Alt-right. A terrorist movement in the making?

[Skarten]

That sounds retarded.

So then everyone except whites are allowed to be proud about their race?

It's either everyone or no one.

Who gives a single Goddamned fuck in the world right now about that? That's utterly irrelevant to the fact that the Alt-Right is a white supremacist movement, through and through.

No it's fucking not. It's retarded. Just because you posted a wikipedia link doesn't mean you win the argument. If being proud of your race = white supremacist, and everyone but whites are allowed to be proud of their race, while whites who are proud of their race should be considered all terrorists, then that's retarded.

[Torrocca]

Hun, it's not my fault you chose to ignore my bit of evidence posted to support my claims:

Imagine thinking wikipedia is an unbiased source

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

[Skarten]

TIL 'd Beating up random people with bike locks and nearly killing cats for looking like Hitler = standing against fascism

TIL'd one bike-lock incident = AntiFA is literally attacking everyone ever with bike-locks! D:

Fucking lmao.

Also, way to disprove your own argument that AntiFA is an organization. :^)

How did i even slightly disprove my own argument?

What kind of dream land do you live in?!

Also "one" is really not giving your antifa buddies justice.

[Inkopolitia]

TIL edgy 4chan obese neckbeards = a threat to modern civilization and inclusion that must be destroyed

[Skarten]

Imagine thinking wikipedia is an unbiased source

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

[Torrocca]

Who gives a single Goddamned fuck in the world right now about that? That's utterly irrelevant to the fact that the Alt-Right is a white supremacist movement, through and through.

No it's fucking not.

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3

It's retarded. Just because you posted a wikipedia link doesn't mean you win the argument. If being proud of your race = white supremacist, and everyone but whites are allowed to be proud of their race, while whites who are proud of their race should be considered all terrorists, then that's retarded.

There is no white race. :^)

[The Black Party]

Imagine thinking wikipedia is an unbiased source

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

Agreed, Wikipedia had their facts completely spot on when they clearly explained the difference between Nationalism and Supremacism in the article you linked, which you conviently ignored!

[The Black Party]

No it's fucking not.

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3

lmao no it's not

[The Black Forrest]

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

You throw that word around. What does the claim of bias have to do with information presented?

[-Ocelot-]

Hun, it's not my fault you chose to ignore my bit of evidence posted to support my claims:

Imagine thinking wikipedia is an unbiased source

Wikipedia was always been edited by many different users of different origins and beliefs and it uses objective sources to draw the information needed for each article. I don't see how it's biased.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

How? Many of the citations about the beliefs of the alt right from that page come from an accredited scholar of political science who writes on both the American right and left.

[Torrocca]

"I'm not gonna refute you at all, I'm just gonna say Wikipedia's biased and declare victory!!1! xD"

Wow, amazing. 10/10, I've been defeated by the supreme grand master of debate. There's utterly no way whatsoever an article on Wikipedia could be filled with numerous sources and citations that provide support to the ideas and statements they're expressing! Clearly the fact that Wikipedia has even an inkling of bias means it's suddenly completely and utterly invalid!

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

I love how you can't even create an actual argument here, and just keep crying about the biased nature of Wikipedia, without even proving how it's biased.

News flash, hun: being biased doesn't mean something's wrong. :3

[Holy Tedalonia]

No it's fucking not.

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3

It's retarded. Just because you posted a wikipedia link doesn't mean you win the argument. If being proud of your race = white supremacist, and everyone but whites are allowed to be proud of their race, while whites who are proud of their race should be considered all terrorists, then that's retarded.

There is no white race. :^)

Tell that to America, it’s either White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Latino, and Asian, on charts asking for your ethnicity.

[Skarten]

No it's fucking not.

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3

It's retarded. Just because you posted a wikipedia link doesn't mean you win the argument. If being proud of your race = white supremacist, and everyone but whites are allowed to be proud of their race, while whites who are proud of their race should be considered all terrorists, then that's retarded.

