Today I'm going to do something a little bit different.
I haven't done any response videos before and I don't expect I'll be doing too many
in the future either, but I can't let this stand.
I became aware of this video because of a boosted post on Minds.
So let's just jump into it, shall we?
ramzpaul: "During the Peloponnesian War, the Greek state of Athens was at war with Sparta,
and in between there was a neutral country called Melos.
Melos wanted to remain neutral but Athens gave them an ultimatum to surrender.
Melos, they sent their philosophers, their diplomats, try to debate.
They try to use reason.
They try to convince them why this was immoral.
The famous Greek rhetoric and dialog.
It didn't work.
So Melos they came up with this basically a famous saying that 'the strong do as they
can and the weak suffer what they must.'
Melos decided to fight.
They try to avoid it but didn't help and they were destroyed.
Every man was executed by the Athenians.
The women were raped, taken into slavery and so were the children.
Debate and reason have their place, they're part of the reason for the success of western
civilization, but reason and debate only works when your opponent and you have basically
the same goal.
Meaning the help of your people.
If your opponent wants to destroy you, there is no advantage to debate."
"We hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join
the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim
at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well
as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power,
while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
This is the full quote, or rather the translated summary of the statement.
Seems to me it's clearly showing a refusal to listen to reason or discuss and a complete
disregard for what is right or wrong, based on the inequality between those involved.
What's more, it's quite obvious that Athens had far more power than Melos.
If Athens had been sending someone to Melos to debate related matters, that would make
no sense as a reason to refuse debate, preferring conflict.
The main thing here has to do with who is really in control and the disproportionate
power.
Which makes me wonder where you're going with this...
ramzpaul: "So here are five reasons why it's a waste of time to debate with the left.
Number one: Using debate to try to establish a neutral position does not work, as Melos
discovered.
You're still seen as the enemy and you will still be destroyed."
Well, I'm not really sure how you would establish a neutral position through debate.
What would you be debating - whether or not you're secretly on a given side?
If someone won't believe that you aren't their enemy, then it would probably be pretty difficult
to convince them with a debate.
But why are you an enemy?
Who is wanting to destroy you?
The left would be an entire side of the political spectrum, approximately half of all possible
positions.
The left could also even mean everyone to the left of some position, so potentially
everyone not on some extreme right could be declared "the left."
It might even be possible for you to be part of the left to someone.
Surely you don't think everyone with half of all possible political views automatically
wants to destroy you, do you?
ramzpaul: "Number two: We will not secure the survival of our people through debate.
Debate is pointless."
Survival of your people?
So... now "the left," whatever that means to you, does not just consider you or your
ideas an enemy to be destroyed, but wants outright genocide?
And debate is pointless?
But didn't you just say Earlier clip, ramzpaul: 'Debate and reason have their
place, they're part of the reason for the success of western civilization
That seems like a point.
But maybe you just meant it's pointless here.
So what are those other three reasons?
ramzpaul: "Debating with your enemies shows weakness.
Debate, pleading, negotiation - those are all feminine qualities.
They they're not strength.
Do you think Genghis Khan debated his enemies?
No he did not.
Debating is useless."
Genghis Khan?
Is that your role model?
Because this really isn't sounding like the left is the aggressors and you've just decided
debate is pointless and you need to overpower them.
It sounds a lot like you want to create an empire and destroy anyone you disagree with.
It sounds like you're suggesting you're Athens - the one in control, the aggressor in the
situation, and the one looking to destroy.
From that angle, it wouldn't be that debate was pointless.
Athens had no need for debate, and Melos wasn't set out to destroy them.
ramzpaul: "Debating with your enemy is a total waste of time.
You're not going to change their opinion.
They want you dead.
They want you eliminated.
You can't come up with a fancy argument to change their point of view or what they want
to do to you.
It's wasting your time that could be devoted to other activities."
Nobody is trying to kill you when they try to debate.
The people who don't agree with you don't want you eliminated, they just don't agree.
They might want rid of your ideas, but that's nowhere near the same as trying to kill you
for disagreeing with them.
Why don't you come back to reality before you do something you can't fix?
As far as being able to devote the time to other activities, sure, go ahead and focus
on something else if that's all this is about.
If discussing these things isn't what you want to do with your time, you don't have
to.
But don't discourage those who do want to have a productive conversation just because
you don't feel like you can get anywhere.
ramzpaul: "The left has criminalized and has used violence to shut down free expression
of debate.
They they don't want debate.
Don't give them debate.
Use our message for our people.
If you play on their terms they will just harm you, they will kick you off platforms,
they'll suspend you on Twitter.
Have nothing to do with them.
Ignore them; do not debate the left."
I don't know for sure where you live, but your channel about page says the United States.
While violence is another story, I assure you, free expression and debate is not criminal
here in the US.
It is very much protected from legal consequences.
And if your message can only stand up when used on people who already agree, that would
explain why you think you should result to violence yourself.
Oh, and there's a world of difference between the types of harm you've been discussing in
the rest of this video - killing people, eliminating, wiping out an entire people - and losing your
platform.
Whether people should be kicked off of twitter or other platforms or not, having to find
somewhere else to speak is hardly going to kill anyone.
That was where his video ended.
I'm not sure if the train of thought went off the rails and all of that was part of
reason two, or if he just forgot to count off the last three "reasons."
