UKIP MEP candidate caught up in racial slur scandal

[Monsieur Verdoux]

nah

[Buelligan]

It was a blunt and irrelevant way, though. The issue at hand wasn't male over-representation in parliament, but Jess was desperate to make it about that, using motte and bailey techniques, as I said earlier.

I think if you listen again you'll find that suicides were not the source of her mirth.  You might as well say she was laughing at the thought that a cunt like Davies has to share his life with Esther McVey, I mean that's pretty fucking dark and it may well be true but that's not what she said (which is the only evidence we can judge this on).

[sponk]

I think if you listen again you'll find that suicides were not the source of her mirth.

Not sure what gave you the impression that I thought it was. I just linked the video, I didn't title it. I know she wasn't laughing at male suicide.

Anyway, Sargon talks in more detail about his Tweet to JP here, 4:45 in. I definitely agree that he's more loathsome than Philips in every way.

[Buelligan]

No, I'm not talking about you, I'm saying that this is the way it was portrayed (to me and, I assume, others).

[Monsieur Verdoux]

i mean Jess Phillips' actions are irrelevant unless they were equivalent to or arguably justified Carl's rape tweet, which they were not and did not

[Replies From View]

Poor little Tommy Milkshake with his little legs.

[jobotic]

I clicked on that. Look at the vermin in the comments. I got loads of mysoginist links now.

Davies is Philip Davies (I clicked off)? I'd laugh at that piece of shit's fake concern for anything, whether or not that's what Phillips was doing. I bet he really cares about men who take their own lives due to poverty. Cries himself to sleep.

[TrenterPercenter]

Autopsy Turvey - I've basically taken your first two comments and expanded as this is in my opinion the fundemental nub of what we are talking about.  If you want me to answer the other points please be assured I can and will but everything gets lost in this scatter gun approach - if there is one of them though you feel is quite pressing then let me know which one (i mean do we really need to talk about why socialism? here?)

Well standing for election involves getting up off of one's fat arse, and while I agree reading, writing and talking does not count as 'real graft'

I'm not saying that reading and writing is graft?!  Standing for election is arguable less graft in many ways.   The problem is thus.

You can think of him in terms of cult or church were there are overarching superthemes (misogyny, racism, masculinity, western superiority, elitism, dominance), supporting these mentally stimulating topics are a set of propositions and argument that allow the audience to build some psychological distance to these themes, engage with them at a perceive safe distance but enjoy their stimulating properties.  When you were a kid you likely experienced similar sensations...doing things you shouldn't do, provoking responses from people (e.g. getting a bigger boy to chase you at school, smashing something you shouldn't, engaging in bullying even though a bit of you felt uncomfortable with it).  The propositions/questions he sets are hollow and contradictory but engaging, that is the point, it allows you to imagine bad behaviours without committing yourself to an action that would indeed be horrible.  "He is just asking questions" no HE isn't, that doesn't mean there isn't any questions to had on the topics, there are however rules of engagement with such topics, language is important not just for the offence it might create but for accuracy and evaluation.

You must also be aware then that there are lots of people on the left who suffer from mental health problems. Perhaps it's different because more of them are women.  It's not that I "don't want" to hear it, but I don't think "all he's doing is making money off mentally ill losers" is a strong or fair rebuttal.

You are trying to say something here but you are being obtuse.  There are lots of people taking advantage of lots peoples poor mental health to differing degrees and severity.  Women? yes of course, being told you are only worth something by dint of your attractiveness and designing marketing to sell products to women vulnerable to that manipulation is psychologically immoral imo.  More severe,  people selling women that cannot have children expensive treatments that won't work, capitalising on their emotional vulnerabilities.  This is more psychologically immoral imo.

This betrays the Carl mindset I might be doing x that is bad but look at the feminists and lefties.  Look at the way you wilfully just exaggerated my argument to something about mentally ill losers, for what purpose? everyone can read what I said and how it was carefully directed to Carl manipulating mental ill health in men, there was never any mention of "loser" was there, so why did YOU put that in?  Just stop and think about it for a second, why did YOU create that particular word and place it in your interpretation of what is being spoken about?

I've got almost 20 years experience working in mental health, forward facing in the community and upstairs academias at a red brick.  It is complicated if you want to talk about male mental health I can have that conversation with you. Carl is not having that conversation with you, he is using it, it is a con.  If you just want to centre on this we can, it is important but it needs to be discussed from a broader lens than a YT "personality". 

I'm following Carl's pronouncements because I've grown up around left-wing thought, I've heard those arguments to the exclusion of all others...most of the media I consume, always with this smug assumption of correctness and the vague threat that anyone who diverges from the group-hug will be cast out, unengaged-with, unpersoned and/or forced to find work elsewhere. Eventually I got sick of hearing the same perspectives and started looking for voices on the other side of the argument.

This is exactly what I am talking to about.  You have hit the crux of it.