There is no white race. :^)

So then being a white supremacist isn't a problem, because there's no problem in being a supremacist of something that doesn't exist.

[Torrocca]

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3



There is no white race. :^)

So then being a white supremacist isn't a problem, because there's no problem in being a supremacist of something that doesn't exist.

Nah, there's still a problem with supremacy, since it aims to make others inferior.

[The Black Forrest]

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

I love how you can't even create an actual argument here, and just keep crying about the biased nature of Wikipedia, without even proving how it's biased.

News flash, hun: being biased doesn't mean something's wrong. :3

Fake news!

[Kragholm Free States]

No it's fucking not.

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3

It's retarded. Just because you posted a wikipedia link doesn't mean you win the argument. If being proud of your race = white supremacist, and everyone but whites are allowed to be proud of their race, while whites who are proud of their race should be considered all terrorists, then that's retarded.

There is no white race. :^)

There is no black race, black pride is a terrorist ideology. :^)

See how easy that is?

See how stupid it is?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3



There is no white race. :^)

So then being a white supremacist isn't a problem, because there's no problem in being a supremacist of something that doesn't exist.

Supremacy implies domination or control, I don’t think that when I hear someone’s proud of their race.

[Torrocca]

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3



There is no white race. :^)

Tell that to America, it’s either White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Latino, and Asian, on charts asking for your ethnicity.

America doesn't exist either. :3

I love how you can't even create an actual argument here, and just keep crying about the biased nature of Wikipedia, without even proving how it's biased.

News flash, hun: being biased doesn't mean something's wrong. :3

Fake news!

Oh no, I've been caught!

[-MAFDET-]

"Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism.[7][4][6][8][9][10] [...] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.[13][14] Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence."

Womp womp.

That sounds retarded.

So then everyone except whites are allowed to be proud about their race?

It's either everyone or no one.

Black Pride and Nationalism are constructs that arose out of the marginalization of African-Americans. They are a means of regaining power from a nation that has stolen everything from them.

With this in mind, White Pride/Nationalism is redundant. White people are not marginalized on account of their skin color. White people have administrated America since it was born.

These hateful ideologies arose as a reaction to POC gaining louder voices about the injustices that they face. It's the result of white privilege's steady demise.

[Inkopolitia]

So then being a white supremacist isn't a problem, because there's no problem in being a supremacist of something that doesn't exist.

Nah, there's still a problem with supremacy, since it aims to make others inferior.

But there is not a white race, right? If there isn't, white supremacism doesn't exist, right? Or do we call white supremacism slightly white but not completely white supremacy?

[Skarten]

Wikipedia is biased. That's a fact. Linking an wikipedia article and thinking that you've won the argument is plain stupid.

I love how you can't even create an actual argument here, and just keep crying about the biased nature of Wikipedia, without even proving how it's biased.

News flash, hun: being biased doesn't mean something's wrong. :3

Yes! Now all i need is an gif of an black woman talking about tea and i'll have gotten a bingo!

You can't just link to an biased source and think that you've won the argument.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Tell that to America, it’s either White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Latino, and Asian, on charts asking for your ethnicity.

America doesn't exist either. :3

Fake news!

Oh no, I've been caught!

The USA is very existent, albeit mislabeled.

[Kragholm Free States]

Tell that to America, it’s either White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Latino, and Asian, on charts asking for your ethnicity.

America doesn't exist either. :3

Columbus really did reach India after all? :3

[Torrocca]

Yes it is. White nationalism is just rebranded white supremacism. :3



There is no white race. :^)

There is no black race,

Sounds fine by me. Race is just a social construct, after all. :3

black pride is a terrorist ideology. :^)

Nah, because even though race is just a social construct, taking pride as a group marginalized and oppressed for a specific trait or attribute (in this case, race) helps that group to overcome such things.

See how easy that is?

See how stupid it is?

Nah. :3