Notorious punchable Nazi Richard Spencer.
He exists on this planet solely to be punched in the face for being a fucking terrible human being who honestly should have been deplatformed years ago.
How can you be this dumb, really.
The way the far right has tried to spin an accident into a identitarian war/conspiracy is fucking trash. Watch them then complain about "identity politics" and "the left is inserting politics everywhere".
If there's anything worse than a white nationalist, it's someone who thinks that unprovoked political violence is good.
Calm down there champ.
If bad ideas become reasonable grounds for violence, that's the moment society collapses.
That's how we got the Wiemar Republic, the Russian and Spanish civil wars, that's how Rome fell apart at the seams. When force becomes the means to settle disputes, it's not the good and reasonable people that win, it's the radical extremists who are prepared and eager to be brutal and totalitarian in the name of their ideas.
And in responding to stupid bullshit with violence, you're admitting that you cannot win, and are giving him political capital. And also, in the use of force against ideas, you are morally worse than the alt-right, as they merely think wrong, and yet you've acted wrong, and that is in no way constructive, and actively contributes to the downward spiral.
Dismantle their ideas through debate. Grind them into the puerile nonsense that they are for all to see, and render him impotent in the public space. Frankly, if you cannot pull apart the alt-right's nonsense, you are unable to pull apart anything, because that's as objectively awful a set of ideas as one can present. Political oppression of any kind, let alone by the use of force, is not acceptable in any circumstance.
the important thing is that you found a way to use religion to feel superior to other people, just like Jesus intended
papa bless
That's a very dated, pre-2016 take on things. In reality, antifa showing up at alt-right rallies significantly reduced their attendance, for instance.
We're living in the post-truth era. The people who subscribe to this rhetoric don't base their beliefs on rational thinking or debate. You won't sway the core of them. The marketplace of ideas isn't a thing, it's an idealist's vision of democracy that doesn't actually exist, especially in our current context.
And sorry, but punching someone who advocates for genocide doesn't make you as bad as them. That's just patently ridiculous.
He's a nazi you half-brain. He's literally calling for violence in that very tweet.
lmao stev defending the alt-right again. didn't see that one coming
You don't debate the far-right. Debate doesn't work against ideologies predicated on misinformation and memetic behaviours over actual consistent internal logic and analysis of problems. By the time you've assembled and presented your case against one of their points, the standard far-right/alt-right/nazi shithead will have spouted about 20 more nonsensical points to overwhelm you. Because they don't have to fact check, after all you're the one who's meant to be proving them wrong. You might be able to expose who fucking stupid they are to some of the audience, but as the Internet has shown a lot of people sure as shit don't care about the content of an argument, just how much it sounds like a fucking slam dunk of an insult.
These genetic masterpieces like to talk a big game about how they'll take to the streets and fight us "lefty cucks" off, but so far every time they've had opposition from people with actual conviction they've backed the fuck down and relied on the police to save their asses. Or opted to drive a car through their opponents because they're massive cowards. Or shoot their opponents because they're massive cowards. Violence isn't the optimal solution, but it sure as shit stemmed the tides for a bit. Passivity and trying to talk these fuckers down when they're riled up doesn't work, the Nazis and other nationalist inbreds know how to use passivity and "the marketplace of ideas" to their benefit. They've done this repeatedly throughout history.
I was actually planning on buying it, in light of recent events. This is cool of Ubi.
https://twitter.com/41Strange/status/1118680633037864960
That's a sturdy cock
The reasons for all of these historical events occuring are so varied and disparate that I can't imagine how one could possibly tie them all together and yoke them to this idea that intolerance for the intolerant leads to societal collapse.
In the local newspaper I read here in the US, it said that the roof cannot be rebuilt as it had once been because "there are no trees that large left in France that were originally used".
The article theorized that the roof may have to be built "with a modern touch", which unfortunate but at least it's there to be rebuilt.
Why they can't just import timber from elsewhere, I'm not sure. Probably too expensive?
That's just incorrect, a large exploitation oak forest is already being considered and its yearly production of oak exceedes what is required for the entire roof.
Theses are not natural forests ofc, it's all trees that were planted to produce wood and will be harvested anyway.
There's a ton of exploitation forests here, the wood industry is huge.
They probably wont get to fixing the wood framing of the roof for years though, it will be late in the process according to architects. And there's talk of not using wood as well - the St Pierre Nantes cathedral roof burned as well in 1972, and the wood was replaced by concrete. but that might have been a cost issue at the time, It would be a shame imo.
I'm of a mind that the replacement should not be wood. The old roof was a tinderbox. If they duplicate it exactly, the same thing could easily happen again in the future. If they come up with a less flammable design and make it with wood, they might as well just use some other material, since it won't be a reflection of the original.
Might as well just use something fireproof.
Don't forget that there's dozens of fire retardant paints and such that can be applied to wood in today's age that wasn't in the 12th century.
