#i immediately blocked op of the post i was so fucking furious

[bespectacledbun]

oh wow okay. damn. 9:15 in the morning and i’m seeing people be ableist as all fuck about keith and his DID. good fucking gods

#rant.txt #its ok to dislike keith’s personality but the minute you bring up his DID as one of the reasons you dislike him ur just being ableist #full stop #stop fucking demonizing systems and people with DID as being violent and murderous dear lord shiva #i immediately blocked op of the post i was so fucking furious #‘i dislike keith but not because he happens to have DID’ oh be so fucking serious right now #you literally conpared a system to violent and dangerous murderers you piece of shit

[forsetti]

On Defending Misogyny: Ross Douthat Edition

Ross Douthat’s latest nonsense in the New York Times is quite the pile of crap, even when compared to other piles of crap written by Douthat.  Here is my take on the article (Douthat’s article in bold.) One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion. Not one single person with an ounce of credibility thinks that extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world clearly because SEEING THE WORLD CLEARLY IS ANTITHETICAL TO BEING AN EXTREMISTS, RADICAL, OR WEIRDO.  The ONLY way Douthat's statement makes any sense is if he thinks people with enough common sense to know invading Iraq on bogus reasons with zero plan on what to do after the initial invasion was a fucking horrible idea, were extremist, radical, weirdo.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

A classic Douthat move-lay out a completely bogus claim right out of the block and then construct a whole argument on top of it.

Which brings me to the sex robots. People having opinions about the Iraq war and the European Union logically leads us to sex robots because of course it fucking does.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

If you use “libertarian,” you don't get to follow it up with “brilliant.” Never....fucking ever.  As crazy as that juxtaposition of terms is the casual acceptance by Douthat of what “incel” means is even more disturbing.  The idea that women in society have to have sex with men is repulsive on every level.  That someone gives voice to this notion and give it its own term is fucked up beyond reason. Sorry men, women are not here for you to have sex with.  Here's a thought, if men want to have sex with women, then maybe, just maybe, they should behave in ways that women deem appropriate enough to where they will give up their bodies willingly to them.  Anything short of this is misogyny at the least and rape a the most. After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.” Let me de-fuckify this statement because it is a Ceasar's Word Salad of nonsense.  “Men who don't get as much sex as they want, think they deserve, need to band together to find ways, even through violence, to get women to fuck them against their wills.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

I can't understand why the “mainstream” would find the unionization of violent, horny men hell-bent on making women their sexual subjects offensive.  But, see what Douthat has done.  He has already constructed his argument where the mainstream is the ones who don't “see the world clearly.”  Since the mainstream has been pigeon-holed as not seeing reality for what it really is, then it logically follows for Douthat that their view cannot be correct.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

There is a lot to unpack here.  First, Douthat uses a philosopher, in order to bolster the credibility of his argument.  As someone with two degrees in philosophy, I can tell you that there are a lot of batshit crazy people with philosophy degrees who throw out outlandish arguments for no other reason than to be controversial and get their shit published in order to placate the Publish or Perish Gods. Second, having sympathy for how a culture views and treats groups outside the accepted norms like “overweight,” “trans,” “disabled,”... who have a difficult time having sex for a host of reasons is, to quote Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, “...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport.” Third, Douthat, a devout Catholic who has carried water for the patriarchy, for misogynists, for homophobes...for years now doesn't get to pretend he is worried about the very structure he helped build.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

Not only did Douthat use a philosopher to bolster his argument, he completely misused their words in order to do so.  Notice how he uses Srinivasan's comment, “who is desired and who isn't is a political question,” and dovetails his own comment “which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday,” as if they were one and the same statement.  Every culture has their own ideas of what is/isn't sexually desirable.  It has nothing to do with “left-wing” or “feminist” politics.  Some cultures sexually value heavier companions, those with smaller feet, those with longer necks, those with fairer skin...  We can argue the rationality of all of these but none of them are based on leftist or feminist beliefs.  In fact, left-leaning and feminists would argue the fuck against these arbitrary sexual values.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

