Planet Rugby Forum

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

La soule wrote:

englishchief wrote:
That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

The Third
For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

All of them? Or just the ones Seneca think should be allowed?

I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

So anyway, going forward, we now all know roughly what the alt-right is - how they are defined from the outside and how they define themselves. It didn't take much, just a bit of conversation.

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

La soule wrote:

englishchief wrote:
That's because (I'm guessing here, but I think I'm correct) Seneca is a white NZer, meaning almost all of his ancestry comes from the British Isles, so the UK is his homeland.

So a Maori would not qualify I take it?

Too brown maybe?

Would it be OK if the Maori were to wear a white hoodie masking their face to fit in with some of the locals?

what a moron.

Behold the T-dawg of Waitangi Article 3

The Third
For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

The commonwealth vs EU thing is interesting. I had a conversation with a young southern European lady the other day who was very angry that her right to live in the UK may be revoked after they leave the EU (she doesn't live there now). I pointed out that I was ethnically British (descended from at least one person who was forcibly removed from the UK, as well as more recent voluntary migrants), spoke the language fluently and shared in an almost identical culture, and have no right to simply live in the UK without a (very expensive) visa. She didn't seem to understand why her sense of entitlement was simply based on one set of arbitrary principles, she just kept telling me that I'm not European. Australia is playing an interesting role in this respect.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

pontifex wrote:I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

La soule wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

pontifex wrote:I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.

pontifex wrote:

La soule wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

pontifex wrote:I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.

Please do not believe for a second that he would shut down because some guy posting on the internet disagrees with him and says so.

Contrary to what he is posting, I do not spend my "virtual life" on here stalking him - We have very little exchanges and true, it never goes too well.

I find his patronising attitude more annoying that his alt right beliefs.

La soule wrote:

pontifex wrote:

La soule wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

pontifex wrote:I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

I think Sen is far from the most abusive person on the forum, he's perfectly reasonable if approached in the right way, and provides a useful insight into the beliefs of people who we like to demonise but don't really understand. That said, we all have histories with each other on here. Not sure what yours is with him - pretty sure you've had the odd go at me, too (I give as good as I get, of course). I'd say, however, that if people really fear the rise of the alt-right (I think they're a small group), they don't really serve their cause by simply shutting them down. That doesn't make them disappear, it just keeps you in your comfort zone (they, in turn, will find somewhere that is their comfort zone, where they go unchallenged). Steven Pinker recently put it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xJ5bvw6Ckw

In short, it's not unhealthy for us all to be a bit uncomfortable when discussing politics. That's how we might find a compromise.

Please do not believe for a second that he would shut down because some guy posting on the internet disagrees with him and says so.

Contrary to what he is posting, I do not spend my "virtual life" on here stalking him - We have very little exchanges and true, it never goes too well.

I find his patronising attitude more annoying that his alt right beliefs.

I've disagreed with him, and arguably have highlighted some of the more dangerous implications of the ideas he has sympathy with, and he's been perfectly reasonable in response. WHat I haven't done is called him a horrible or a deplorable person.

pontifex wrote: I've disagreed with him, and arguably have highlighted some of the more dangerous implications of the ideas he has sympathy with, and he's been perfectly reasonable in response. WHat I haven't done is called him a horrible or a deplorable person.

Good for you.

He called me worst names so I don't really feel bad about this.

La soule wrote:

pontifex wrote: I've disagreed with him, and arguably have highlighted some of the more dangerous implications of the ideas he has sympathy with, and he's been perfectly reasonable in response. WHat I haven't done is called him a horrible or a deplorable person.

Good for you.

He called me worst names so I don't really feel bad about this.

As I said, we all have histories with each other here. And the bored is a (shrinking) microcosm of the world.

pontifex wrote:I've disagreed with him, and arguably have highlighted some of the more dangerous implications of the ideas he has sympathy with, and he's been perfectly reasonable in response. WHat I haven't done is called him a horrible or a deplorable person.

