As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.
Its a resource exhaustion tactic. It takes ten lines of real effort to substantially disprove one line of made up accusation, so they just hammer you at a 10:1 ratio until you're exhausted or have other things to do and bow out. Then they claim that means they won, and by extension whatever they were saying about you was true.
It goes back to my maths example, Nick Fuentes could say 1 + 1 = 2 and some social retard out there will claim he said 1 + 1 = 5 and...
No, no, the example here would be more like "1+1=2, that's completely out of context, and Nick and anyone connected to him are Nazis. I won't say 1+1=2 is wrong, but I'll make it sound like that's what I'm saying. And I certainly won't say that 1+1=2 is correct. By the way, did I mention Nick's a Nazi? Nazis are bad and wrong."
Guilt by association and character assassination are some of their favorite tactics.
Attack the person, or people you can draw some often vague connection to, instead of the argument.
Reminds me of one of their most disgusting smears; when they destroyed Milo as a "pedophile" because, in Milo's mind, he had consensual relations with an older man when he was underage. Any other context, Milo is 100% the victim (EDIT: Or 100% Stunning and Brave, I suppose, depending on which side of politics/reality you're on), but since he was a wrongthinker, instead he was totally advocating pedophilia. I couldn't believe that smear worked, it was so insane, even for their usual shit.
As much as I'm not a Fuentes fan and having an appreciation for IP's work:
This was embarrassing. They did not really attack what was said, they just dismissed what was said. It was a 3 on 1 but worse than that because they were reacting to a recording. Even with those odds in their favor, they still face-planted.
The first thing they challenged was at 2:35. They specifically said that the "best of the gentiles should be killed" is actually a reference to Exodus, and they are trying to understand why God did not kill all of the Egyptian soldiers, but did strike down their animals. The conclusion is that the soldiers themselves may not be rebelling against God, but you have a legitimate right to kill a gentile who is trying to kill you, particularly in war, even if he is not an enemy of God.
That seems like an extremely specific and direct attack on what was said. I don't know (or really care) about in-depth theological arguments, but you can't just claim that his positions were just dismissed out of hand as if there was no thought into them. They were dismissed out of hand for being patently wrong because of the specific assumptions he made about what he thought the Talmud said.
If a communist tells me that I'm being dismissive of Karl Marx's Surplus Value, it's true, but not because I'm simply choosing to dismiss it. I'm dismissing it because all objective theories of value are evidentially wrong on their face. The very premise of the Labour Theory Of Value is false. Then I can go through the premises of LTV and prove it's wrong on top of that.
Reminds me of that song “Kill the Boer”
If you were at war with the Boer, that would make sense. The ANC were not, or at least shouldn't have been.
If Exodus is anything to go by, it would have been a sole ethnic group of jews being demographically targeted by non-jews as an act of war and enslavement, which anyone has a right to resist.
Like, if the Seminole rise up and attack the US Cavalry during the Trail of Tears march, I've got no objection to it.
So you have no objections to blacks in South Africa killing whites because of Apartheid? Or you don’t have any objections to jews killing whites because of the holocaust? You really don’t see how whites may have a problem with this? Your argument is that the religious teaching is completely isolated to thousands of years ago but that’s rubbish. Religious teachings are almost always studied within modern context. Otherwise people wouldn’t care about the lessons. Those in the jewish community are studying the talmud while having the victim mentality hammered into them.
I don't fucking know. Exodus is entirely made up anyway. It's complete fiction. The Egyptians never mentioned any of those really important plagues, and they do seem to know about some kind of proto-jewish tribe, but no actual jews (most of which would have been invented in Babylon anyway).
All I can say is that if the Talmud is just a bunch of jews being overly verbose about incessant theological arguments over mythological minutia, then it is clearly the most obviously jewish document ever written.
Its a resource exhaustion tactic. It takes ten lines of real effort to substantially disprove one line of made up accusation, so they just hammer you at a 10:1 ratio until you're exhausted or have other things to do and bow out. Then they claim that means they won, and by extension whatever they were saying about you was true.
Ah yes, the chess playing seagull approach, swoop in, knock the pieces over, make a racket, shit all over the board and strut off like it's a victory
No, no, the example here would be more like "1+1=2, that's completely out of context, and Nick and anyone connected to him are Nazis. I won't say 1+1=2 is wrong, but I'll make it sound like that's what I'm saying. And I certainly won't say that 1+1=2 is correct. By the way, did I mention Nick's a Nazi? Nazis are bad and wrong."
That sounds like yourmoviesucks talking about the critical drinker.
Also nick Fuentes hanged out furry cat boi, every thing he said is gay, nazi, and gay nazi
Guilt by association and character assassination are some of their favorite tactics.
Attack the person, or people you can draw some often vague connection to, instead of the argument.
Reminds me of one of their most disgusting smears; when they destroyed Milo as a "pedophile" because, in Milo's mind, he had consensual relations with an older man when he was underage. Any other context, Milo is 100% the victim (EDIT: Or 100% Stunning and Brave, I suppose, depending on which side of politics/reality you're on), but since he was a wrongthinker, instead he was totally advocating pedophilia. I couldn't believe that smear worked, it was so insane, even for their usual shit.