Shorter Douthat: “Smart people reacting honestly to the arguments of a libertarian nut job don't know what the fuck they are doing but I, a dyed-in-the-wool social conservative does because of some magical reason that is never explained.”  If you think placating angry, resentful, horny men is the way to utopia, I'm pretty sure you are either stupid as fuck and/or just about the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever read.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration. Douthat's use of “neoliberal” was done on purpose and as meaningless as the term itself.  What Douthat really means by this statement is, “In the past, men could do whatever the fuck they wanted to women, whenever they wanted and women had to take it because that is the fucking way it was.  Now men can't do this and they are having a sad about it so we need to blame the women and those who support them instead of the fuck wad misogynists who were morally wrong 50, 100, 200... years ago for their behaviors.”

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

“The sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening up between them.”  Holy Both-Fucking-Siderism!  NO!!!  The “sexes” are not having a problem.  MEN caught up in an archaic belief system are having a problem-a big fucking problem.  Douthat doesn't get to lay the responsibility and consequences of men not adapting to women's rights on the doorstep of women.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear …which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

So let me get this straight, the problem with sex in America is because of feminists and leftists but, “ the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian.”?  I've never known a single feminist or leftist who was not only okay with the views and attitudes about sex espoused by Hugh Hefner but who used them as the basis of their sexual ethics.   In fact, it has been the direct opposite.   Douthat's view of feminism and left-leaning is comical and beyond conservative stereotyping.  

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

By defacto argument, the sexual revolution was bad so men trying to come to terms with how to really treat women as equals would be a misguided approach to the problem.  We need to go back in time to when women had limited rights and almost none with regard to their bodies, their sexuality, and start from there in order to build a more perfect union where men get to get laid when they want by whomever they want.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robotswill increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

So, for Douthat, the need to address and placate incels is important but we shouldn't do it with legalizing prostitution or other means.  What Douthat is really saying is, “If men cannot dominate and be in control of women, then any sexual solution won't be acceptable.  Not legalized prostitution. Not sex robots.  Nothing short of actual, real women being subservient to men will do.”

At no point in this entire article by Douthat are men held responsible for their beliefs, for their actions.  NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME! “Feminists” and “left-leaning” people are the real reason behind backward thinking, immoral. egotistical men for behaving the way they do towards women. GTFOH!

[phoenixiancrystallist]

*deep breath*

Okay, so.

Funny thing I just learned about myself. And I'm not sure how to put it into words. But I'm going to try.

I watched the terroristic storming of the capitol live yesterday. Not exactly watched it live, though; one of my Discord channels has a dedicated politics chat that I was watching and interacting with people in. When I finally registered that some real shit was going down, I started refreshing the main page of C-Span over and over and over again without actually watching the live feed of it. Meanwhile, my roommate flipped through various news channels on his TV in the other room. Then at 5:30pm my time, I tuned in to Extra Politics on Extra Credits's Twitch channel, finished off I think about a pint of ice cream while watching it, and I felt calmer at the end of the stream. But something inside me was and still is... numb? Tired? Broken? I don't know. I watched a historical event last night. I watched what I'm entirely certain is going to mark a change in trajectory for the course of my country's history from that point forward.

This should not be the third one of those I have lived through, let alone the second in less than a year (Rest In Power, Mr. Floyd). I don't count Covid because it's not done yet. We haven't lived through it yet, we're currently living in it, but when we do come out the other side that'll be four major history-altering events in my life. At minimum; god only knows what else there is that I've blocked.

I fully admitted at the start of the chat's coverage of what happened yesterday that I was not going to watch anything live with my own two eyes. I did this because I remember watching 9/11 live as a kid. I knew that I'm not strong enough as an adult to handle what was happening in DC. And what happened yesterday is a new generation's 9/11. We had an entire discussion about it in that politics channel, and it was addressed by Will on Extra Politics. And the thing about these major historical events is that they're traumatizing. And the effects of that trauma aren't always apparent. But I think I found one of mine tonight.

