Your five top policies (if you were granted then)

Reread my debate with Shsllowvale I believe I've made myself clear. If not let me spell it out :

1- I don't believe in Equality of Opportunity and think that it leads inevitably to Equality of Outcome

2- I believe in freedom of association and that government should (largely) stay out of business

3- I believe in natural rights not state imposed rights and that state imposed rights Inevitably leads to the curtailing of natural rights. (Research the difference if you Don't know)

4- I believe that a reliance on state imposed rights makes society and Individuals weaker and does not empower individuals. It enables a victim mentality, social division, identity politics and increased state reliance.

5- Fundamentally even if I were to grant that this legislation has improved things (which I don't) it still violates our natural rights and is therefore wrong.

Eg - if somebody said that unless I had my free speech taken away 1000 people would kill themselves because they were so offended I would tell them to go and **** themselves.

you're kind of dodging the question. What is wrong with "equality of outcome"?

Do you believe that I should be allowed to bully and hate on you because you're white then? (seeing as you want the equality act revoked) or that I deserved to be treated like an idiot and discriminated against because ASD? or that religion should be banned by me in say workplaces and schools for example as a result of the removal of the equality act simply because I don't like religion? (have nothing against religious people).

I think not, but if you remove the equality act you allowing people to potentially do these things.

@Imane888

I've done this multiple times. I don't think I can be any clearer.

Yes. Whether or not I think you should do this is a different matter.
Eg I think you have the RIGHT to go and drink two bottles of vodka every night even though I might think that's not good for you. It's called LIBERTY.



Sure. I think you should be allowed to be a ******** so long as you do not violate other people's natural rights.

Well, we have had some things case in point Labour women only quotas and as well as private and public sector jobs opening up jobs for minorities only.
Of course, we've largely had a conservative government to act somewhat as an unreliable bulwauk against some of these trends. If we had a long term left wing government things would move much more rapidly on that front. Also you've admitted that you're actually comfortable with Equality of Outcome in some cases, which kinda proves my point that equality of opportunity acts as a sort of gateway drug to equality of outcome. If we had Equality of Outcome now you would be using the same arguments about poor minorities against me.

Why not? Depends what the crime was surely (by your own logic) . But I was talking mainly about chicken. But if I am to grant your argument to only animals the what about the millions of poor people in the world that would like to live in the UK? If I was one of them I may not think it fair that I am allowed entry, but we do not have the room or resources to take in anyway near all of them. An ought does not imply a right- nor is it inherently good.

I said I wouldn't be bothered if i was white and they did- I think it would be better for them to build themselves up succesfully as have the Jews and Asians- minorities need to become self reliant rather than expect hand outs and government sanctioned 'opportunities' to succeed in life.

so you're basically saying that people should be allowed to discriminate against each other.

Basically unless it crosses into an actual crime or if the government does it (because it's a monopoly)

Neither of those things are the result of a law mandating equality of outcome. We did had a long term Labour government in the late 90s and 00s, yet they never created equality of outcome laws. When I said that I am happy for equality of outcome to happen "on it's own accord", what I meant is that I don't object to having different groups represented fairly / proportionally in different industries, etc, provided that their representation comes down to merit and not either laws mandating their representation or them being chosen to meet a quota.

As I said, the reasons to infringe on the rights of criminals outweighs the 'would you like it?' argument. Among other things, we punish criminals as a means of deterent and, in some cases, as a means of protecting people. With regards to poor people across the world, the 'we do not have the room or resources' argument would outweigh the 'would you like it?' argument.

Would you be bothered if they did and you were not white, then? Have you considered that it's not always possible for people to "build themselves up successfully", especially if they're faced with a lot of discrimination?

I don't object to having different groups represented fairly / proportionally in different industries, etc, provided that their representation comes down to merit and not either laws mandating their representation or them being chosen to meet a quota.

Basically unless it crosses into an actual crime or if the government does it (because it's a monopoly)

Ey a fellow libertarian.

I would describe myself as a Paleoconservative/ reactionary with some libertarian leanings to be more precise but howdy anyway 👍

🐸🇺🇸💰🙏

No it’s not. He attacks the extreme left. They can’t come back with anything cohesive so they check out the anti Semitic card in the hope to discredit him.

Your argument is just that you agree with him, therefore he's not antisemitic? those have nothing to do with each other. He can be right about the far left, and antisemitic, he can be wrong about the far left and antisemitic. However, to most people, bigotry does decrease credibility, and it is worthwhile to point that out.

My argument is that those who disagree with him, can and do throw out the anti Semitic claim.

You’ve yet to show me anything he’s said that could be construed as anti semetic.

I wouldn’t even class him asa bigot. He articulate and thought provoking, and doesn’t appear to have any political agenda other than question censorship and highlight the dangers of identity politics.

he’s equally scathing of the extremes of the left and the right.

so, any chance you could show me where he’s been anti semetic.

I already have. I honestly don't care what your opinion of him is, and you don't need to tell me how much you love him every other post

"Cultural Marxism" is a dogwhistle for Jews.
He uses "Cultural Marxism" negatively.
It is quite easy to find this out.
There are other ways he could describe whatever phenomenon he thinks is occurring when he says "Cultural Marxism", in the case that this wording is/was accidental.

Therefore, it is very likely that he is using an antisemitic term on purpose.

Therefore it is very likely he does this because he is an antisemite.

I don’t see cultural Marxism as a dog whistle for Jews.

I think cultural Marxism can be seen as a negative thing. Anything that shouts down opposing views is never a good thing.

so in other words, you just don't think cultural marxism is a dog whistle, despite many far more experienced people than you (and jewish people) saying it is. You agree that he uses it negatively and he could choose to use other phrases to describe the world. Blatantly denying facts is a really bad rhetorical strategy

Ok so what happens if we replace cultural Marxism with another word and Nazis start using that too, or do we just have to keep on changing words to keep the ADL hacks happy?

so in other words, you just don't think cultural marxism is a dog whistle, despite many far more experienced people than you (and jewish people) saying it is. You agree that he uses it negatively and he could choose to use other phrases to describe the world. Blatantly denying facts is a really bad rhetorical strategy

Anti semetic attitudes have come out on the extreme of both left and right. There’s been significant Pograms by both extreme groupings.

Are you unable to locate anything anti Semitic he’s said.

I did find this. Not quite anti semetic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nKL3MsKRtJo

if he's so cool with jewish people why wouldn't he just stop using antisemitic dogwhistles? and I've already said that, some leftists are antisemitic, some conservatives are antisemitic. Again. he refers to cultural marxism. a dogwhistle for jewish people. google is free, and I assume you've seen enough of his content to hear him say this at least once.