Everyone is looking for value and worth and one such route is acceptance into groups. Fear of loss of status and potential expulsion from groups (further being denigrated by them) are of course anxiety promoting and unattended this anxiety in the right circumstances moves to anger and aggression. 

Let me just explain briefly and in lay psychological terms and then in slightly more complicated terms; anxiety is an uncomfortable feeling that informs us that potentially (very important to understand not all emotions are correct)  a resolution is needed in order to deal with this discomfort, that is to say, that anxiety is a heightened biological state, it is not a behaviour itself, it is an internal state of stimulation to potential action that cascades into behaviour to resolve it's bipolarity (not to be confused with bipolar the illness).

Think of car with fuel in the tank.  It can use that potential energy to go forward or reverse, the energy in the fuel does not dictate the motion, the driver dictates the motion by applying the fuel to the function (behaviour) they desire.

Now generally there are two instinctive responses to excess anxiety (a hormonal cascade of two chemicals adrenaline and cortisol) which you will have heard fight or flight (if you are interested in this stuff and want a less schlocky way of describing this then look up the HPA axis (which is in your body right now doing lots of amazing things) for a more advance explanation).  Essentially your body has just filled its tank of fuel, the difference being that fuel without combustion is relatively inert sitting in its tank the energy in the form of glucose release by the abundance of adrenaline and cortisol in the body are not, it wants to be used and brain responds with another chemical called dopamine as a reward for any behaviour perceived to remove this excess energy.  It is a dynamic, adaptive (i.e. learning) system.

Now why have I just bothered to give a brief 101 of endocrinology?

An evangelist preacher will tell people of threats inducing the activation of this HPA axis, they will sustain the idea of this threat continuing the internal state (invoking spirits, screaming, shouting etcc...), then they will direct that energy toward a behaviour........hating gays or more often to donate money.

Carl creates a threat, he shouts, he embellishs, he exagerrates,  he sternly tells you how intolerable this this or that person is, and implies how they think YOU are a loser, he takes you and your HPA on a ride that makes you angry but stimulated at the same time, then he gives you the resolution your overworked neurobiology needs: HATE, hate this group, hate that group, other them, the world will be better, we'll all feel better if we just stopped those damned lefties and feminists that think they are all better than us controlling us.

And that's it.  How he got to that position, what motivates him (money imo, but I very much imagine he felt excluded from leftist culture).  This is the psychology of fascism and of course for anyone who hasn't made those neurobiological leaps to benefit from this confected psychodrama it seems bizarre and unintelligible.  This is not just feature of Carl is a feature of the currency of YT click means $ and spiking peoples adrenal means more views, more clicks, more donations just as it did for the evangelists of the past and present.

I know this isn't going to sufficient for you, I am only describing the point when you got there, you likely feel you came to him, he was just there saying the stuff you needed/wanted to hear.  Well this likely true, I have empathy for anyone that feels excluded from groups but here is the thing though, what you are talking about isn't about the left.  Identity politics and a surrounding culture of elitism are two different things.  I've worked with loads of "right on" people, I don't trust them, invariably they are not good people but that is exactly because they are not good lefties, they are generally centre-right people that have accepted racism is bad but wouldn't live in area with lots of ethnic minorities but they haven't understood why class is fundamental to humans as social beings.


Anyway I hope you find time to read this, think about it, apply it to what you see of him, if you disentangle yourself you should be able to see these things emerge from him.

[Autopsy Turvey]

When you were a kid you likely experienced similar sensations...doing things you shouldn't do, provoking responses from people (e.g. getting a bigger boy to chase you at school, smashing something you shouldn't, engaging in bullying even though a bit of you felt uncomfortable with it).

I was an unbelievably good child, believe it or not, the worst trouble I got in was writing the names of some Auf Wiedersehen Pet characters in a school dictionary and I still have no idea why I did it, no one was likely to be impressed. I was once told off for dipping crisps in cocoa, but I couldn't see why anyone else would care and I burned with indignation. Perhaps it all stems from there!

that doesn't mean there isn't any questions to had on the topics, there are however rules of engagement with such topics, language is important not just for the offence it might create but for accuracy and evaluation.

Ahh, but who sets the rules of engagement? And have not the rules of polite and respectful engagement been pretty much eradicated by the internet at large? I mean yours is the first reasonable attempt I've seen to engage with the subject of not necessarily loathing this disgusting fat-faced manbaby fascist cunt, although you're basically explaining very nicely and calmly that the people who think he might have a point are off their chumps, heh.

You are trying to say something here but you are being obtuse.  There are lots of people taking advantage of lots peoples poor mental health to differing degrees and severity.  Women? yes of course, being told you are only worth something by dint of your attractiveness and designing marketing to sell products to women vulnerable to that manipulation is psychologically immoral imo.