Just now (or rather several minutes ago because this post did not spew forth from my head fully formed and I have had plenty of distractions in between), I reblogged a post about AO3's services temporarily going down due to an issue that AO3 hadn't at the time of the post identified. The post started with the suggestion that AO3 went down because a specific Minecraft RPF fic updated. I specifically reblogged it because I had an extremely visceral reaction to someone spreading lies and misinformation on the internet, and that post contained AO3's notice that they're looking into it but the issue was NOT because of one fic in particular. I had several tags typed out that I ultimately deleted, because instead I decided to write this post.

My visceral reaction to the beginning of that post about AO3 largely revolved around how abso-fucking-lutely sick I am of seeing lies and misinformation spread by people, online or offline. It doesn't matter if it's spread with malicious intent or with the best of intentions, I hate it. I hate it, I'm sick of it, I wish people would goddamn fact check before they open their goddamn mouths. And the reason for my visceral reaction was because the coup that was attempted yesterday was the culmination and result of years of lies and propaganda being spread by bad-faith actors, well-meaning fools, and actual goddamn white supremacists. Even during the attempted coup, 45 continued to spew lies and incited further violence. Nor was he the only one; Twitch removed an emote that was based on a person who was also inciting violence via social media last night.

And I know I'm not immune to lies. I know I'm not all-knowing and can spot misinformation when I see it. I know I've fucked up many times and thus spread lies and misinformation that I so abhor, all unwilling and unknowing. And yet I still get so irrationally angry when I see others doing the same, even over something so inconsequential as my ideal fanfiction site. I've been like this for awhile now; I get mad when people mislabel Christmas Eve/Sarajevo 12/24 from the Trans Siberian Orchestra as Carol of the Bells—yes it's the same melody, but we don't call the fucking Alphabet Song the Happy Birthday song just because they share the same melody, do we? I get mad about so many inconsequential things that are just people being wrong.

And there's nothing wrong with being wrong! I know this! I know I know this. Yet somehow I still have an anger response when I see something being spread and spread and spread and I know that it's wrong. There's no malice to being wrong, but I react like there is. And I direct that to myself, too. If I find that I've shared a post that had misinformation, my immediate emotional response is anger at myself for being wrong. For being human. For making a mistake. If I find I've misremembered a fact I shared in conversation, I feel like I'm somehow evil for doing so. My roommate has actually had to talk me down from those feelings before, to convince me that I'm not a bad person for making a mistake.

But my reaction to that post tonight went way beyond the responses I usually have. I wasn't just angry. I was furious. There was a half-formed thought in the back of my head that the OP of that post was just like the white supremacists who spread lies and misinformation to manipulate people. For a retrostpectively terrifying few moments, I saw that person as evil, as part of the problem, as the enemy. And all they did is make a haha funnie joek about a fanfiction being popular enough to crash a website designed to host fanfiction. There was nothing malicious in their intent. For all I know they genuinely believed it was true. Part of me is still convinced that [S] Cascade broke Newgrounds when it dropped, I can understand where the OP was coming from. But for whatever reason all of my anger and sorrow and fear from yesterday coalesced to a point and lazer-focused on the OP of that post.

I'm glad I took a minute to breathe, and didn't reblog that post with the tags I had typed out in anger. I don't think my tags would have done much lasting damage; at worst I would have accidentally made anyone who saw that specific reblog with my tags feel guilty if they'd previously reblogged without AO3's response. But that's still more harm than anyone who would have seen it deserves, and I don't ever want to bring any harm to innocent people. That's not what my blog is about. That's not what I'm about. I'm not here to exact rightous fury and screw anyone caught in the splash damage. I'm here to be a healing presence when and where I can, to spread truth and information as best I can, and to make the people who find my blog and my posts and my tags sit up a little straighter and think "hell yeah, I can do it!"

Or, as was immortalized in quote 1227 of Extra Credits's Twitch quotebot: "I'm here to be wholesome and cause chaos."