I thought you'd met him, but had misremembered. It was Bulldog, not Seneca, that you and I caught up with at the Royal Exhibition Hotel in 2003. Reason for the confusion was I met Seneca for the first time at the same hotel maybe a few months later. Best part of 15 years ago - talk about histories with other posters.

Been a good read, this thread.

I don't think I've knowingly read an alt right thing in my life. It's possible I suppose. Seneca might have pointed me to something. I have no idea. I had a stab at some of the Dark Enlightenment stuff for a laugh. Some of it was interesting. Some of it was stupid.

I don't particularly care if people call me that. I barely know what it means.

It is a shame that Australians, Kiwis, Canadians and other British diaspora are no longer really considered a family of Brits. As mentioned, Churchill would be ashamed. He even referenced that brotherhood in his 'never surrender speech'.

An Australian or Kiwi from a British background should have priority to live here even over a French bloke from Calais!

Waratah wrote:

pontifex wrote:I've disagreed with him, and arguably have highlighted some of the more dangerous implications of the ideas he has sympathy with, and he's been perfectly reasonable in response. WHat I haven't done is called him a horrible or a deplorable person.

I thought you'd met him, but had misremembered. It was Bulldog, not Seneca, that you and I caught up with at the Royal Exhibition Hotel in 2003. Reason for the confusion was I met Seneca for the first time at the same hotel maybe a few months later. Best part of 15 years ago - talk about histories with other posters.

Been a good read, this thread.

Actually, I think it was with bazzamacca. At the place across from the pedestrian tunnel, down from the Strawberry Hills. I reckon 2005, rather than 2003. Those were the days. QP's antics surely got many of us hooked on this place back then.

La soule wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

pontifex wrote:I think this was a helpful thread. We now have a more or less 'official' standard definition of the alt-right, and some clarification from someone who actually identifies with the movement and probably has more familiarity with their thought than anyone else on the bored. We can see where the overlap is, and where there are differences. I would have thought that was in everyone's interests - know your enemy, keep your enemies in plain sight and all that. The problem is that the alt-right have been given a monopoly on certain things which are true, or at least seem true to a lot of people, and without open discussion of their ideas, the monopoly remains. We've seen (I believe) that the devil really is in the details, even for those who may be sympathetic in general.

.

I'm sympathetic to many of their theories which is not the same thing as identifying with them. But you can see just how difficult it is to have a sensible discussion about this (pretty important) stuff when you see the performance here of our Belgian friend. And why I mostly don't bother.

Trying to get the moral high ground now?

It has never stopped you before and is unlikely to stop you moving forward.

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Looks like you sat on the record, too.

c69 wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Yes, sorry if you are offended

Offended? No. I just don't want to have to put you on ignore as you say really funny things in about 1 out of every 1000 posts.

Seneca of the Night wrote:This, dear mods is why we can't have good threads. Look at what this individual has done to this one. And countless others over the years.

Made it interesting?

englishchief wrote:It is a shame that Australians, Kiwis, Canadians and other British diaspora are no longer really considered a family of Brits. As mentioned, Churchill would be ashamed. He even referenced that brotherhood in his 'never surrender speech'.

An Australian or Kiwi from a British background should have priority to live here even over a French bloke from Calais!

Churchill considered Australia part of the “family of Brits”?

Man In Black wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Yes, sorry if you are offended

Offended? No. I just don't want to have to put you on ignore as you say really funny things in about 1 out of every 1000 posts.

He's said 46 funny things?

Oops, I confused him with Macctaff.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

houtkabouter wrote:So what do you we do about America, give it back to the Indians and go back to our white homeland in Europe?

No. That 'circle is squared' by differentiating between 'pioneers' and 'immigrants'. Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon do this too. Completely different thing moving into land inhabited by hunter / gatherer / primitive farmers and building a modern industrial nation from scratch, from just migrating into an already developed nation.

Don't shoot me - that's the distinction made.

Besides, where is the white homeland in Europe now? Chedder Man was black you know. England was full of Africans in Roman times and is a nation of immigrants. So we are told.

I think you’re right, there is no white homeland. We really should stop peddling this concept.

As a side note note, it does seem like they’re playing a game jenga to fit in the obvious flaws in their grand scheme.