Well now y'see, firstly I don't think anyone believes, let alone says, that women are only worth something by dint of their attractiveness, and I suspect that so much marketing goes into women's products because a majority of women seem to demand, value and enjoy their products. I once interviewed a band of musicians all of whom are women, and I asked what their career highlight was, having been told to strenuously avoid all those clodhopping questions like 'What's it like being all women?' and her career highlight was that she had found a band who were all women, and they could talk about and share make-up and clothes and gossip. My editor, a man, refused to allow that bit to be printed. Even though it may have pleased many female readers to know that female musicians are also interested in such things, even if male feminists do think they are shallow and trivial capitalist fripperies.

More severe,  people selling women that cannot have children expensive treatments that won't work, capitalising on their emotional vulnerabilities.  This is more psychologically immoral imo.

Well absolutely, good grief.

Look at the way you wilfully just exaggerated my argument to something about mentally ill losers, for what purpose? everyone can read what I said and how it was carefully directed to Carl manipulating mental ill health in men, there was never any mention of "loser"

Ha! Yeah but this is the common perception in, what shall we say, 'anti-Carl' circles, that he is talking to sad-sack incel manbaby mother's basement-dwelling stinkers looking for vulnerable scapegoats to blame for their own lack of social awareness. You didn't say that in so many words of course, but it's a prejudice that everyone has happily signed up for, and know to be true. And they might be right for all I know, I've never met any of his fans, and I don't wholly recognise myself in this stereotype, even if I too have a disgusting fat neckbeardy manbaby cunt face.

Now why have I just bothered to give a brief 101 of endocrinology?

Dunno, but thanks!

he takes you and your HPA on a ride that makes you angry but stimulated at the same time, then he gives you the resolution your overworked neurobiology needs: HATE, hate this group, hate that group, other them, the world will be better, we'll all feel better if we just stopped those damned lefties and feminists that think they are all better than us controlling us.

Hate!! I've never heard Carl get actively hateful (except towards the alt-right), it's more ridicule than hate, and often these people are already self-othered. Presumably this also works the other way round, for the people whose HPA have been so taken for a ride by Buzzfeed and Vice and every other major news source that they're out flinging milkshakes and screaming for removal of platforms from the people they HATE who are offering to sit down and talk to them?

This is not just feature of Carl is a feature of the currency of YT click means $ and spiking peoples adrenal means more views, more clicks, more donations just as it did for the evangelists of the past and present.

I see them more as just columnists really, who read their work out loud, and presumably this adrenal-spiking thing is all over polemics generally. Tim Pool is arguably a worse offender in this adrenal regard, even though he's a blandly moderate centre-left social liberal, he's responsible for more hours of irritated despair about the 'fringe whackaloons on the regressive left' than Sargon, Dankula and that Watson one put together.

I know this isn't going to sufficient for you, I am only describing the point when you got there, you likely feel you came to him, he was just there saying the stuff you needed/wanted to hear.

Bless you, no I was directed to him really by a teacher friend of mine who's in Momentum and was drumming up support to shut down a talk by someone called 'Sargon Of Akkad' for being a mouthpiece of the far-right. What's all this! I thought. So I went to find who he was. I'm still compiling the case against, but most of the evidence suggests Carl has far less in common with the far-right than the far-left do, that he is a bitter enemy of the alt-right, and that he's potentially acted as a moderating influence on youngsters who might have been turned further right as a reaction against all the Ricks from The Young Oneses in higher education, modern media and tech platforms.

Well this likely true, I have empathy for anyone that feels excluded from groups but here is the thing though, what you are talking about isn't about the left.  Identity politics and a surrounding culture of elitism are two different things.

I am an amused observer of left vs right enmity since the days of Thatcher and Kinnock and family parties diverted into entertaining debates between self-employed small businesspeople and public sector workers, everyone enjoyed the sparring and respected differences. Happy days. It's hard to disagree with the left in public now, because the left have concluded that if you disagree with them (or vice versa) on any number of complex issues, and express yourself without contrition, you are an 'objectively terrible/vile' person with 'horrible views'. This is the left, as far as I can see; identity politics isn't necessarily a left-wing concept of course, given that the only straight white men who are proud of their straight white manness are your actual fascists.

Anyway I hope you find time to read this, think about it, apply it to what you see of him, if you disentangle yourself you should be able to see these things emerge from him.

I'm not entangled squire, I'm not voting for him (or anyone), I'm not attending his 'rallies', I've never given him any money (or anyone else if I can help it), and I've never dared to whisper any form of support for him anywhere outside this of all forums. I have a lefty elitist inside me insisting that he's clearly on the wrong side of history, but I also have a little English part of me that isn't convinced that's a good thing. Bearing in mind that I have a quite bizarrely mixed background, I could have ended up living in any number of countries aged 4, and I can't deny I am delighted that my parents chose to settle in Britain and that I could become British.

[touchingcloth]

Not sure what gave you the impression that I thought it was. I just linked the video, I didn't title it. I know she wasn't laughing at male suicide.

Anyway, Sargon talks in more detail about his Tweet to JP here, 4:45 in. I definitely agree that he's more loathsome than Philips in every way.

This still makes me rage. Imagine thinking that "I said I wouldn't rape you, ahhhh" is a valid argument or defence, like a teenager saying "ahhh, you said don't make a mess AND bully my sister, but I only bullied her and I didn't make a mess, ahhhhh, should of said 'or', dad, ahhhhhhhhhh".

I'm not sure what that debating setup was all about. Taking place at a Tolkien conference? Sargon of Akkad, I fucking ask you.

[Buelligan]

Plus, he has eyes like Pepe the Frog but unattractive.

[TrenterPercenter]

Perhaps it all stems from there!

I mean this is really something for the desolation thread, but it wasn't really about being bad rather sensation seeking, which is an evolved phenomena of adolescents.  It is to do with developing brain chemistry, you've watched a film, you've had strong emotion (you displayed them to some degree upthread) so you know what I am talking about.

Ahh, but who sets the rules of engagement? And have not the rules of polite and respectful engagement been pretty much eradicated by the internet at large?

Well exactly The World<--The Internet<--Sargon<--The Viewer is just one way of organising this particular flow of information, these are superstructures (that is Marxism btw) or environments that dictate the rules of engagement at each level.  This is very interesting, its a side fascination of mine (Communication Theory).

I mean yours is the first reasonable attempt I've seen to engage with the subject of not necessarily loathing this disgusting fat-faced manbaby fascist cunt, although you're basically explaining very nicely and calmly that the people who think he might have a point are off their chumps, heh.

No, I think he is fat-faced fascist cunt, a shit one, but one all the same.  I'm just explaining how the grift works.  I don't however think people that listen to him are off their chumps (good medical term that), i just have professional training in people and their brains, it is certainly not about being off your chumps.
 
People are generally tired of having to go through this every time some edgy fuckwit comes along claiming to have captured the zeitgeist, it takes up space, room and energy when people want to get onto the real problems in the world -which arguably need more energy than we can give anyway.  I am just a bit more patient and have and interest in the psychological side of things.

Well now y'see, firstly I don't think anyone believes, let alone says, that women are only worth something by dint of their attractiveness

Nonsense.  Moderate your standpoint and we'll have a proper discussion about this but saying it that no one believes this is rank idiocy.  There are varying degrees of which such a mindset might compete with other equally oppressive thoughts about women, and there maybe nicer thoughts that might reside alongside them (a husband that beats his wife might still buy her a birthday card) but suggesting that no-one believes or says this is empirically and factual provably false and to such degree that to believe in that premise you are either delusional, in denial OR not thinking about the language you employ.  You are wasting peoples time with this laziness.

I suspect that so much marketing goes into women's products because a majority of women seem to demand, value and enjoy their products. I once interviewed a band....

Ok well contrast your highly selective anecdote with the a large qualitative case study I completed 2 years ago on 20 eating disordered women and their carers in which one of the main themes was mediated body image and marketing?  There is a absolute wealth of evidence out there, as well as psychological models that can describe how marketing negatively affects body image. 

This again is the crux.  Women are not victim to societal based notions of attractiveness because? some anecdote about a female band that said something and then a male feminist stopped them being the real evidence that womens oppressive via looks doesn't exist.....

It's nonsense mate, get to the bottom of why YOU don't want this to be a real thing, reality is something very different.  Notice I have no need to say ALL women are victims to this, some, many, enjoy make-up etc... that is fuck all to do with an oppressive notion that attractiveness makes a women.  What about women that are not attractive by conventional standards?  Yeah nobody knows, because no-ones gives fuck, work in mental health environments mate and you'll see the fall out of this, women that have been made very ill by the belief they are not worth anything as they do not fit societies mediated paradigm (you may indeed find you have a lot in common).

I don't wholly recognise myself in this stereotype, even if I too have a disgusting fat neckbeardy manbaby cunt face.

Yet you just made a ridiculous ill thought out absolutist statement about women and society which is absolute typecast for incels.  Yes it is also very likely that because you share characteristics with Carl you give more creedance to his views - it's called vicarious learning.

Hate!! I've never heard Carl get actively hateful (except towards the alt-right), it's more ridicule than hate, and often these people are already self-othered.

Funny as I heard him hate on lots of people.  What you seem to be putting it down to is "jokes", yeah just like bullies say and do (it was more ridicule than hate i was going for I didn't mean any harm).  You know the rest of us you have ironically othered whilst moaning about being othered, we have got brains and we can digest what this guy is saying quite easily, its not hard to discern what he is about.  Simple fact is there is more evidence of his douchebaggery than anything else (I listen a few of his "debates" for UKIP and actually yes there was one that impressed me...the chap that was talking about internet pornography he actually handled the young guy really well, the rest of it was utter car crash pseudo intellectual bollocks)

I've listened to him a lot mate I know what he is about quite accurately, I've known about him since Gamergate days when I thought this is an interesting rift in the matrix what is going on here? I know people that have listened to him so i've heard this defence about him "not being alt-right, as the alt-right hate him".  Has it ever crossed your mind that petit fascists and maxi fascists might not be reliable witnesses to their own bad behaviour?  He uses the defence that what he says is no different from Frankie Boyle (his followers gleefully regurgitate it), but it is different isn't it?  Frankie Boyle is for one actually funny who clearly detests people like Carl, but more importantly he clearly denotes his comedy from his personal politics.  Frankie Boyle the political commentator is easily distinguishable from Frankie Boyle stand up, Carl is just Carl because his main audience are people that are only into jokes of a particular kind.

I see them more as just columnists really

Yes he is a shit sub-daily mail columnist.  He is literally no different, just replace "single mums" with SJWs.  I don't know who Tim Pool is but there are loads of offenders James O'Brien for one (also not on the left).

I'm still compiling the case against, but most of the evidence suggests Carl has far less in common with the far-right than the far-left do, that he is a bitter enemy of the alt-right

Yes the racist (yes i've watched his video on race realism where he said black people are genetically criminals), anti-feminist, anti-leftist, pro-free market, anti-Muslim, UKIP candidate (a party that going for the BNP vote and has employed Tommy Robinson as an advisor), that bangs on about cultural Marxism, that has endorsed; Trump, Le Pen and has been endorsed himself by Richard Spencer and The Daily Stormer as someone that "is a great entry point to the alt right". Isn't right-wing or related to the facets that currently make up right wing thought.

Is it possible, just possible that he is edging a position in the market for exactly as I said safe point for angry males watching to engage with a shitty world view without having to go straight to Stormfront.

But yeah, he has far less in common with the far-left.......which he ascribes as Corbyn ffs.  Yes because Corbyn is always going on right-wing talking points that invariably dip into far right thinking.

that he's potentially acted as a moderating influence on youngsters who might have been turned further right as a reaction against all the Ricks from The Young Oneses in higher education, modern media and tech platforms

Yes that is what he says isn't it.  We should all be thankful to him for being a gateway to far-right ideologies.  Listen to yourself man, Ricks from the young ones? you are clearly jealous or something, that is what he has tapped into, there is a very clear and understandable criticism of this from the left but you'll just sneer at it because it comes from the left.  You think HE, modern media and tech platforms are left wing?!  FFS most HE's are expressively right wing (there are a few LSE etc...), humanity departments are generally left-wing because, get this, left-wing economic thought and accompanying social study are very good concepts that work and have been tested and modelled.

Right now you have one of the biggest academic projects being rolled out in the UK on high pressure testing, brought in by Michael Gove.  This has previously been studied in the US for the last 10 years funded by the Gates foundation.  It is an expressively right-wing ideologically driven programme and it has failed massively in the US with the RAND Corp (that is an right-wing analytical organisation) finding in their evaluation that it would have been better to listen to teachers or do nothing at all.  That is a cohort of 10 years worth of children that have been affected by this in the US along, where is the fucking kick back against the social control of the right-wing??  Oh wait Bill Gates is left-wing isn't he because he isn't outwardly racist or something...  here have been loads of right-wing programme rolled out in the UK for the last 10 years and we are stuck with them because people like yourself have allowed yourself to be convinced that somehow the left has created these problems.  I mean the NHS Commissioning legislation has fucked up so much stuff but you don't know anything about it because the "lefty liberal media" that just happens to be run by right-wings is hiding it from you.   The information is out there but this is why people like Carl exist to distract and confuse what is going on.  Don't consider the real implications of devolving funding to local commissioning groups that could spunk all of the money on personal interests (btw its failed miserably and is currently being reverse to a degree), just keep whining about hand selected people on the internet that are against clapping with your hands.

There is a paucity of right-wing view points in the humanities because it 1) doesn't believe (quite ironically again in terms of FoS) that it doesn't exist and 2) we have evolved somewhat from a far-right world, one that believed in race realism, didn't allow ethnic minorities or women to vote.  Right-wing social commentaries essential revolve around nationalism/ethnicities etc... because there is nothing else really to consider in that world view.  Of course individualism is something but that doesn't translate into groups, or history of social groups (and is massively concerned for an individualist outlook with other peoples shit for some reason).  As mentioned in my previous post Carl believes in groups just groupings of his making i.e. racist racial groups and sexist sexual groups.   It isn't anyone fault but the right wing that they are not widely accepted in the oasis that is the Humanities but what do you want to do force bad ideas into the syllabus.  Sorry class Phrenology is complete bunkum but because there has been too much rational teachings on brain specificity we are going to balance it out with these regressive teachings.