Anger and hate isn't the way to do that. I need to do better, but before I can do better, I think I need to heal. I'm going to stop reblogging posts that make me angry, I think. Call that my New Year's Resolution if we have to. I may still reblog things that make me sad, or that have important information that lets others help those who have been hurt or wronged. But I'm going to be more careful about reblogging things that may hurt others on accident. I'll probably still fuck up, and I'd like to apologize in advance for that. But I'm going to try.

#bobbi's being weird again

[justsomeantifas]

This was a bad post, it was antisemitic, it was white supremacist, and simply incorrect, I’m sorry for making this post, and I hope you all read the posts in the comments that correct why it is wrong. I will post some of them that describe why this post is incorrect @hero-israel this post is antisemitic blood libel.  It was nice to see that you recently apologized for antisemitic erasure of Jews from social justice movements so I hope you’ll take my point here as well.   This author says Israel has killed 24 MILLION PEOPLE.  Here in this solar system, the combined, all-sides grand total death count from 100 years of conflict between Zionists and Arabs is about 115,000.  If you only start counting after the declaration of Israel in 1948, the combined all-sides death count is about 92,000, of which 30,000 were Egyptian soldiers.   Further down on the page you linked, the author says Zionist governments want global warming to cause a Muslim genocide.  If you looked up the author on Wikipedia, you’d also see that he claims since 9/11, Zionism has caused the deaths of 15 million Americans.   And while far be it from me to defend the British Empire, the author says they killed 1.8 BILLION people in India from 1757-1947, when, again, here in this solar system there wasn’t even a total combined worldwide human population of 2 billion until the 1920s.  That’s not defending the British, that’s just…. true.   The whole thing is a parody of street-corner screaming insanity, just look at the writing style, it should have set off every warning flag you’ve got.   And no, it doesn’t count as “criticism of Israel.”   Not a damn word of it. 

@vermiciousyid This whole thing is a mess, double counting things, trying to blame Churchill for policies from before he was born…I mean, he was a shitbag, but he’s hardly responsible for things that happened in 1757! Much less so responsible that you can count it against him multiple times like the above does.Blaming him for Japanese entry into WWII and all the deaths they caused is also ridiculous, as the Pacific Theatre war started in 1931, well before the war in Europe.And of course, there’s the numerical problems that @hero-israel mentioned.Bad post OP. Do better.

@tikkunolamorgtfo, who is blocked by OP, and asked me to post it so that it would appear. I’m sorry, but as a Bengali Jew, this is just thoroughly un-fucking-acceptable.  I’m not exactly an Israel fan, but to exploit the genocide of my people as a political prop to make false comparisons between indigenous Jewish refugees and European colonialists is disgusting.  And don’t even try to pretend it’s not exploitation, because if you actually cared about Bengalis you would have also mentioned the 3 million of us who were slaughtered by Pakistan (a country that is almost identical to Israel in its creation with regards to British partition) in the 1970s.  You didn’t, and for that you owe me and really all Indian Jews (MOST OF WHOM LIVE IN ISRAEL) an apology for this fucking disrespectful mess of a post.BENGALIS ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING PROPS

brehaaorgana Take it a step further, you cannot blame Churchill for the Japanese entry into WWII because Japan was waging war FAR LONGER than the Europeans were, and before the “start” of the Pacific theater.Like yes the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, BUT the Japanese had already pushed the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876 to integrate Korea into the Japanese empire, and in 1905, another Treaty was made calling Korea a protectorate of Japan. Then in 1910, Japan annexed Korea.It’s also hard to just go “Oh Japan started this in 1931” as if Japan’s march towards becoming aggressively imperialist was rather sudden. It wasn’t:1876 - Attempts made to integrate Korea into the Japanese Empire 

