>>26146
I know exactly what Devil's advocate means. I could easily segue into my own personal thoughts at a moment's notice. The entire post wasn't meant to be Devil's advocate, but perhaps I should've been more upfront where it ended. Anyway, my post in sincerity started with the SPLC. Believe it or not, it's entirely possible to believe the Jewish conspiracy meme is a myth AND still think the SPLC is cancer. Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

You may not personally like me, but I'd like to think my thoughts are more nuanced than most. If you disagree, so be it.

>surmise it's also probably because you yourself may have even gone to that disastrous UTR rally, which if anything showed the absolute cancer that is the extreme right at this point and rather than unite the right became yet another wedge both in the right and dividing the country itself even more, as well as being another example of what I meant about terrorism.

I never went to Unite the Right. Glad we could establish that.

>This is also in context of harping on about the SPLC which after looking through news stories I can pretty much surmise is exclusively you being butthurt at them criticizing the Proud Boys.

I've distrusted the SPLC long before Gavin McInnes wrote the article that generated the concept for his little fraternity. The SPLC have been of dubious credibility since the 1990s and are now less credible than ever. You don't have to read right-wing commentary because even progressive and liberal commentary outlets have all condemned the SPLC.

The ADL are another topic entirely, but Norman Finkelstein has done great work fiercely criticizing them and their influence on American foreign policy.

>Trying to claim it's some sort of persecution complex or "people hating right wingers" in response to feds investigating the far right and SPLC attacking Proud Boys is no different to me at this point than someone claiming it's "Islamaphobia" and "not all Muslims" while at once claiming to represent Muslims, and then claiming your terrorist attacks had nothing to do with a radical mosque and was just a few nutjobs.
>You clearly have no intention whatsoever of a sincere discussion and are only here to evangelize your own position, which is one thing, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
>You know very goddamn well that these guys are specifically being radicalized and pushed towards this violence. I have no idea why on earth you'd think I'm not going to have seen this "Saint Tarrant" bullshit, or remember even close to 10 years ago the sick retarded hero worship of Breivik, and then try this slimy kind of argument with us.
>That guy who shot up the Walmart released a manifesto. This is completely different from just saying "so what if he was registered to this party he was just some mentally ill individual." No. You can make the same argument that the Saudis who flew into the trade center (if you believe the official version of events) were all mentally ill too. Fact of the matter is the guy released a manifesto, just like the New Zealand terrorist did, and considering where we are it's even more disingenuous to try and claim the things aren't related or has nothing to do with 4 or more specifically 8chan being that radical mosque full of radicalizing imams. Out of all the things in this world I appreciate being directly lied to the least, especially when you seem to think somehow this weaselly line of argument is going to work.

Can you read my mind? You claim to know my intentions better than me when you clearly do not.

Concepts like "stochastic terrorism" couldn't sound more Orwellian. It’s a concept that literally tries to criminalize ideas for their own sake. If you can’t see how this can lead to great suppression of ideas raised in earnest, then there’s little I can do to explain this further. Like it or not, manifestos are constitutionally protected speech.

Even manifestos can contain ideas worth pondering without agreeing with their authors’ conclusions or actions. Industrial Society and Its Future is a classic that everyone regardless of political affiliation can find to be insightful without going over the top.

People who've never willingly affiliated with violent extremists despite sharing perhaps more than a few ideological sympathies can still be persecuted for expressing controversial ideas on any given topic. There's a thing called due process which I have a strong suspicion lawmakers want to subvert in pursuing a phantom menace. There's also a thing in law called intent which distinguishes edgy people from bad actors.

When Imams preach the most violent rhetoric aimed at the west and non-Muslims, are they anymore responsible than the followers who buy guns and then go out and commit the acts of terror even if said Imams cheer this on later? They maybe expressing the worst opinions publicly, but they are free to hate the west day in and out even if they live in the west. It's one of the joys of having freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Those same Muslims are also allowed to petition for accommodations from public institutions even as they hate the west. Unless you can concretely prove those same Imams had ties to arms dealers and in turn referred those said followers to such people (that would be conspiracy), then they can preach all the anti-west rhetoric they like and encourage their followers to keep it up. In the end, it's up to the individual Muslims to decide what to do with what their Imams tell them. Plenty of Muslims choose to fight the Shaitan in other ways and even more adhere to Surah Al-Kafirun peacefully.

By the same token, the lunatic 8ch site users were within their rights to cheer on Brenton Tarrant's actions and erect a personality cult around him as Americans because they were merely expressing an opinion no matter how deeply immoral or toxic. I cannot speak for New Zealanders because their laws are entirely different (thus their ISPs' choice to block 8ch), but that's just the way our laws work until some drastic changes. All the law can do is subpoena the site for evidence in a criminal investigation. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings as an imageboard user. If we can concretely prove Brenton Tarrant got his arms from some guy on /k/, then we might have a legitimate case to prosecute imageboard owners for failure to prevent terrorism because intent was clearly established.

Bottom line: if you don't want Muslims, then eliminate freedom of religion. If you don't want Nazis, then eliminate freedom of speech and assembly.

And while we're at it, are sites like VDare responsible for Unite the Right when they were never even affiliated with the event? You could argue they've influenced individuals in the alt-right when their work concerns race and intelligence as well as immigration, but they're merely a publishing house rather than an activist hub. It was the aftermath of Unite the Right that got sites like that deplatformed.

>>26146
>>26153

>As for the other part of your argument, Trump has been in office for years dude. You have the president of the United States making statements against the opponents of Proud Boys. You are not marginalized. Having the backing of the president is as full enfranchisement as you can possibly get. Being butthurt that other Americans criticize you for saying we should gas the Jews lynch all niggers race war now 1488 etc just makes you sound like a thin skinned whiny bitch too, like some kind of sheltered kid or a furry or tranny or something who can't deal with the fact there's other people who think their public arguments are cringey or retarded and tells them so.
>https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/this-domestic-terrorism-expert-tried-to-warn-us-about-right-wing-extremism-he-lost-his-job-because-of-it
>This is what the opposite of disenfranchisement and marginalization looks like.

So the President has condemned Antifa. Big deal. Talk is cheap. Ted Cruz has also issued some opinions about them, but he's only a Senator from Texas. One vote in a room of 100. Right-wing media's criticism of Antifa filtered its way up to the Oval Office. Like it or not, Antifa are attacking Trump's supporters including those who are garden-variety Republicans and MAGApedes. Will Trump's words prevent the Proud Boys from being brought up on RICO charges? I think not, but we'll see. There's still time for this entire drama to unfold.

That article you linked me to reeks. Figures RawStory and Salon would publish this. Already it's showing its dishonesty from counting deaths from terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 before this interviewee passingly references Sandy Hook and Las Vegas as if those mass shootings were politically motivated. To this day, nobody knows what Stephen Paddock’s motives were, although I personally speculate gambling debts. To my knowledge, Adam Lanza was similarly absent in political motivations despite all the insane conspiracies surrounding Sandy Hook.

I remember a similarly dubious metric from the SPLC claiming that Stormfront was responsible for 100 murders, 77 of which were from Anders Breivik alone. That metric was overly inclusive and accounted for just about anyone with an account who committed acts of violence. No one’s denying that Breivik was motivated by his political beliefs, but it wasn’t the fault of Stormfront or its users that he chose to kill those teenagers. For what it’s worth, Breivik posted a whopping total of 4 times there three years prior to launching his attack. How could anyone see him as a contributor to that forum when he was hardly an active member?

The metric also included events where the killers’ motives weren’t racial. In another more pathetic but tragic case, a Stormfag named Richard Poplawski went on a shooting spree after a fight with his mother over two adopted Pitbulls pissing on the carpet. Is that racially motivated, too? They probably also included Elliot Rodger because he had an account there.

The claim that 100 people murdered by Stormfront starts to fall apart inch by inch when you analyze the individual cases. I could probably go on, but it’s only so relevant. You can say that certain fringe ideas attract certain fringe people, but those same fringe ideas did not necessarily inspire such people.

This whole thing reads like repackaged moral panic about militias from the 1990s, and the interviewee’s last comment sounds exactly like that of a shill promoting whatever bullshit to raise support for a pet cause. He doesn’t read like an impartial source in the least. He reads like an opportunistic prick who finally found the opportunity he had been praying for his entire career. This particularly annoys me when you just accused me of being a shill while linking to this oily prick blatantly promoting his bullshit and suggesting that money to be raised for it.

Speaking of the ADL, it's often them who generate reports like these which are then filtered to law enforcement and the media unquestioned. SPLC and ADL's intelligence reports function the same way.

Nothing I am writing here or in anywhere else is a defense for the actions of people like Brenton Tarrant, John Timothy Earnest, Dylann Roof, Wade Michael Page, Patrick Crusius or any other person like them. Unprovoked murder is murder no matter what the motive may be, and those who commit acts face justice. Still, I seriously doubt this interviewee and Salon author’s credentials.

>if you're going to cheer on people committing terrorist acts then yeah, you're the equivalent of the "moderate Islamist" meme.

I've never done this personally. I've never condoned terrorism or cheered it on in any capacity. That said, I still defend anyone's right to say what they feel and assemble peacefully with other likeminded individuals, no matter how controversial their ideas may be.

Sincere question: have you met any Muslims before? For all the supposed "taqqiya" Muslims practice, my experience is that most are very open with their feelings. Perhaps they'd be more open with me than your average gringo, but in any case, the Druze who practice taqqiya so much that even other Druze don't know what's on the agenda.