Did you know who Nick Fuentes was before all this?

52,515 Views | 967 Replies | Last: 12 days ago by Shooter McGavin
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Not the consenting adults argument. Meant this one: Seems that Male and Female are clear defaults designed or intended for one another - let alone Biblically specified (use default very deliberately--absolutely believe there a fixed norms) . But a Gay is still a male and Lesbian still a female. They even fully retain the means to reproduce just not their orientation reproduce. But that's not necessary in nature. They just belong to a small fixed percentage (pick your number whether is 6-or 9 percent whatever) that appears to have always been present. But apart from those `stuck' between in development, all the rest are not natural --without science wouldn't exist. Is not the argument if you need science for it, it isn't natural pretty true?

Swap "trans woman (read: man)" for "gay" and "trans man (read: woman)" for "lesbian" and your sentence remains the same, so there's the logical proof.

We can actually use science and reasoning to deduce that gay sex is bad and assign a moral value judgment to it. So gay sex may be a "natural act" strictly in the sense that it exists in nature. That doesn't mean it can't have a negative moral value judgment.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Interesting. That's a novel take. But hold on -- doesn't the persistent existence in nature and as percentage suggest some point?
zoneag
How long do you want to ignore this user?


titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
titan said:

shack009 said:

Yeah you may say people wanted to be nice or "less blunt" and aggie93 may say people wanted to "build coalitions." Meanwhile we moved leftward. Good thing we were nice and built coalitions.

That's the real trick, isn't it. This has been insightful. Have 20s somethings watching what they run into and wanted to know what was up with this. Women even wearing veils (and not because of `Islamcization' from the Left, but harking back to early Church ---that's eye opening)

By the way as a close, this above remarkably tracks with an intriguing work back more than a decade ago, but whose truth was apparent even then, and now seems more so.

Something to consider especially, when some wonder is it anywhere in Last Days territory. This is the kind of thing would expect if that were the case.

Full Circle: How the Classical World Came Back to Us
Ferdinand Mount
978-1847377982
Stone Choir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
titan said:


Given have watched the full video, its now very clear what `Groyper Wars' meant. It was questioning barrage, trying to get certain notions heard.

Two questions if you will. Given the dust up with Kirk and Smith at Ohio segment A) are the younger dissident right abandoning the American secular overall environment (pre-supposing a Western Christian moral backdrop and framework as foundational, but not determining every law) premise? Were they saying they do not want any G or L or B even if thoroughly conservative? That is, (not a criticism but a note) they are taking a true dogma approach much closer to a Christian sharia than it is the secular idea of "all kinds of the same ideal" which was what Kirk clearly was coming from, and what GenX grew up with. If it is that exclusionary, that's kind of surprising. Is this correct?

B) Why can't a distinction be made between the alphabets and the more deranged. Seems that Male and Female are clear defaults designed or intended for one another (use default very deliberately--absolutely believe there a fixed norms) . But a Gay is still a male and Lesbian still a female. They even fully retain the means to reproduce just not their orientation reproduce. But that's not necessary in nature. They just belong to a small fixed percentage (pick your number whether is 6-or 9 percent whatever) that appears to have always been present. But apart from those `stuck' between in development, all the rest are not natural --without science wouldn't exist. And the norm still remains so. Being born without a leg is still a person but it is drift from the default. So why it is necessary to say giving them a niche a in secular society is not possible? Many major states did it -- they just didn't mainstream it like 21st C Left does.

But it depends on (A).


Support for homosexuality is now back under 50% and dropping like a stone.

Now that more people know the true nature of gays due to stats, they can't hide the truth anymore. The reality is that a significant portion of them have more than 500 partners with the median being 50+, pedophilia rates are more than 5x that of straight men, you are more likely to have HIV as a gay man than a straight man who received a positive HIV test (yes you read that right, it's due to false positives being common), lesbian domestic abuse rates are vastly greater than straight domestic abuse rates, lesbians kill kids at much higher rates than normal relationships, and so much more.

The reality is that none of these people are normal and all of them are living in sin. No amount of hand waving can make this fact go away. When you actively live in sun like this, you slowly destroy yourself, the same way you would with any other sinful lifestyle being it promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, gambling, greed, laziness, porn, etc.