PS - I also love the way you seem to think people in the lefty university are all sitting there in their berets wondering how they can worm some leftist dogmatism into the work they are doing.  Just think.  Is it possible people might not be telling you the truth.  You seem to have drank the kool aid that the veneer of civility that Capitalism has developed in order to distract from its contradictions is in fact the left-wing or some weird SJWs are the left or George Galloway is the left.

This is the left, as far as I can see; identity politics isn't necessarily a left-wing concept of course, given that the only straight white men who are proud of their straight white manness are your actual fascists.

No fascism is actually a very clear and highly studied area and it isn't about white males, it is about suppression of opposition (by violence if necessary), ultranationalism, economic and cultural authoritarianism, which is a watered down version of what you are engaging with.  Sorry you feel victimised for your white straight maleism and sure like I say everyone needs to be included but to hark on about it to the exclusion of more pressing matters is just the individualism evoked by fascists. 

[madhair60]

Plus, he has eyes like Pepe the Frog but unattractive.

Unlike Pepe himself, whose eyes are enchanting.

[sponk]

This still makes me rage. Imagine thinking that "I said I wouldn't rape you, ahhhh" is a valid argument or defence, like a teenager saying "ahhh, you said don't make a mess AND bully my sister, but I only bullied her and I didn't make a mess, ahhhhh, should of said 'or', dad, ahhhhhhhhhh".

I'm not sure what that debating setup was all about. Taking place at a Tolkien conference? Sargon of Akkad, I fucking ask you.

I thought Mr Smith raised a good point when he said "would you say that to a woman in person?" and Sargon floundered a bit. I think a better question would have been "would you say it to a child?" because if Sargon stood by his defense that the comment wasn't a threat and wasn't malicious, there would be no reason not to.

[Autopsy Turvey]

I mean this is really something for the desolation thread...you know what I am talking about.

Yeah no, the crisp thing was just light heartedness. Though I do remember thinking something like 'the state should butt out of my right to dunk'.

People are generally tired of having to go through this every time some edgy fuckwit comes along claiming to have captured the zeitgeist, it takes up space, room and energy when people want to get onto the real problems in the world

These are to an extent subjective, but it then behoves the opposition to explain to people why 'your problems are not real problems' in a compassionate and measured way, with bar-graphs. And if there is any fragment of a real problem in there worth addressing, then let's address it.

saying it that no one believes this is rank idiocy...  You are wasting peoples time with this laziness.

Whee! If you've worked extensively with the mentally ill you might have seen a disproportionate amount of what must be a lunatic fringe opinion, because it sounds a bit hyperbolic to me. I've known men to rank women in terms of physical attractiveness (and vice versa), but that doesn't mean they think the woman with the least 'sexy points' is worth nothing, surely? That would be psychopathic.

If you mean more broadly, that some girls feel downhearted by pictures of the impossibly attractive women employed to advertise suncream, they must have noticed that the sort of women chosen to advertise suncream don't look like anyone in the real world.

This again is the crux.  Women are not victim to societal based notions of attractiveness because? some anecdote about a female band

Societal based notions of attractiveness have and will always exist. Women as a whole are not 'victim' to it, there are presumably a few vulnerable outliers who will be affected by it mentally, but even the ugliest bastards can still find love and approval, at least they can round my way, thank goodness.

that said something and then a male feminist stopped them being the real evidence that womens oppressive via looks doesn't exist.....

I don't understand this bit at all.

What about women that are not attractive by conventional standards?  Yeah nobody knows, because no-ones gives fuck,

They make the best of themselves, or they find a mate of equivalent pegging, or they say fuck that whole world and put their energies into something more substantial? I mean I'm not sure I've ever met a 'conventionally physically beautiful' woman or man for that matter, in the real world everyone's got something wrong with them up close surely.

women that have been made very ill by the belief they are not worth anything as they do not fit societies mediated paradigm (you may indeed find you have a lot in common).

Ha! Well I'd advise either a) believing you are worth *more* because you do not fit society's mediated paradigm, or b) who really fits society's mediated paradigm?!

Yet you just made a ridiculous ill thought out absolutist statement about women and society which is absolute typecast for incels.

Oh now. It's not absolutist, I don't mean to say absolutist things. It's never 100% anything of anyone, of course, but in my colossal experience of women, it is common for them to enjoy make-up. If you think that they're hiding behind it because they're terrified that without it society will deem them unattractive and they can't handle such rejection, that sounds a bit ehh hmm.

Yes it is also very likely that because you share characteristics with Carl you give more creedance to his views - it's called vicarious learning.

I am also strangely drawn to the music of Demis Roussos, the films of Peter Jackson and the wrestling of Giant Haystacks.

What you seem to be putting it down to is "jokes", yeah just like bullies say and do (it was more ridicule than hate i was going for I didn't mean any harm).

He's not harming anyone though, really.

You know the rest of us you have ironically othered whilst moaning about being othered, we have got brains and we can digest what this guy is saying quite easily, its not hard to discern what he is about.