1894-1895 First Sino-Japanese War (Korean Joseon Dynasty removed from Qing Empire’s vassalage, now under Japanese influence - this later leads to the Xinghai Revolution in China in 1911, the Qing Dynasty falls in 1912) 1904-1905 - Russo-Japanese War - this war actually basically bankrupts Japan and their people are furious Siberia wasn’t ceded to Japan. 1905 - Treaty claims Korea is a protectorate of Japan (and not under the influence of Russia). The ending of the Russo-Japanese war with the diplomatic mediation of Roosevelt causes anti-American riots in Japan which go on for three days before the government declares martial law. 1910 - Japan Annexes Korea 1931 - Japan invades Manchuria 1937 - the “traditional” start of the Sino-Japanese War marked by the Marco Polo Bridge incident.But that’s just arbitrary dating - since the Joseon Dynasty was a vassal under the Qing Dynasty, the conflicts between China and Japan as ruling powers goes back to the late 1870’s and continues until it reaches a head in the 1930’s.So in addition to being bunk antisemitic blood libel which grossly distorts real numbers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, it’s also bullshit historical writing which badly attempts to reframe Japanese imperialism as the sole fault of the western world “making” it happen, as opposed to part of Japan’s decades long expansionism.It’s FASCINATING how people will accuse Jews of blood libel and genocide but are happy and WILLING to appropriate the term “holocaust” for everyone else’s genocides that they pretty much deem as “more worthy” or more sympathetic.Also just to note: Historically Britain PULLED OUT of Singapore at the WORST POSSIBLE MOMENT. Japanese forces were stretched too thin, out of backup and out of supplies and pretty much would have immediately lost the conquest of Singapore had the British stayed to defend the island. Japanese forces would have been easily overwhelmed because they simply did not have the kind of rations or supplies left to fight any kind of lengthy fight. The British panicked instead of defending the Island however, and the Japanese took over because there was no longer a British military force to stop them. It is not that Singapore was indefensible. It is that the British didn’t even attempt to try.Also the above 1917 or whatever date of Russia and the famine….incidentally leaves out the fact that Russia had JUST lost a war with Japan in 1905 and then immediately had a revolution following that. Another reblog quoting tikkunolamorgtfo also pointed out you blatantly left out the deaths of millions of Bengalis due to Pakistan (another British created country). Everything about this is a mess.0/10 Bad post OP, call me when you’ve learned basic historiography.

I would like to say that we never had @tikkunolamorgtfo blocked, we can post picture proof if need be, but them being able to reblog this post would be proof that we have not blocked them.

#winston churchill #genocide #famine #white supremacy #racism #capitalism #classism #class warfare #long post #antisemitism #me fucking up

[diarrheaworldstarhiphop]

Berkeley's Mayor and liberals everywhere: “this was a peaceful protest that was coopted by violent anarchists from outside of our community”

(Very basic, basic background checks of social media reveals one of the rioters who repeatedly beat an incapacitated man, then gloated about it on twitter, is an employee of the university with a $70,000 Salary)

mhm

ACADEMIA C A D E M I A

The left loves to fucking do this. They harbour or participate with, WILLINGLY AND IN FULL SUPPORT OF, violent agents within protest. But then disavow it to the media and claim to be opposed to this. Every time. Yet never do you see these violent people being forcibly ejected by the peaceful protesters. And I know, because in my time while i was black bloc, i would kick over shit like newspaper boxes during protests n marches i attended. i would then just return and blend into the crowd. Some would come over and high five me or smile and talk excitedly about my direct action. Never was i chastised.

Funny enough, when gamergate happened, the left were furious and outraged that moderate gamerg8rs frequently would do the same. GGers would repeatedly say they disavow and have nothing to do those who were committing harassment, but in actuality would tacitly support or commit it themselves from a puppet account.

Once left wing tactics are flipped back onto the left, suddenly it’s a fucking disgusting problem worth decrying.

There was even a famous comic spread far and wide across anti-GG progressive social media making a point of this outrageous tactic they unfairly experienced by GG:

Yet these same people would never react or police their own the way they demanded GG to do when some 18 year old lost their job because progressives doxxed them then bombarded that teenagers workplace with complaints because of a tweet they made the #gamergate hashtag...