People only supported gays before they knew the truth, but now it can't be hidden so support is dropping like a stone.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:


Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.


A couple things. Kids are "socially transitioned" at schools without parental knowledge. That doesn't require science or doctors.

Secondly, why shouldn't science be permitted to transition people? That's just who they are. Consenting adults. Parental consent. Privacy of the home. Should doctors be prevented from treating HIV when gay people get it because you're introducing science? There's an incoherence here.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
shack009 said:

titan said:


Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.


A couple things. Kids are "socially transitioned" at schools without parental knowledge. That doesn't require science or doctors.

Secondly, why shouldn't science be permitted to transition people? That's just who they are. Consenting adults. Parental consent. Privacy of the home. Should doctors be prevented from treating HIV when gay people get it because you're introducing science? There's an incoherence here.

You are misunderstanding. That science is needed means it is unnatural. The argument was that G and L have existed from the start -- a small percentage. Even in the wild. But something requiring science is artificial not found in the forest, the wild, the jungle, the mountains. A line can be drawn between them. That's all. Just a philosophical distinction believe was lost. But what you are describing makes it more like in time people will see the past few decades as just some strange experimental aberration. Recall you said any line drawn was arbitrary -- the requiring artificial doesn't seem to be arbitrary. It could be used. But don't think it matters any more. Not with what has been learned here.
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

shack009 said:

titan said:


Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.


A couple things. Kids are "socially transitioned" at schools without parental knowledge. That doesn't require science or doctors.

Secondly, why shouldn't science be permitted to transition people? That's just who they are. Consenting adults. Parental consent. Privacy of the home. Should doctors be prevented from treating HIV when gay people get it because you're introducing science? There's an incoherence here.

You are misunderstanding. That science is needed means it is unnatural. The argument was that G and L have existed from the start -- a small percentage. Even in the wild. But something requiring science is artificial not found in the forest, the wild, the jungle, the mountains. A line can be drawn between them. That's all. Just a philosophical distinction believe was lost. But what you are describing makes it more like in time people will see the past few decades as just some strange experimental aberration.


Science is needed to treat diseases so is treating diseases unnatural? Science is needed for space travel. Is space travel unnatural?

We weren't born in space but we used science to get there. You could use the same argument for trans people saying they were born in the wrong body.

I apologize if I misunderstand.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It isnt who they are. Identity doesn't work like that. They have a mental illness.

Society isn't comprised of unlimited freedoms. This libertarian navet is one of the dumbest remnants of the last century. We live in a society that is held together by mutual responsibilities, men to each other, society to men, men to society. This means we have a responsibility toward each other. Just like we say - fentanyl is a net negative to society and we disallow it - we can say - this is a net negative to society and we can disallow it.

"They're not hurting anyone" is objectively false when their mental illness results in multiple mass shootings.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
shack009 said:

titan said:

shack009 said:

titan said:


Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.


A couple things. Kids are "socially transitioned" at schools without parental knowledge. That doesn't require science or doctors.

Secondly, why shouldn't science be permitted to transition people? That's just who they are. Consenting adults. Parental consent. Privacy of the home. Should doctors be prevented from treating HIV when gay people get it because you're introducing science? There's an incoherence here.

You are misunderstanding. That science is needed means it is unnatural. The argument was that G and L have existed from the start -- a small percentage. Even in the wild. But something requiring science is artificial not found in the forest, the wild, the jungle, the mountains. A line can be drawn between them. That's all. Just a philosophical distinction believe was lost. But what you are describing makes it more like in time people will see the past few decades as just some strange experimental aberration.


Science is needed to treat diseases so is treating diseases unnatural? Science is needed for space travel. Is space travel unnatural?

We weren't born in space but we used science to get there. You could use the same argument for trans people saying they were born in the wrong body.

I apologize if I misunderstand.