Well one lot get othered by the other lot so that lot other right back, and both lots keep othering until it's Fascist Gammon Thickoes vs Brainwashed SJW NPCs.

Simple fact is there is more evidence of his douchebaggery than anything else

I don't know. I suspect if he was making points you agreed with, and ridiculing the people you hate, you'd find him quite affable.

i've heard this defence about him "not being alt-right, as the alt-right hate him".  Has it ever crossed your mind that petit fascists and maxi fascists might not be reliable witnesses to their own bad behaviour?

Yes! Yes of course, but the hatred is because he takes their talking points and suggests ways to address them without recourse to fascism. You explained re: fascism: "it is about suppression of opposition (by violence if necessary), ultranationalism, economic and cultural authoritarianism." Unless your argument is that Carl is just lying about his true beliefs, he has spoken against all of these things. Whereas if you insert the word 'inter' between the words 'ultra' and 'nationalism', all of these things come closer to describing the people who storm his venues, throw things at him, threaten his family and demand his removal from all the major Silicon Valley internet platforms.

Frankie Boyle is for one actually funny who clearly detests people like Carl,

He clearly detests everyone

but more importantly he clearly denotes his comedy from his personal politics.

Of course I don't disagree that Frankie is better at jokes than Carl, but Carl's "nobody's got that much beer" howler is funnier than Boyle's mystifying line about Katie Price being raped by her disabled son.

Yes the racist (yes i've watched his video on race realism where he said black people are genetically criminals),

Is there a link to this?

anti-feminist, anti-leftist, pro-free market, anti-Muslim,

Surely there are valid, principled, liberal criticisms to be made of 'fourth wave' feminism, intersectionality, far-leftism and Islam. If they are not made and discussed, the far right will have the field to themselves. Richard Spencer is still on Twitter you'll notice, Sargon was banned without explanation.

endorsed himself by Richard Spencer and The Daily Stormer as someone that "is a great entry point to the alt right". Isn't right-wing or related to the facets that currently make up right wing thought.

I love how lefties trip over themselves to quote Richard Spencer on this one thing like on this one thing he's a trustworthy source. You could more plausibly say that Sargon is a great exit point from the alt-right, given how much the movement has dwindled in the last couple of years.

Is it possible, just possible that he is edging a position in the market for exactly as I said safe point for angry males watching to engage with a shitty world view without having to go straight to Stormfront.

Well it's a worldview that they recognise, and if they don't take it to Stormfront that would be brilliant. If they read John Stuart Mill instead, like Carl advises, that would be even better. Surely.

there is a very clear and understandable criticism of this from the left but you'll just sneer at it because it comes from the left.

Well this is what Tim Pool has been doing. I don't sneer at the left in its entirety, and nor does Carl indeed, why he's just lately been admiring some Tony Benn speeches on EU membership.

I mean the NHS Commissioning legislation has fucked up so much stuff but you don't know anything about it because the "lefty liberal media" that just happens to be run by right-wings is hiding it from you.

The Tories have fucked up the NHS?! You never hear anything about that!

The information is out there but this is why people like Carl exist to distract and confuse what is going on.

People like Carl, and every other commentator and politician and journalist, and every one of his opponents (except the most studious and compassionate Marxist intellectuals), and every other media outlet, and every artistic and cultural endeavour...!

we have evolved somewhat from a far-right world, one that believed in race realism, didn't allow ethnic minorities or women to vote.

Or even working class white men, yes quite.

Right-wing social commentaries essential revolve around nationalism/ethnicities etc...

A lot of these intersectional/identity-political left-wing social commentaries you get now also revolve quite strongly around ethnicities, and it's just as divisive and reductive and the rest.

I also love the way you seem to think people in the lefty university are all sitting there in their berets wondering how they can worm some leftist dogmatism into the work they are doing.  Just think.  Is it possible people might not be telling you the truth.

I've seen the leftier-than-thou oneupmanship first hand, the fatuous comments like "Thatcher did nothing for women, in fact probably things were worse for women after Thatcher" going unopposed even by lecturers, because either no one dares say an unfashionable political thing or no one even noticed its fatuousness. Maybe we should expect and want our students to be obtuse ineloquent radicals, but not when they've been taught what to think rather than how.

Sorry you feel victimised for your white straight maleism and sure like I say everyone needs to be included but to hark on about it to the exclusion of more pressing matters is just the individualism evoked by fascists.

I don't feel victimised, I just mean that if identity politics is the alt-left's order of the day, how else do white straight men 'intersect' but 'problematically'? Is there any form of politically conscionable pride in or advocation for these identities? I can hear Jess sniggering. If not, might we need to find some in the future?

[Buelligan]

I didn't read it all, too, too, long.  But the mention of Thatcher caught my skimming eye.

I've seen the leftier-than-thou oneupmanship first hand, the fatuous comments like "Thatcher did nothing for women, in fact probably things were worse for women after Thatcher" going unopposed even by lecturers, because either no one dares say an unfashionable political thing or no one even noticed its fatuousness.