Another hilarious tactic the left wing protesters do is this amazing thing right after or during the moment some guy is beaten and violently put down by violent people in that march, and you will see it in footage most every time.

You will hear a chant rise up from the crowd surrounding the violence that goes

PEACEFUL PROTEST! PEACEFUL PROTEST! ad nauseum

Yet, again, you will notice nobody chanting steps forward to save the dude getting jumped (usually a decent guy or two will step forth eventually once the beating becomes too outrageous to do nothing about)

The purpose for this chant, explicitly by people who start it, is mainly to gaslight any potential viewers of video clips of this violence into thinking that the majority of the crowd does not condone it. It’s like lashing out at someone while crying STOP ATTACKING ME.

But yeah, the breakdown of such protests are like, a 60, 20, 10 split.

the first 60% of the protest (or more, depending on the turnout) are liberals or curious onlookers who are there for solidarity after seeing wheatpaste posters about the upcoming protest at bus stops and campus billboards. These people generally know very little about what is going on or who they are opposing, but trust in the people who advertise it that those they are facing are nazis or whatever. These will be the people who are here out of their own good conscience to carry chants and be there as a body in opposition to the right wing. These people are peaceful and will be those who will be that one or two aforementioned decent guys who will step in to protect a dude when violence gets too outrageous.

However, they are primarily there to be useful for the remaining 40% in their effort to Shut Shit Down.

The second 20% of protesters are organizers and radicals who are versed in direct action and will step in to protect the herd and tend to cleanup of anything should violence occur or things get too heated. They are the people who push their way into the path retreating antifa make as they return from direct action and to block any police or decent guys in the 60% trying to grab them. They will also be the people who will go home and update the event facebook page to say “We do not condone the shameful violence that occurred last night at our stage in by people from outside our campus, they do not represent our community, yadda yadda”

Watch what happens from 30 seconds in (note: not anything in defense of Lauren Southern, but to make example of left wing protest tactics) and you can get a general sense of this 20% in action:

The 3rd 10% of the protest (or less) are the muscle of the protest and are the people who will instigate and continuously seek ways to attack the opposition or commit vandalism. Unlike the second 20%, these people usually aren’t the sympathetic organizers (because they lack the stomach or courage themselves), but these are the people the organizers want to attract. Some of these people (antifa, black bloc, anarchists, etc), organizers and radicals in the 2nd group personally know. Though a good many of them are lone wolves unrelated to anyone in the protest (in most, i fit this bill in the past). And yeah, indeed, alot of them can come from outside the immediate campus community. But when you are advertising your protest on online left wing forums, in co-op coffee shops and around town, you are hoping for and deliberately inviting this.

Most of this 10% will mill about in the crowd and most will restrain themselves from any violence (otherwise they will be arrested early, like most teenaged black bloc noobs), but are constantly scanning for police/security and seeking openings to jump out and deck a dude. They can potentially be peaceful for the duration of the ENTIRE protest if it’s small and disappointingly chill enough. This is where they rely on the organizers to swell the crowd to a point where rage and the thrill of a mob can be infectious, making the 60% confident enough to confront and debate their opposition at the front line in raised voices. This often gives the opening for the roaming 10% to leap in, snatch a MAGA hat, sucker punch a distracted opposition member and so on.

And when that happens, you will soon see subsequent other 10%ers leap in and do their own direct action. And you can see this often in videos of anti-trump or milo protests, where a row of guys APPEAR FROM NOWHERE and STRIKE a guy distracted while debating with the 60% and then retreat again.

But sometimes if the timing is right, the energy of the crowd is at a crescendo and if the security is overwhelmed to a degree where they cant immediately step in, the 10%ers will gravitate toward the edge and all leap out at once

and let me tell you, its all instinctual and the adrenaline rush is AMAZING:

Watch all the lower rungs of the 60%s who’ve never attended rallies before and Milo fans shout no in the aftermath.

But yeah

thats all in comprehending this shit

I saw the ORiginal screenshots in some guy’s post, but i couldnt reblog them because they*cough*gop-pub-tea*cough* blocked me lol