That's not where this ends, though, because the video on its own would almost seem harmless.
Sure, it's out there discouraging communication, promoting a bad idea, generalizing, and declaring
dissenters to be the enemy, and that should definitely be enough (it has been when it's
come from so-called SJWs).
But it goes beyond that.
There was a link in the description.
I'm not going to read the entire page linked, especially since it's similar sentiment to
the video.
The link will be in the description, and I'll put the text on the screen.
But I do want to point out a few things it said.
For example, "Remaining neutral, like our political moderates, does not work."
So they don't even attempt to pretend to be moderate.
This is interesting since it seems like they're looking down on those who don't migrate to
the extreme.
It's also important to recognize this isn't representative of everyone who disagrees with
or even dislikes "the left."
Maybe it sounds stupid to point this out since it should be obvious already right now, but
I wish people would have acknowledged similar all along for the last several years while
criticizing ideas that come from parts of the left.
The next thing is expressed repeatedly here.
To them, debating is for the weak and those who disagree must be forced into submission
or destroyed.
After that, because it just wouldn't be complete without insults, the left is outright insulted
before claims are made that the left needs debate and will destroy itself if those opposing
it just step aside, while they can grow stronger by not wasting that time.
Finally, it concludes by insisting on a caricature of the left where no honest debate can occur.
After insisting for the majority of the page that force is the way to go and all who refuse
to bend to their will will be removed, it ironically complains about the left having
allegedly used the government to destroy those who oppose them.
Even more ironically, it claims "Their idea of conversation is a one way re-education."
It finishes up by shifting the blame from those who use violence to the left, stating
"When violence comes to them it will be entirely their fault."
But even that isn't the end of the story.
Whether the rest of this shows an environment that created this video and web page, or those
things created this environment, there is more.
The boosted post on minds that alerted me to its existence said to just kill people
on the left because "they've surrendered their lives to the jews who plan their deaths anyway."
Do I even need to say anything to this?
I don't think I do, and I can't find the post again there to include a link.
So now I'll move on to YouTube comments.
"This is why it's pointless to discuss racial matters with blacks.
You're not going to convince them that it's better for whites and blacks to have their
own countries, separate from each other.
No.
Their aim is to parasitize white countries until that is no longer viable, then replace
the original white inhabitants."
... *sigh*
"Debate is a substitute for violence.
After violence has begun, debate becomes pleading."
So... if anyone commits violence and believes a given idea nobody should debate anyone supporting
that idea again?
Oh, look!
Someone being somewhat reasonable.
"What about if a non-committed person is watching?"
aaaaaand...of course.
"Just make sure you don't dignify anything a Democrat says, because that's all they want.
For you to show that you're stupid enough to think they care about anything that comes
out of their mouth.
Moderates will join whatever mob is the biggest pain in the ass, so if you're using logic
& the democrat is flinging shit the moderates will feel like they're a bigger pain in the
ass & you lose no matter how good your argument is."
In-fucking-credible.
"The left are basically children who will come up with any "yeah but" or will even lie
to win an argument.
The only way to deal with petulant children is to punish them, as trying to give them
a stern talking to will do nothing in the long run."
Hear that guys?
If someone acts like an angry, unreasonable child you shouldn't tell them off, and you
definitely shouldn't try to be reasonable, bring them back to reality, or calm them down.
No. The correct answer is to punish them for it, apparently.
I'm sure that will improve anyone's attitude!
"Take away women's rights.
It's the only way to ensure the survival of our civilization, of our country, of our race."
That's just a troll, right?
Nobody says things like that...right?
"Pro whites have to win the propaganda war and take power.
It is correct that you don't debate anti-whites.
But that doesn't mean that you shoot them in the head.
It means you discredit anti-whites and the anti-white system.
Power goes to the group that controls public opinion.
Anti-whites are in power now because they control public opinion largely by calling
people names like racist.
Those anti-white terms have to be discredited.
Their legitimacy has to be destroyed in the eyes of the masses.
After we've won the propaganda war, a white person will have the same attitude toward
being called racist they would have at being called witch or heretic."
Do I really need to continue?
Seriously.
These comments speak for themselves.
But I'm sure these aren't things people really think.
They're just trolls, or people are just joking, or whatever.
Because obviously this kind of thing isn't real and believed by people.
Except, of course, I've been seeing stuff like this for quite a while.
Years, in fact.
The main difference is that this example includes the main media - video in this case, and the
page/article for that matter - as well as the conversation following it.
I don't tend to follow extremists of any stripe, so usually when I've seen it before, it's
been people expressing their anger at the main piece that said such things, or sometimes
outright trolls.
And of course, that page from the description isn't new.
It's from 2015.
...
Thanks for hearing me out!
As always, civil discussion, suggestions, and constructive criticism are welcome in
the comments or via social media.
Feel free to rate, comment, and share.
If you want to hear more from me, subscribe and click the bell for notifications.
Check out the description for any sources I used.
For more infomation >> El horóscopo de hoy, 11 de agosto de 2017, por el astrólogo Mario Vannucci - Duration: 2:29. 
For more infomation >> توقعات الابراج ليوم السبت l #12-08-2017 l حظك اليوم مع د. نيفين ابو شالة l #خفايا_نيفين - Duration: 7:16. 
For more infomation >> Tu No Metes Cabra (Remix) - Bad Bunny - Duration: 2:39. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét