Plagued The Alt-Right

I don't even seeing anyone doing that, though. When I think of a Democrat I think of like, my grandfather from Maine or my nana from Maryland. The Democratic party reminds me of Chesapeake bay blue crabs, actually, and Republicans remind me of Texas, steak and God. That's why it's odd to hear people associate alt-right with neonazism. Literally all it is to me is fiscal conservativism and social libertarianism. That doesn't seem too bad but holy hell a lot of people fucking hate it.
It's all about presentation.

You can make the support for world peace and ending world hunger sound like terrible ideas if the person explaining it to people is a semi-functioning spastic from /pol/ who can only communicate through memes, the word 'nigger' and Wyatt Mann cartoons.
 
You can make the support for world peace and ending world hunger sound like terrible ideas if the person explaining it to people is a semi-functioning spastic from /pol/ who can only communicate through memes, the word 'nigger' and Wyatt Mann cartoons.
The issue is that I'm a semi-functioning spastic from the Kiwi Farms that can only communicate through insults, the word 'nigger', and by torturing retards on the Internet. If you choose to go to the Kiwi Farms or /pol/ to develop your opinion on something, you only have to self your blame for getting it wrong.

But that's not even the issue: people who go here or /pol/ to form their opinions on "alt-right" are doing so for a reason. There is a political disagreement going on, to feel better, you're going to go digging through Internet webzones full of self-refferential humor that comes off as horrendous and cruel at face value because it's what you want to believe. I could choose to see a pedophile child molestor like Lena Dunham as the face of the Democratic party and I could choose to see a Texas Ku Klux Klan grand dragon as the face of the Republican party and in sense I would not be wrong, but I would definitely be off the mark to consider that a representation of the median person in those parties. And indeed, if I took those figures and tried to apply them to my family members who belong to those parties, they would be within their rights to consider that extremely disrespectful.

A thread like this is eye-rolling to me. I know why it exists. Someone is mad about Pepe and Harambe memes and they heard it's a bad thing in a Hillary Clinton speech and they don't like Trump so they need to find stuff to prop up that hate. Its' a confirmation bias. It's petty and childish.
 
The issue is that I'm a semi-functioning spastic from the Kiwi Farms that can only communicate through insults, the word 'nigger', and by torturing exceptional individuals on the Internet. If you choose to go to the Kiwi Farms or /pol/ to develop your opinion on something, you only have to self your blame for getting it wrong.

But that's not even the issue: people who go here or /pol/ to form their opinions on "alt-right" are doing so for a reason. There is a political disagreement going on, to feel better, you're going to go digging through Internet webzones full of self-refferential humor that comes off as horrendous and cruel at face value because it's what you want to believe. I could choose to see a pedophile child molestor like Lena Dunham as the face of the Democratic party and I could choose to see a Texas Ku Klux Klan grand dragon as the face of the Republican party and in sense I would not be wrong, but I would definitely be off the mark to consider that a representation of the median person in those parties. And indeed, if I took those figures and tried to apply them to my family members who belong to those parties, they would be within their rights to consider that extremely disrespectful.

A thread like this is eye-rolling to me. I know why it exists. Someone is mad about Pepe and Harambe memes and they heard it's a bad thing in a Hillary Clinton speech and they don't like Trump so they need to find stuff to prop up that hate. Its' a confirmation bias. It's petty and childish.
So you're saying it's like the SJW label, but for SJW's to label their opponents of their political opinions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: yasscat
So you're saying it's like the SJW label, but for SJW's to label their opponents of their political opinions.
Not quite. SJWs is a wholly created offensive label like "Cuck". It means something very specific that is inherently negative: progressive to the point of detriment, "regressive". I can't really think of an equivalent liberal movement to the Alt-Right because it's basically nationalistic centrism. I guess Globalist is the liberal version?
 
Not quite. SJWs is a wholly created offensive label like "Cuck". It means something very specific that is inherently negative: progressive to the point of detriment, "regressive". I can't really think of an equivalent liberal movement to the Alt-Right because it's basically nationalistic centrism. I guess Globalist is the liberal version?
I mean I've seen "SJW" outlets try to use "Alt-right" as a boogeyman term, but I see what you mean not quite the same thing.
 
