"Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt will be along shortly to defend him.

[Cunt]

I don't even understand L'emmer's point or the meme he used to make it.

Swing and a miss, smarty-pants!

[Scot Dutchy]

Are you still around smarty pants. You are on recall.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I don't even understand L'emmer's point or the meme he used to make it.

Swing and a miss, smarty-pants!

It's not 'my' point, and it's not a meme. It's a tweet from Molyneux (click on the image to see the actual tweet), in which he's apparently trying to shift any responsibility for the slave trade from those who bought and owned slaves onto Africans who engaged in taking slaves. Molyneux's analogy is a simplistic and repugnant distortion of history. Unlike drug use in and of itself, buying and owning slaves is not victimless. In the analogy, slaves are equated to drugs, as if they were inanimate objects.

Africans did take other Africans and sell them into the slave trade, but the analogy presented by Molyneux ignores the fact that both the sellers and the buyers who engaged in the African slave trade were benefitting from the brutal exploitation of human beings as chattel.

There is no basis for his implicit claim that Africans who sold slaves were 'worse' than the Europeans and Americans who bought them. The analogy is a failure on multiple levels and presents an excellent example of the alt-right's rotten underpinning, lacking both logic and sound factual basis.

[Cunt]

So you are saying that blacks started the slave trade, by selling other blacks?

Huh...it's almost like people can be fuckers, or wonderful, irrelevant of their skin colour...

You are really getting 'woke', L'Emmerdeur! Next you will be judging people by the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin!

[L'Emmerdeur]

So you are saying that blacks started the slave trade, by selling other blacks?

Assuming you've read my post, unless you're a thoroughgoing stooge you know that is not what I'm saying. You may find it gratifying to habitually engage in intellectual dishonesty, but I find your posts rather predictable and boring.

[Cunt]

So you are saying that blacks started the slave trade, by selling other blacks?

Assuming you've read my post, unless you're a thoroughgoing stooge you know that is not what I'm saying. You may find it gratifying to habitually engage in intellectual dishonesty, but I find your posts rather predictable and boring.

It seems to be what you were suggesting.

But your habit of huffing and withdrawing is, like most of your contributions, intellectually dishonest, predictable and boring.

[L'Emmerdeur]

So you are saying that blacks started the slave trade, by selling other blacks?

Assuming you've read my post, unless you're a thoroughgoing stooge you know that is not what I'm saying. You may find it gratifying to habitually engage in intellectual dishonesty, but I find your posts rather predictable and boring.

It seems to be what you were suggesting.

But your habit of huffing and withdrawing is, like most of your contributions, intellectually dishonest, predictable and boring.

So 'it seems' that you are admitting to being a thoroughgoing stooge. So be it.

I didn't say that blacks started the slave trade. You chose to infer that despite the fact that I didn't say it, nor imply it. Is that plain enough for you?

You also chose to ignore what I did say, preferring to post about your imaginary reading of my post. That is without question intellectually dishonest.

I withdraw from discussion with you because I find your habitual dishonesty frustrating. You seem determined to elicit negative reactions, time after time. This is what I mean when I say your posts are predictable and boring.

[Cunt]

You posted a meme and then disavowed it. OK, happens all the time.

If you ever decide to stop posting the racist-focused stuff, you might find less misunderstandings.

[pErvinalia]

L'Emmy didn't disavow it. But I understand why you might.

[Cunt]

I still don't know whether lemmy was agreeing that it was the sellers to blame over the buyers, or if his disagreement was about skin colour...

[L'Emmerdeur]

You posted a meme and then disavowed it. OK, happens all the time.

If you ever decide to stop posting the racist-focused stuff, you might find less misunderstandings.

Try reading the post you misrepresented and respond to it honestly. I doubt that there is a sincere misunderstanding on your part--I don't think you're that stupid. Would you prefer that I assume that you are a nitwit and respond to you as such? I'm willing to do that if it's what you'd prefer.

[Cunt]

I don't even understand L'emmer's point or the meme he used to make it.

Swing and a miss, smarty-pants!

It's not 'my' point, and it's not a meme. It's a tweet from Molyneux (click on the image to see the actual tweet), in which he's apparently trying to shift any responsibility for the slave trade from those who bought and owned slaves onto Africans who engaged in taking slaves. Molyneux's analogy is a simplistic and repugnant distortion of history. Unlike drug use in and of itself, buying and owning slaves is not victimless. In the analogy, slaves are equated to drugs, as if they were inanimate objects.

Why didn't you answer my response then?

I asked...

So you are saying that blacks started the slave trade, by selling other blacks?

Huh...it's almost like people can be fuckers, or wonderful, irrelevant of their skin colour...

You are really getting 'woke', L'Emmerdeur! Next you will be judging people by the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin!

See, Stephen might be an idiot (I don't very often agree with him) but what he points out here is what I underscored.

Black or white, slaveowners are fuckers. Black or white, wonderful people are wonderful.

Africans did take other Africans and sell them into the slave trade, but the analogy presented by Molyneux ignores the fact that both the sellers and the buyers who engaged in the African slave trade were benefitting from the brutal exploitation of human beings as chattel.

There is no basis for his implicit claim that Africans who sold slaves were 'worse' than the Europeans and Americans who bought them. The analogy is a failure on multiple levels and presents an excellent example of the alt-right's rotten underpinning, lacking both logic and sound factual basis.

See, I didn't know if you were disagreeing that blacks were slavetraders, or disagreeing that they started it (I don't know who 'started' it, I would expect everyone invented it independently)

Or just trying to show off how you aren't racist, by taking a side based on skin colour.

I still don't know for sure, but I know that Stephen is an ass for presenting this that way, and that many lefties just have trouble with the idea that slavers aren't always white guys.

[pErvinalia]

You can't be this thick. Can you?

[JimC]

In the US (and other places), blacks were not only bought by white men as slaves, they were trans-shipped by whites in conditions which killed many. Their sons and daughters became slaves as well, subject to constant ill-treatment. The source of the original slaves (often Arab slave traders, as well as certain black tribes) is utterly irrelevant to the clear, unambiguous facts of slavery in the US. No amount of pathetic, twisted hand-waving by white supremacist morons can alter one jot or tittle of that. Cunt, your reflex support of anyone on the right gains you some very nasty bed-fellows...