You are misunderstanding. You said you can't draw a line from granting a niche to GL from all the others. What saying is you can if you use a line something like that. Can you transition in the wild -- have doubts. Not making anti-science argument. Just saying that GL is a case of one side of the Left mess is not like the other as manufactured. They have had a little time to show this. That said, but if things are reverting to a more stricter take on the morality code, then this is academic. Presumably it will start impacting the way adultery is viewed too. Its just interesting.
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree. I'm explaining the logical incoherence between allowing gays and not allowing trans in the movement.
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
titan said:

shack009 said:

titan said:

shack009 said:

titan said:


Yes, had seen those stats before and they were certainly revelatory. Maybe we were in one of those aberrant periods of history. No longer know. I do know history's ebbs and flows are such that if you are in one, it might be damn hard to realize it. But anecdotal indications of that are growing.

Do still wonder what the persistent percentage of GL from ancient days means -- whereas can one really trans in the wild -- seems it needs science and doctors.


A couple things. Kids are "socially transitioned" at schools without parental knowledge. That doesn't require science or doctors.

Secondly, why shouldn't science be permitted to transition people? That's just who they are. Consenting adults. Parental consent. Privacy of the home. Should doctors be prevented from treating HIV when gay people get it because you're introducing science? There's an incoherence here.

You are misunderstanding. That science is needed means it is unnatural. The argument was that G and L have existed from the start -- a small percentage. Even in the wild. But something requiring science is artificial not found in the forest, the wild, the jungle, the mountains. A line can be drawn between them. That's all. Just a philosophical distinction believe was lost. But what you are describing makes it more like in time people will see the past few decades as just some strange experimental aberration.


Science is needed to treat diseases so is treating diseases unnatural? Science is needed for space travel. Is space travel unnatural?

We weren't born in space but we used science to get there. You could use the same argument for trans people saying they were born in the wrong body.

I apologize if I misunderstand.

Presumably it will start impacting the way adultery is viewed too. Its just interesting.


https://share.google/images/DlkUO8Zhk7qNTQ851

Ross Geller that's the hope .gif" />

F I'm such a boomer…
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
shack009 said:

I agree. I'm explaining the logical incoherence between allowing gays and not allowing trans in the movement.

Perhaps you are right.

After all, hold to a view that can work something like this:
Q: "What gives the right?"
Particular society: "Not claiming the right, just doing it."
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


He was on PBD today and has almost 400k followers on Rumble now, an almost 60% increase in 3ish weeks.
Keyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
shack009 said:



He was on PBD today and has almost 400k followers on Rumble now, an almost 60% increase in 3ish weeks.

Fair interview. Over a million views already
Keyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?


"Trending higher than Joe Rogan". The olds do not know what is coming
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyno said:

"Trending higher than Joe Rogan". The olds do not know what is coming

Your GenZ led purge/civil war/cleansing/revolution/genocide isn't happening no matter how much you think it is.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
TheEternalOptimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SquirrellyDan said:

First, this is in no way related to Charlie Kirk and I'm not saying the killer was alt right.

I'm wondering who here knew about Nick Fuentes prior to this happening? I've watched a few of his videos and the conservative movement needs to do everything they can to separate themselves from this guy and those like him. Guys like this are the problem and allow the left to group the right with people like Nick Fuentes, and we absolutely need to do more than what's already been done (if anything) to draw the line between the right and extremists like Nick Fuentes. Curious to see how others here view this guy.

Yes. I knew of him before, but he is MASSIVELY growing in prominence because so many younger men age (14 to say 35) were so despondent after Charlie's assassination - and Fuentes speech showing his disgust and anger over it - drew many of these in. Fuentes assertion is that Charlie was the nice guy and the left wing discourse lead a leftist to murder him in a gruesome way ... and that the left must be collectively held accountable. Charlie was not a fan of Fuentes, and Fuentes acknowledges that.

The left does NOT understand that with each act of political violence, they are pushing more men into the arms of people like Fuentes, Sam Hyde, Myron Gaines, and others like that. And now I am having to even caution my own son and his friends on where Fuentes gets it wrong. His name comes up often in social gatherings with young people. And even among non-white men he is growing in influence quickly - which was not something I thought I would ever see.

As for me -

I find agreement on 60-70% of his political views.

But I find STRONG opposition to his views on:

1) Race (including Jews). Anti-Interracial marriage. Wants imposed racial segregation.
2) Has stated before that only Roman Catholics are going to heaven. No one else.