They're building a temporary "wooden cathedral" in front of the Notre Dame for Easter mass and afterward instead of dispersing the parish to other local churches.
What I've posted below the article is pretty much the only things regarding the temporary structure from the article, the rest just reiterates the events of the fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/18/notre-dame-to-get-ephemeral-wooden-cathedral-during-rebuild
Catholic worshippers feeling orphaned by the fire that ravaged part of Notre Dame will be welcomed in an “ephemeral cathedral” made of wood in front of the Paris monument until it reopens, Notre Dame’s chief priest has said.
To give the faithful somewhere to congregate next to Notre Dame, he suggested: “Can I not build an ephemeral cathedral on the esplanade [in front of Notre Dame]?”
The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, had backed the idea and agreed to give over part of the esplanade to the church for a wooden structure, he said.
Chauvet said the wooden “cathedral” would host priests who could address some of the millions of tourists who visited the original 850-year-old gothic cathedral each year.
Wooden, you say?
but wasn't the working hours for the renovation already over by the time it caught fire? I still doubt that this kind of thing is just an 'OOPS!' but I know that could be the case, as well as many other things, especially considering the declining state of the city of Paris. I have been surprised at how much outright illegal ad dangerous crap macron has been allowing to take place in Paris! EVEN THEN it seems Macron has a tendency to lie about countless crap on such levels(*cough* so he can maintain his image). With all that AND a growing anti-catholic sentiment throughout France as of the past few years, I find it highly suspect that this was an accident, but i could have been (just I don't see that as the most likely answer).
OH! and the french gov. announcing that 'it definitely was NOT arson! Totally an accident guys.' WHILE it was mid-ablaze.
Although Macron could have been jumping to try and recover his decimated approval ratings after his lies about climate-related policies *COUGH* (either - he is hiding something; OR - he is trying to avoid being called Islamophobic by admitting that it the answer could be anything, rather he makes sure that it is on record that the 'OFFICIALS' said that "it was certainly not anything intentional" ; OR FINALLY - he is a major douche that cares about his image so much more than anything else that he wont even wait till the fire has gone out to start his sweet talking). but whatever he was trying for he still looks like a suspicious douche or just a very bug douche.
(As you can probably tell, I may sympathize with the yellow vest movement's reasons and cause NOT their actions - I am still very much pissed at what they did to the Arc de triomphe - BUT I also can't stand Macron working to help that law that made PROTESTING (specifically yellow vest protests, but that is irrelevant, he made a form of protesting illegal >:( The movement is big because they might have a point.) SORRY FOR RAMBLING ABOUT MACRON But damn it he is getting what he deserves and I can;t stand to see him manipulate the burning of Notre Dame in Paris like this. Nor can the yellow vest continue such violence in their protests - but now they cant even protest legally so macron forced the situation to only go down the road of more violence! what is going on in Europe guys!??! this stuff is just so weird and infuriating to watch when its here or over there!!)
Rather than reply to this propaganda (because the poster knows it's bullshit already) I'm just going to link my post about this specific type of propaganda for readers: Notre
Im so glad a random american who the seems to know more about the accident than the 50 investigators working on the case is here to explain to me how my city is actually doing and what actually happened and how it's all a conspiracy bro! How lucky I am
These civil wars appeared after the WW1 when people were already brutalized on the battlefield in the trench warfare, unprecedented at that time.
I'm sorry my friend, but that's an idealistic view. Lenin had the right idea: that small group who owns influence on information junctions such as the press, media and schools, the one who teaches young minds will win the society. Even if there are individuals who see through bullshit and are vocal about it, as long as people's careers are on the line if they disagree, the society as a whole is easily controlled even if things are blatantly incoherent. Germans did it, Chinese did it, Russians most certainly did. Before them, Catholics and other churches did it. Bourgeoisie post enlightenment thinkers did it after Catholics but before 20th century authoritarians.
The idea that you can oppose that with debates in a public space therefore is a pure pacifist fantasy. It's a noble thing to do, sure. Just don't expect that it will somehow overturn forces which are trying to control the institutions which teach minds.
Ah, very nice that the glass survived, medieval glassmakers made some robust shit. Also, cease with the politicizing at once, please.
Biggest problem is the fact that the stonework is all limestone - which does not like being heated... Russians have already offered their services, and Russian restorers are one of the best in the business, and even they don't know how they're really gonna do it
I actually have to agree with that guy, I have doubts that it was just an accident. Though I truly don't believe it was religiously motivated and that Muslims were behind it, no. What makes more sense is that it was financially motivated; look at the incredible sums of money that were moved in the wake of the accident. Before the fire Notre-Dame was costing millions to maintain and there wasn't enough money to do it right. After the fire it received almost billions to help with the repairs. I can't help but think that there are too many suspicious and convenient things about this whole fire, but I could be wrong and if I'm challenged I won't be willing to die on a hill called "Macron did 4/15".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
