If only the UKuck built the wall sooner.
spiked @spikedonline 10 Apr 2021
We need to stop importing America’s racial identity politics.
https://archive.ph/Drdve https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/09/its-time-to-scrap-the-term-institutional-racism/
It’s time to scrap the term ‘institutional racism’
This American import only obscures who and what is to blame for racial disparities.
KEVIN YUILL 9th April 2021
Comment Reported for:
Comment Removed for Rule 16
Now is your chance to prove that you are unbiased and that the Atlas Shrugged quote doesn't apply to you. Pandas4Trump does nothing but stalk TS across multiple .win's Evidence:
https://communities.win/u/Pandas4Trump/ https://kotakuinaction2.win/u/Pandas4Trump/ https://consumeproduct.win/u/Pandas4Trump/ https://conspiracies.win/u/Pandas4Trump/
Ban Him.
Also you can remove every instance of Antonio calling someone "Stormcuck" or "Stormfag", as those are identity based slurs against whites and sexual harassment violating Rule 15. Furthermore, both of those slurs are defamation violating rule 3, as no one here is a member of Stormfront, any more than they are members of the KKK, or members of the Nazi party.
No it's absolutely not and you know that's ridiculous argument.
Being a reader of Stormfront is not any sort of identity group, and whites are not sigularly represented by people that read Stormfront. If you want me to do that, then I'd remove all criticism of BLM.
Secondly, it is not harassment to call someone a faggot alone.
However, Pandas behavior does likely count as harassment, I'll have a chat with him.
Stop mass reporting him, however.
I've never read Atlas Shrugged.
If Antonio only used stormfag against people who read stormfront that would be one thing, but he uses it as a slur against any white who is not ashamed of being white, and that makes it a race based slur. This is parallel with calling all Australian Aborigines "Abbos" even though they don't necessarily read Abo Call.
And the Atlas Shrugged quote i was referring to you is thus:
Highlighting mine. You have already stated that you are unbiased in enforcing the rules, but the fact that you allow "Stormfag" show that to be false.
Oh come on. You don't honestly expect me to believe that. He's calling people stormfags if the thinks they are white racialists. He's not citing that as all white people, and he's not citing only white people who "aren't ashamed".
No it isn't and you know that's bullshit.
Nope, sorry, your formal position is that attacks on whites is totally fine, then? Because you’ve just violated rule 16 here.
Thanks for admitting that everything I said is true.