His view on these things are so abhorrent that it renders his views I agree with mute.

I have strong concerns on his views on dating and women too. Even if I share his view that the 19th amendment was a bad idea.

---------------------

This is the video Fuentes put up right after Charlie's death --

TheEternalOptimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyno said:



"Trending higher than Joe Rogan". The olds do not know what is coming

What I understand is that these Spotify uploads of Nick's show were NOT OFFICIAL or AUTHORIZED by him.
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheEternalOptimist said:

SquirrellyDan said:

First, this is in no way related to Charlie Kirk and I'm not saying the killer was alt right.

I'm wondering who here knew about Nick Fuentes prior to this happening? I've watched a few of his videos and the conservative movement needs to do everything they can to separate themselves from this guy and those like him. Guys like this are the problem and allow the left to group the right with people like Nick Fuentes, and we absolutely need to do more than what's already been done (if anything) to draw the line between the right and extremists like Nick Fuentes. Curious to see how others here view this guy.


As for me -

I find agreement on 60-70% of his political views.

But I find STRONG opposition to his views on:

1) Race (including Jews). Anti-Interracial marriage. Wants imposed racial segregation.
2) Has stated before that only Roman Catholics are going to heaven. No one else.

His view on these things are so abhorrent that it renders his views I agree with mute.

I have strong concerns on his views on dating and women too. Even if I share his view that the 19th amendment was a bad idea.

---------------------


1. Like what about race that you disagree with? That race is genetic and that comes with certain other genetic traits?

He says he's personally anti-interracial marriage. Most people are, that's why most people marry someone their same race.

Where do you see he wants government-imposed segregation of races?

2. This is just Catholic dogma. So you can't agree with him on anything because he's Catholic?
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheEternalOptimist said:

Keyno said:



"Trending higher than Joe Rogan". The olds do not know what is coming

What I understand is that these Spotify uploads of Nick's show were NOT OFFICIAL or AUTHORIZED by him.


Possible, but he reposted a tweet about how his spotify was banned after reaching number 1 in trending.
Serious Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
still laughing at the out of touch losers in this thread that said no one listens to him. Come back in, the waters fine.

titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

There is nothing in that particular video to object to, that's for sure. Interesting how firmly insists
on the Christian angle and charity and non-violence. Has been mis-represented in that regard clearly. Did not know had been directly threatened. He is certainly right about the `celebraters' of the Kirk killing as a special kind of evil not to negotiate with, and dripping with malevolence.

Noticed the host said Reddit was much as threads here describe.
Keyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?


He made Tucker
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Finally!
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG



Sooo....
I guess my answer is no...
shack009
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He was also Part of the Problem with Dave Smith a couple weeks ago. It was a fun interview that was 3.5 hours.
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
shack009 said:

He was also Part of the Problem with Dave Smith a couple weeks ago. It was a fun interview that was 3.5 hours.


Did they discuss how wrong they were about striking the Iran nuclear facilities? Talk about two losers.

I'm Gipper
Keyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Im Gipper said:

shack009 said:

He was also Part of the Problem with Dave Smith a couple weeks ago. It was a fun interview that was 3.5 hours.


Did they discuss how wrong they were about striking the Iran nuclear facilities? Talk about two losers.

Dave Smith averages like 100K views per video. His Fuentes interview has 1.7 million
fixer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fuentes' take on Israel is unintelligible. Tucker tried twice to get him to say something coherent about it and it fell off a cliff.
Bfire0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People who live in their parents' basement and, instead of taking responsibility, blame others for their situation.
Keyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fixer said:

Fuentes' take on Israel is unintelligible. Tucker tried twice to get him to say something coherent about it and it fell off a cliff.

I find it pretty straight forward. What exactly do you not understand?
Queso1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fixer said:

Fuentes' take on Israel is unintelligible. Tucker tried twice to get him to say something coherent about it and it fell off a cliff.


I think you might want to listen again. I think it's very clear. It is immoral and against the interests of the United States to be controlled by a foreign nation and to support genocide.

Yeah. Pretty clear. And pretty sensible.
I will no longer discuss politics with you. I reject your premises and world view. I am finished trying to compromise with you.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.