It is telling that you believe McInnes’ words support the claim that Southern and Molyneux support violence.
Also it is funny that a supporter of the most violent military in modern times shows concern over violence.
Those are extremely substantial numbers for political youtubers. Now add the fact that these channels are very heavily promoted by the youtube algorithm, and the existence of a clear political pipeline starting with people like Joe Rogan, leading through PragerU and Ben Shapiro, to full-bore neo-nazis like Molyneux and McInnes…
You ignore societal forces like this at your peril. There are serious problems with online radicalization, and these figures are not fringe figures that are overwhelmingly laughed at, and they run in the same circles as far more mainstream right-wing figures like Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson.
Or how about Steven Crowder, who may not be a white supremacist himself, but consistently has guests like these guys on his show?
4,065,316 subscribers • 833,729,981 views
Or Dave Rubin (same story)?
1,027,522 subscribers • 220,891,512 views
Those are pretty substantial numbers.
There are other ways to be disingenuous; like changing the subject.
Changing the subject? I continue to ask for support for the claim that Southern and Molyneux support violence.
Jordan Peterson is fairly run of the mill lefty. Your labeler is broken.
I’m glad to see that you agree with me that McInnes supports violence! Good for you from backing off your earlier claim that McInnes does not support violence.
Molyneux and Southern may believe that defending the near-genocide of native Australians is consistent with opposing violence, and WillF may agree, but not all of us do. Similarly, Molyneux and Southern probably believe that spreading false information that black people are inferior and inherently dangerous is not a violent action, and WillF may agree, but not all of us do. Some of us see white supremacism as inherently violent, due to its history in the US and elsewhere as an ideology fundamentally interlinked with violence.
Never made that claim. Strike two.
Once again no citations.
You did in #212, but it doesn’t matter – it’s good to see that we both now recognize McInnes’ support for violence.
Ha! The citations are there… presumably you now agree with me that Molyneux tolerates and supports violence in some circumstances?
White supremacy is an inherently violent ideology. When you spread conspiracy theories like the great replacement or white genocide (which Southern did), you are inviting violence, as violence is the only possible response to the wholly imaginary threat of white genocide. There’s a reason this keeps getting referenced in shooting manfestos.
Post 212 mentions supposed white supremacists named upthread. Southern and Molyneux for those following the conversation. I’ll call this a foul tip.
Wikipedia citations may pass when working for the government, but we aren’t serving the murderous military here. Please cite from primary sources or admit you have nothing.
If that’s the case, white supremacists are remarkably docile. You claim that the many followers of Molyneux and Southern buy into “violent” conspiracy theories yet the vast majority take no action. In fact, I don’t think any of the violent supremacists cite Molyneux and Southern as influences.
(emphasis mine)
Huh? How are you measuring “greatest terrorist threat”?
WillF, do you sympathize with the views of Molyneux that black people are inferior and dangerous and should be kept separate? If not, why are you expending so much energy defending someone who spreads such obviously hateful and harmful views? I don’t get it. Those views are responsible for murderous violence against millions just in the last few centuries.
Because while the world’s eyes continue to focus on what remains of ISIS, domestically, the DHS capacity to track homegrown terrorism has been actively & deliberately impeded by this administration.
How is that something I need to explain? You can’t even cite a single sentence from them advocating violence. It would be easier for me to cite advocacy of political violence by current Democratic congress members.
As I explained upthread, white supremacy is not the most violent ideology. Democracy has led to the identification of the individual with state action. The violence caused by the government is endorsed by the vast majority of citizens and it surpasses the violence of white supremacy by miles and miles.
This doesn’t remotely address my question.
I can’t make you understand that which you have demonstrably shown an unwillingness to even research, much less read. I’m done with your disingenuous bullshit. Wallow in it on your own.
So you haven’t found a single sentence from Southern or Molyneux supporting violence. This has been a sad display from you.