That's why it's odd to hear people associate alt-right with neonazism. Literally all it is to me is fiscal conservativism and social libertarianism. That doesn't seem too bad but holy hell a lot of people fucking hate it.

There's nothing fiscally conservative about building a titanic wall across the southern border and creating a government agency to forcibly deport 11 million people.
 
There's nothing fiscally conservative about building a titanic wall across the southern border and creating a government agency to forcibly deport 11 million people.
The cost of these 11,000,000+ people annually is less than the wall.

They are entitled to certain social services (food stamps, and states like California have greater loopholes for immigrants to get sec8 or welfare).
They are entitled to more social services if they have US-born children (school).
They are entitled to emergency care, and the bill for that is sent to the US government for reimbursement.
They are never deported, even if they break the law, and caring for an inmate for 1 year is about ~$50,000.
As they are "undocumented', they are not a part of our insurance programs (Obamacare, driver's insurance) and when you get into a car accident with one they have no papers to give you. You foot the bill for it and take the premium hike, or the insurance company does and passes it on to the government for reimbursement.

Even if the wall was $30 billion to build, with 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants in the United States, if the government takes on a burden of even $2728 a year from each one (which is really fucking easy to imagine given what I've just listed for you), then the wall is economically viable within the same year it is built.
 
((((((oy))) (((vey!!))))))

/pol/ was right again!


"The Great Black Dick Hoax"

Alright class turn to page 58. Today we are going to learn about one of the most important political scandals in history! The uncovering of the Great Black Dick Hoax!

(I suspect whoever wrote that article is gay, since they seem to have a unhealthy obsession with BBC)

Also can someone tell me a time /pol/ was actually correct about something?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: yasscat
(I suspect whoever wrote that article is gay, since they seem to have a unhealthy obsession with BBC)

I mean, the creator and writer of the Nickelodeon show Bella and the Bulldogs was best known for a documentary movie called Cuckold about the cuckolding fetish, specifically with black men/white women.

The creator of the show was obsessed enough about black men fucking white guys' wives to make a movie about it. I don't think it's BBC obsession to point out that his next big work was on a kid's TV show.

I remember I looked up his twitter when people found out about this stuff, and originally he wanted the show to be called Bella and the Bulls. The title got changed, but for some reason, the scene with Bella and a Bull in her bedroom stayed, despite the fact that the mascot was a bulldog, a breed of canine.
 
That article is embarrassing. I'm sure the people who wrote it didn't have an agenda.

I seriously hope at some point Wikipedia actually remembers its so-called mission as an encyclopedia and quits just being a random pile of garbage and liberal hitpieces. And I say that as an unapologetic leftist. It is a pathetic disgrace that there are so many garbage articles like this on Wikipedia.

Even if the wall was $30 billion to build, with 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants in the United States, if the government takes on a burden of even $2728 a year from each one (which is really fucking easy to imagine given what I've just listed for you), then the wall is economically viable within the same year it is built.

Lol walls. Because it's totally impossible to cross them, tunnel under them, or do whatever.

Of all the laughable dumbshit proposals of Trump, this is easily the dumbest and I'm shocked to see anyone with any actual technical knowledge taking pure dumb shit like this seriously.
 
Israel seems to be a good job of finding and collapsing the tunnels with Palestinians still in them, as well as patrolling them, but the scale is not exactly comparable.

Israel is also really good at that kind of shit. When you piss them off they don't just kill you, they kill your entire family, everyone who ever knew you and liked you, and the entire neighborhoods of everyone in that list.
 
Lol walls. Because it's totally impossible to cross them, tunnel under them, or do whatever.

Of all the laughable dumbshit proposals of Trump, this is easily the dumbest and I'm shocked to see anyone with any actual technical knowledge taking pure dumb shit like this seriously.

Leaving aside the sheer impracticality of building, maintaining, and patrolling this wall and the logistics of finding and rounding up 11 million people, what's interesting to me is the philosophy behind it. It's an enormous Big Government boondoggle and a whole new federal agency --the sort of approach that conservatives used to rail against. Whether or not you think it would work, it's the kind of solution that fiscal liberals like Johnson or Kennedy would love. Calling it fiscally conservative seems bonkers to me.
 
Back