It rather depends on the context of the discussion, don't you think?  Maybe, you'd like to give some examples of what Thatcher did for women and consider ways that the experience of her premiership may have affected women's fight for equal treatment negatively.  Maybe not, I'm not particularly invested.

[jobotic]

Benjamin was on Radio 5 today, apparently making a total cunt of himself.

Why do the BBc fall over themselves to have these far-right filth on at every opportunity?

[madhair60]

Cunt Cuntjaminge.

[Dr Rock]

Richard Spencer is still on Twitter you'll notice, Sargon was banned without explanation.

Carl was banned for posting inter-racial porn at alt-right people he was having a feud with. That's against their rules. Possibly Richard Spencer is more careful not to do that.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yeah Carl was banned for the porn thing and every subsequent ban has been for ban evasion. It's not the great mystery his defenders try to frame it as

Spencer really tries hard to hide behind innuendo and plausible deniability in his social media presence, so he's depending on the limitless credulousness of the fuckwiteratti to maintain his profile

[sponk]

I wouldn't even laugh if Carl Benjamin died

[Autopsy Turvey]

rather depends on the context of the discussion, don't you think?

Oh the context wasn't anything more advanced than "I can't believe our only female prime minister was also the worst prime minister ever" (and it's two out of two now!). Thatch rotten, strong women fabulous, argh. Funnily enough I just yesterday chanced upon a Donna McPhail video in praise of Thatcher, ladettish 90s irony at full pelt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_y45AVkU5E

Maybe, you'd like to give some examples of what Thatcher did for women and consider ways that the experience of her premiership may have affected women's fight for equal treatment negatively.  Maybe not, I'm not particularly invested.

Well nor me, but I suppose you'd have to look into whether women in Britain were more equal in 1991 than they were in 1979, and whether this at least partially was due to legislation. "What Thatcher did for women" is a massive issue and it's going to divide people, all of whom have reasonable perspectives to hear. It seems to me like she didn't think in those terms politically, viewing women not as a group but as individuals and citizens, therefore as much a beneficiary - or a casualty - of her policies as their fellow male individual citizens.

Also, someone said 'would he tell a child that he wouldn't even rape her? Ahh'. But I mean the layers of context for this sick shock filth quip are such that a child couldn't have been the recipient, it had to be an adult with political power who was proposing internet censorship on the basis of rape threats, without that it wouldn't exist as a sentence. The better question is would he have said it if it was a man? Not sure if that would have made it better or worse.

[Buelligan]

So what are you saying?  She didn't do much for women?

[Autopsy Turvey]

So what are you saying?  She didn't do much for women?

Ha! She did a lot for many women, and not much for many others, like with the men.

[Buelligan]

I think when people say so and so did a lot for men/women/cats... they're not referring to specific individuals.  They mean X did (or didn't do) things for that whole group (and that whole group received more of whatever they're talking about than other groups). 

So if you say Thatcher did stuff for women, you're talking about all or most women, not Ms A and Ms B (and not everyone including men). 

Are you saying that Thatcher did a lot for all or most women?

[drummersaredeaf]

Carol did alright.

[Autopsy Turvey]

I think when people say so and so did a lot for men/women/cats... they're not referring to specific individuals.  They mean X did (or didn't do) things for that whole group

Yeah but this group is 50% of the British citizenry, so I think Thatch's idea was if Britain flourishes then women flourish. It's not like she repealed the Equal Pay Act or the Sex Discrimination Act, and her example of meritocratic success against the forces of proper hard old-school patriarchal sexism was massively empowering for women, as the economic philosopher Geri Halliwell will attest.

Are you saying that Thatcher did a lot for all or most women?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/12/thatcher-britain

"The Thatcher period was modestly good for women in the workforce, with full-time female hourly wages rising from 72% of those of men to 76%"

"The median household – the household right in the middle, where half are richer, half are poorer – earned the equivalent of £270.74 a week in 1979. By 1990, this had increased by 26% to £341.58."

and the big one:
"in 1981 3.7m households lacked (or had to share) either an inside toilet or bath. By 1991, only 259,000 did."

Other stats are available! The point is that Thatcher and right-leaning women don't see women as a discrete group in need of special treatment in the way that the left/feminists do, so no she wasn't advocating on behalf of women as a victimised and oppressed sub-group, but her wider policies of strengthening Britain may have made women stronger as a corollary rather than a focus. (Oof, I said I was in for a penny on the devil's advocacy front!)

[Cold Meat Platter]

Imagine spending actual time, the unstoppable march of entropy, on defending Calgon of Fuckwad.
Then upping your game to Thatcher.

[Autopsy Turvey]

It might save time if I say that Darth Vader was always my favourite character in Star Wars.

[Cold Meat Platter]

Careful Edgy McEdgelord