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Alt right type are not too keen on personal freedom, obviously.

This is huge. Massive legal setback for the Alt-Right, as this precedent will likely affect many elite members fighting on the front line. If other countries follow the USA's lead, the movement could be finished.

Story here.

Bindi wrote:This is huge. Massive legal setback for the Alt-Right, as this precedent will likely affect many elite members fighting on the front line. If other countries follow the USA's lead, the movement could be finished.

Story here.

Nah, they'll be fine - they'll just have to get their internet in cafes now. Their main fuel of anger will go up a notch too. Beware snowflake cucks.

La soule wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Alt right type are not too keen on personal freedom, obviously.

You've contributed nothing but personal slurs. Why would you come on a thread you have no interest in and throw insults around.

Like I asked - any chance you can stop posting on this thread please?

fatcat wrote:

La soule wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Alt right type are not too keen on personal freedom, obviously.

You've contributed nothing but personal slurs. Why would you come on a thread you have no interest in and throw insults around.

Like I asked - any chance you can stop posting on this thread please?

This internet thing has become a serious business for you I see.

I'll think about it, OK?

La soule wrote:

fatcat wrote:

La soule wrote:

fatcat wrote:

c69 wrote:So really we have no definition of alt right, it's a nebulous term in reality referring to a rag tag bunch of rednecks, racists Trumpists and assorted far right and right wingers like SOTN, Taffcat, santa, bimbo and Ponti.
Much like trying to bunch lefties into a pigdeon hole tbh....

Any chance you could stop posting on this thread please?

Alt right type are not too keen on personal freedom, obviously.

You've contributed nothing but personal slurs. Why would you come on a thread you have no interest in and throw insults around.

Like I asked - any chance you can stop posting on this thread please?

This internet thing has become a serious business for you I see.

I'll think about it, OK?

Don't think on it too long on it. Life is too short. And fatcat is just a mouthy but thinskinned fúckstick in any event.

Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

Mog The Almighty wrote:Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

That's exactly what an alt-right poster would say.

penguin wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

That's exactly what an alt-right poster would say.

What qualifies one as "alt right"?

I suspect having a vaguely original political ideology. As opposed to one that is a carbon copy of some other "team left" or "team right" or "team libertarian" ideology that are so unoriginal and adhere so strictly to same narrow identity-politics group-think definition, that you can easily guess every single view that a person holds by knowing just one of them.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

penguin wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

That's exactly what an alt-right poster would say.

What qualifies one as "alt right"?

I suspect having a vaguely original political ideology. As opposed to one that is a carbon copy of some other "team left" or "team right" or "team libertarian" ideology that are so unoriginal and adhere so strictly to same narrow identity-politics group-think definition, that you can easily guess every single view that a person holds by knowing just one of them.

Don't take that reply from me seriously, I was just pissing around.

People better positioned than myself have tried to define it somewhat on this thread if you dig around.

Mog The Almighty wrote:

penguin wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

That's exactly what an alt-right poster would say.

What qualifies one as "alt right"?

I suspect having a vaguely original political ideology. As opposed to one that is a carbon copy of some other "team left" or "team right" or "team libertarian" ideology that are so unoriginal and adhere so strictly to same narrow identity-politics group-think definition, that you can easily guess every single view that a person holds by knowing just one of them.

There's very little that's original about the guiding philosophy of the alt-right, which is explicitly white-nationalist, incorporating anti-semitism, neo-nazism, nativism and good old fashioned racism dressed up as something virtuous and reactionary. A good example of this is its description by one of its supposed leaders, Richard Spencer, as 'identity politics for whites'. The only thing that is new in that is the spurious idea that it's a response to the growth of identity politics, rather than a thin excuse for good old fashioned racists and bigots to pretend they are something more noble or important than old fashioned racists and bigots.

Seneca of the Night wrote:See this is what I'm talking about.

