K: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
And that, ladies and gentlemen, and other genders, was an example of a post-modern, social warrior snowflake hissy-fit, or temper tantrum.
We’ve heard of them across the University and college campuses of the west, but this was a real-time experience.
Those who challenge their romantic idealism is…a Nazi.
Did you see the same types react to Trumps election or Johnson’s?
Void of counter-arguments, they pout and threaten, because they are overwhelmed by fear.
Scrutiny? 
Facts, reason, logic, etc are irrelevant to these guys.
They’re attention whores.
You’re giving them a platform. You’re feeding them by talking to them.
Well, one of the people is a self-proclaimed Nazi, so calling him a Nazi, would be, well, accurate. Carleas didn’t label everyone here with those views as Nazis either.
Why are realists always mind readers? In any case, most of the anti-semitic posts here are void of arguments, they make statements. But the topic of this thread is not the philosophy of those people, so it’s not really the place for counterarguments.
But I’m sure having a realist manly generalization hissy fit felt good for ya. You shouldn’t miss out on the smugness value signalling either. Because smugness is the fulfillment of honesty, that value, right?
Or at least as deep as you’re willing to go. Which would be fine. Since at least you are an intelligent version of the quasi-honest smug poster. Since you are speaking the truth, that’s honest, rather than seeing honesty as something more challenging for your ego-ideal.
Others are idealistic about the world, you about yourself, though implicitly, where it’s safe. Hence, your offspring, who fall for this or hate it and fall for it…
But your offspring, ech.
At least when you string assertions in clumps there tends to be explicit or at least implicit arguments.
Your offspring just spout.
Even the ones that hate you, spout in your style.
It’s nice of you to swing by to protect the offspring that might admire you, even against some of your offspring here, who no longer do.
Yes…a half-Jew “nazi”.
Can’t take that guy seriously.
But, in general, anything that challenges the romantic idealism of the Modern is called…“nazi”, or “fascist”.
Not all Semites are Jews; not all Jews are Semites.
Judaism is an ideology with a particular world-view.
An argument is something that refers to a real behaviour.
I have no “offspring”…on-line. Not here.
My style…yes. It is emulated.
By Chappelle, Cosby, before his incarceration, Colbert…they are all copying me.
I don’t mind influencing world comedy.
Makes me feel …powerful.
More than that…my ideas are being studied and shaping geopolitics.
Not quite the point.
And anything that challenges the other side’s idealism gets called communist (here, other places often get more specific)
Snore. Yup.
Sure, but you have threads focused on The Jew and the Jews, rarely saying Judaism. So, in some other context this point might be relevent.
IOW you got triggered by a post in this thread. It fit a pattern. You label it as an example of that pattern and give it some insulting names. But it isn’t part of that pattern.
Pretty much what you are complaining about.
Well done.
The point is ‘nazi’ is being thrown around every time an idea seems harsh or threatening to established beliefs.
America is an Empire currently dominated by Jews. In the media, in Hollywood, in business…This world-view is part of the American ideology pushed on other nations.
A pattern, like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, is not isolated.
It either forms a recognizable image or it does not.
I never complained. I point out the obvious.
If I say…we are all mortals…is this a complaint?
Is it so in a world of lies, to point out a truth?
Shall we all stay silent before absurdity?
I mean, there is a poster who literally labeled himself a Nazi. It’s not an epithet in this case, we’re talking about literal self-identified Nazi.
I would say this is symptomatic of anti-SJW discourse. You’re not wrong in pointing out the flaws of the left, you’re just doing the same damn thing. A man explaining anything becomes “mansplaining”, even when it’s appropriate and respectful in context; and calling a literal self-identified Nazi a “Nazi” becomes trigger snowflake etc. etc. Both are the same weak pattern of thought.
Do better, Aegean.
First, ILP is not a platform. I agree that CNN should not have Richard Spencer on to talk about white supremacy, because it gives the impression that explicit white supremacy is a bigger force that it is, and lends Spencer more respectability than he deserves. But ILP is an internet backwater, white supremacy is about as big a force as three teenagers on an internet backwater message board. I flatter myself that ILP is more respectable than that, but not so respectable that anyone is raising their profile by posting here.
Second, there have to be places where people can talk about bad ideas. For one thing, people do sometimes change their mind in response to reason. But more importantly, society needs to make explicit the reasons why bad ideas are wrong. If we can’t discuss them, if no one can defend them, then we won’t discover the rebuttals, and our noble beliefs will be fragile and vulnerable to simple questioning. The discussion isn’t only about convincing the other people in the discussion, it’s about crystallizing our own ideas, which, once explicit, can be shared like antibodies.
And if ILP can’t be a place like that, then no where can.
