened, as can easily be verified by carefully re-reading the thread.:

Comment #1: KiTA immediately jumped in with a grudge that’s apparently still being held over having been pummeled for defending GamerGaters a while back.

Comment #2: Push-back from RadicalModerate over the comparison of SJWs to neo-Nazis, not denial or hysteria over someone pointing out extreme comments on left-wing blogs. Also a reference to GG in response to KiTA.

Comment #3: GamerGaters again, this time by AyaReiko.

Comment #4: Sergey (Nyet) acknowledges that “sometimes the hard left and the hard right are very alike.” He then points out some of your own rhetoric.

Comment #5: Sergey responds to RadicalModerate regarding GamerGaters—it has nothing to do with the subject of your post.

Comment #6 - #13: More GG crap. *sigh*

Comment #14: Another member, iossarian, chimes in. Like RadicalModerate he pushes back over the comparison of SJWs to neo-Nazis and explains why. There is no hysteria, denial, double standard, or logical fallacy there.

Comment #15 - #20: Yet more KiTA-related melodrama.

Comment #21: Black d20 says, “Not news, needs pruning.”

Comment #22: GG

Comment #23: You return, opening with, “Wow, the reaction to this is incredible, and ridiculous.” You say:

At no point here did I claim that neo-Nazis and SJWs were the same or represented the same level of threat. I even said (highlighting for emphasis now):

I think this is such a great illustration of the recent partial convergence of rhetoric and ideas between the far left and the far right

You used loaded language guaranteed to provoke a strong response, then you get pissed when it did and claimed innocence because you qualified it by saying “partial convergence”—seriously?

So tell me, would you be okay with someone comparing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa under apartheid as long as only “partial convergence” was asserted? I’m guessing probably not.

You then proceed to take umbrage at those who disagreed with you, claiming falsely that no one acknowledged far-right/far-left convergence (see #4, #14) and completely ignoring the fact that the objections were—let me repeat myself—to your comparison of SJWs to neo-Nazis, not a denial of the rhetoric.

Things pretty much went downhill from there because thanks in large part to your mischaracterizations about what had been said. You were being intellectually dishonest and lashing out at people for not falling in line and agreeing with everything you said, and you even claimed that your bigotry & racism isn’t bigotry & racism at all because what you said about Arabs is The Truth™. That’s the response of every bigot and racist who ever drew a breath. It’s the response used by Islamophobes to excuse anti-Muslim bigotry and to claim that there’s no such thing as Islamophobia. It’s the excuse antisemites use to justify their hatred of Jews.

You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

If you want civil, reasoned discourse here, drop the hyperbole and try responding like a grown-up instead of blameshifting & throwing a tantrum.

fizziks May 3, 2015 9:32:06pm

I just absolutely don’t agree that the ratio is 100,000 to 1 or anything that large, but if you believe that to be the case then I certainly see how you would not think that they are in any way comparable. We’re going to disagree on this ratio and it is beyond the scope of anything we can do here now to change each others’ mind on this number. Perhaps one or both of us will revise our estimate as we are exposed to more internet. I think this thread is probably now dead.