If you go to this story and watch the video:

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/13/7536655/r ... h-debunked

the most interesting thing is not the subject matter, but the very strange delivery method of the woman narrating it. It turns out it has a name: vocal fry:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... male-voice

So you would think it would be from some valley girl person, but the narration is by this woman:

Spoiler: show

A butch lesbian from Alabama, who mostly writes and blogs about utterly inane rap / hip hop shit like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOgPk5T1xi0
https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/ex ... e-caswell/

What a fcking mess. None of this will end well.

Joe Rogan does, like, an excellent impression of that, like, trendy SJW voice, y'know ...

Waratah wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:

penguin wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Until now, never bothered even clicking on this thread as I have zero to do with the "alt right" and zero interest in them. Imagine my bemusement to see I'd been name-dropped in the OP.

Some people are seriously clueless.

That's exactly what an alt-right poster would say.

What qualifies one as "alt right"?

I suspect having a vaguely original political ideology. As opposed to one that is a carbon copy of some other "team left" or "team right" or "team libertarian" ideology that are so unoriginal and adhere so strictly to same narrow identity-politics group-think definition, that you can easily guess every single view that a person holds by knowing just one of them.

There's very little that's original about the guiding philosophy of the alt-right, which is explicitly white-nationalist, incorporating anti-semitism, neo-nazism, nativism and good old fashioned racism dressed up as something virtuous and reactionary. A good example of this is its description by one of its supposed leaders, Richard Spencer, as 'identity politics for whites'. The only thing that is new in that is the spurious idea that it's a response to the growth of identity politics, rather than a thin excuse for good old fashioned racists and bigots to pretend they are something more noble or important than old fashioned racists and bigots.

Yeah well I'm definitely not one of them then. Whatever fat white western people need, it's definitely not an egocentric, identity-driven political movement fighting for their allegedly infringed-upon rights.

That's my 2c.

Mog The Almighty wrote:Yeah well I'm definitely not one of them then. Whatever fat white western people need, it's definitely not an egocentric, identity-driven political movement fighting for their allegedly infringed-upon rights.

Seneca's not fat.

Seneca of the Night wrote:See this is what I'm talking about.

If you go to this story and watch the video:

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/13/7536655/r ... h-debunked

the most interesting thing is not the subject matter, but the very strange delivery method of the woman narrating it. It turns out it has a name: vocal fry:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... male-voice

So you would think it would be from some valley girl person, but the narration is by this woman:

Spoiler: show

A butch lesbian from Alabama, who mostly writes and blogs about utterly inane rap / hip hop shit like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOgPk5T1xi0
https://www.filmindependent.org/blog/ex ... e-caswell/

What a fcking mess. None of this will end well.

It's ripped off from the Kardashians. There was a female stand up who did a funny bit about it. She called it the "sexy growl." Can't remember her name now though.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Yeah well I'm definitely not one of them then. Whatever fat white western people need, it's definitely not an egocentric, identity-driven political movement fighting for their allegedly infringed-upon rights.

Seneca's not fat.

Very lean at the moment. My 5k Parkrun times are on fire.

I'm offended by that. You imply that by being thin and able to run 5Km that I am not, and that you are somehow better than me. I notice you did not deny being white and western, another implicit condescension. If I were non-white, thin, and fit, then you'd look like a right twat.

MungoMan wrote: Don't think on it too long on it. Life is too short. And fatcat is just a mouthy but thinskinned fúckstick in any event.

And you're supposed to be one of the more intelligent pensioners on here?

I've got very thick skin thank you.

Waratah wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Waratah wrote:

Mog The Almighty wrote:Yeah well I'm definitely not one of them then. Whatever fat white western people need, it's definitely not an egocentric, identity-driven political movement fighting for their allegedly infringed-upon rights.

Seneca's not fat.

Very lean at the moment. My 5k Parkrun times are on fire.

I'm offended by that. You imply that by being thin and able to run 5Km that I am not, and that you are somehow better than me. I notice you did not deny being white and western, another implicit condescension. If I were non-white, thin, and fit, then you'd look like a right twat.

https://t.co/tsxMVVNCgt

Jared Holt
‏ @jaredlholt

Richard Spencer, a leading figure in the "alt-right" movement, says that the alt-right does not actually support free speech, but rather pretends to do so for "radically pragmatic" reasons

Interesting!