The "woke right" attackers are lumping everyone in, and are basically just less upfront neocons
I don't think James Lindsay is a neocon. I don't even get the impression that he cares about Israel that much. He just overreacted to Tucker's interview with that amateur historian who wasn't very good, and who made some highly dubious assertions as well as accurate ones that they spun.
Don't have a problem with Russia? Woke right! Want to stop sending money everywhere? Woke right! Criticize Israel? Woke right! Don't want massive legal immigration? Woke right! You get the point.
The Russia and Israel thing may be the case for Konstantin Kissin, who has a serious case of Russia Derangement Syndrome, but not Lindsay - though as I say, he goes too far.
At any rate, I'm not a champion of this word. I just used it as a synonym for 'Stormfag'.
The US is currently funding Al Qaeda. Sense has nothing to do with it. And division is useful.
Right, but it's not 'blowback' if it comes before supposed manipulation. Point is, Al Sharpton is not a 'Jewish agent'. He's just a moron grifter.
Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
Right, but it's not 'blowback' if it comes before supposed manipulation. Point is, Al Sharpton is not a 'Jewish agent'. He's just a moron grifter.
Call it whatever you want; it's possible - and happens - that an organization or group actively funds another group that calls for the death of the funders.
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
What if it's not a smear?
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
I'm very confused. If pointing out that Al Sharpton incited deadly anti-Jewish riots isn't very strong evidence against the unproven and unsubstantiated claim that he is a "Jewish agent", then what does? This is the equivalent of the feminist claim that "a woman being friendly with a guy she's accusing of rape isn't evidence against the rape".
Let's be real. It's not even my job to "disprove" that. It's Mr. Retard's job to prove it, which he didn't. And not only did he fail to do that, he cited a guy who incited deadly anti-Jewish riots.
It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy. Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
Regardless, let's take your claim at face value. Like I said, you take something that is vanishingly improbable and then assert that it's somehow the norm, like feminists do with rape victims. Some rape victim, somewhere, was nice to her attacker, so the fact that a woman is nice to a man is not evidence for him not raping her. You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.
I don't think James Lindsay is a neocon. I don't even get the impression that he cares about Israel that much. He just overreacted to Tucker's interview with that amateur historian who wasn't very good, and who made some highly dubious assertions as well as accurate ones that they spun.
The Russia and Israel thing may be the case for Konstantin Kissin, who has a serious case of Russia Derangement Syndrome, but not Lindsay - though as I say, he goes too far.
At any rate, I'm not a champion of this word. I just used it as a synonym for 'Stormfag'.
Right, but it's not 'blowback' if it comes before supposed manipulation. Point is, Al Sharpton is not a 'Jewish agent'. He's just a moron grifter.
Why not just say that, then?
Also, I have almost never seen anyone who smears someone as "woke right" or "stormfag" win an argument. People who are trying to pull off that tactic should probably think about better ways of getting their point across.
Call it whatever you want; it's possible - and happens - that an organization or group actively funds another group that calls for the death of the funders.
I'm just calling out the logic; again, not saying Sharpton is a Jewish agent, just that your argument doesn't do anything to disprove the idea.
Dunno.
What if it's not a smear?
I'm very confused. If pointing out that Al Sharpton incited deadly anti-Jewish riots isn't very strong evidence against the unproven and unsubstantiated claim that he is a "Jewish agent", then what does? This is the equivalent of the feminist claim that "a woman being friendly with a guy she's accusing of rape isn't evidence against the rape".
Let's be real. It's not even my job to "disprove" that. It's Mr. Retard's job to prove it, which he didn't. And not only did he fail to do that, he cited a guy who incited deadly anti-Jewish riots.
And the US is funding the same group of people who did 9/11.
It's funny that any claim that Al Qaeda did 9/11 gets people here angry, except when it's done as a rhetorical ploy. Of course, if you believe in '9/11 truth' like 95% of people here, then you wouldn't believe at all that it's strange for the US to fund Al Qaeda.
Regardless, let's take your claim at face value. Like I said, you take something that is vanishingly improbable and then assert that it's somehow the norm, like feminists do with rape victims. Some rape victim, somewhere, was nice to her attacker, so the fact that a woman is nice to a man is not evidence for him not raping her. You're losing perspective like they do. Apparently, you'd rather believe, or give the benefit of the doubt to, a claim with zero substantiation, than to counter-evidence which is real counter-evidence.