Jews, as in people who follow Judaism as an ideology? What about where they disagree, e.g. pro-Palestine Jews? still Jewish? Are there e.g. people of Italian ancestry who are Jews by dint of their adherence to an ideology? Madonna – Jewish? (This is an ironically post-modern take on what it means to be “Jewish”. I’m sure you also think that Black is an ideology and Rachel Dolezal is a convert.)
But, what are you relying on to say that American is “dominated by Jews”. Do you have a reliable survey of ideology? Or are you just using Jewish as a race when it’s convenient, and as an ideology when you get called a racist. Motte-and-bailey?
But even racially, what numbers are you relying on? Looks like we have 10 Jewish senators… 10 % is pretty dominant… Let’s count up the non-Hispanic whites in Senate, and see how they compare – Wiki says 91-9, but let’s call it 81 because it looks like they’re counting Jews as white. So, whites are at least 8x more dominant. Same in business: numbers I’m finding are like 70% of CEOs are white, even if that’s similarly including 10% Jews, we’re still talking 6x dominance.
Why do you believe the things you believe, Aegean?
It seems my recent presence here has caused some controversy. 
I can hear the forum zionists kvetching here, it’s like soothing music to my ears. 
They can’t debate or argue where all they can do is to demand censorship and silencing of others. A magnificent display. =D>
I applaud Carleas’s rational insights and opinions on free-speech.
This may very be the last free-speech designated online philosophy forum and given how old this place is that makes it very unique or special. My respect for you Carleas has only increased despite our more obvious ideological and philosophical disagreements.
Can’t believe how anyone can be this naïve…but since this may get me in trouble…I’ll let Zero-Sum explain it, with his more vulgar style.
You see nothing…no evidence of dominance anywhere?
Then, I will certainly not point it out.
Jews are not a race. So critiquing them is not “racist”. I am not a racists if I critique Islam, or Christianity or Marxism…or Buddhism.
Semites are tribes belonging to a race…and I never commented on Semites whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish…or atheists.
That Jews control a majority and lion share of United States wealth is an uncontested fact yet is never discussed publicly.
A conversation for another time.
Call it a soapbox or stage or whatever you like. You’re providing it.
Google bots are scraping it.
I don’t agree with that. CNN is in a position to present various ideas and to provide an extensive context and fact check. They ought to do it.
OTOH, you don’t provide context nor do you validate any claims.
You are an individual running this forum. You can shut it down and you can boot off anyone that you want. Or you can provide them with a soapbox. It’s your decision.
Sure. The posts can be full of bad ideas. But once you make the decision to let them talk, you need to police them so that the posts don’t descend into insult and mockery. Which they do regularly. (Like those posts with a caricature of “eternal jew” superimposed on photographs of real people.)
A “report button” doesn’t cut it. Active moderation is required.
Of course you do. He lets you run around like a spoiled kid in a candy store.
Not entirely true, I was recently temporarily banned.
Have any arguments against me? Didn’t think so.
A ban which you mocked as a minor inconvenience.
Here again, I think you are using multiple definitions of the word “Jew”, which ever suits your present need. You claim that you mean an ideology, but I don’t believe you don’t have numbers for ideology, you have numbers for ancestry. I also don’t think Zero Sum is using the term in the way you mean it, because he’s overtly and happily racist.
Let’s call it “an internet backwater that isn’t even the top Google result for its own name.” Let’s not exaggerate what’s going on here: ILP gives the ideas barely more exposure than writing in a journal. Literally standing on a soapbox in the park would reach more people.
That’s surprising. What is your goal? CNN hosting Richard Spencer almost certainly does more harm than me hosting Zero_Sum, even if CNN does fact-checking and talking head rebuttals, and I let whoever feels like wading through ZS’s dreck respond. It almost certainly does much more harm. The best fact checking, the best rebuttals, is only going to be 99% effective, and 1% of CNN’s viewership is orders of magnitude larger than 100% of ILP’s audience.
So what’s the basis for the idea that ILP is wrong to give three racist teenagers a platform to share their ideas with ~50 other people looking to argue, while CNN would be right to give white supremacist Mr. Rogers an audience of millions?
Hey, if people don’t like my opinions, beliefs, or values I welcome an open debate.
You pick the spot and subject where I’ll hop on board.
Or, are you and others just going to complain calling for my immediate censorship where we need to call a wambulance? 
Unlike the rest of you anti-free-speech advocates I always welcome debate, discussion, and conversation. My door and windows are always open being completely transparent to all.
To have consistent free speech which treats everyone fairly. Not a free speech which I turn off when it displeases me.
If it turns out that when presented with context and an honest presentation of the facts, the people want to believe that stuff … then so be it. The people express the path that they want to follow.
The size of the audience is irrelevant.
“Free speech for me, not for thee.” - Phyllo.