403 Forbidden error with that link.
Also a certificate error.

Hmm. Anyone else having this problem? Try https://write.as/pgi5hn4j3237e.md

Powerful. It's really a good peek into what it's like to lose yourself to the easily digestible empty calorie snack food meme culture that spoon-feeds violent ideologies and tries to break a person down from reasonable human being to "It's okay if we kill degenerates, there's a greater good" robots.

I think it has to do with PewD being a racist and an antisemite. Tolerating nazis. His bizarre support for Jordan Peterson.

I don't understand how Jordan Peterson is related. He's actually directly called out the alt-right's identity politics.

Peterson is a flaming bag of bad ideas.


“”The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.
—Jordan Peterson

He's also fond of labeling people 'cultural marxists', which is pretty much the domain of the alt-right these days, it being a recycled Nazi concept.

He managed to somehow praise Viktor Orbán for supporting academic freedom for standing up to gays and transfolk, while also ignoring what Victor was doing to academic freedom in every other way possible. Sure, he called him an authoritarian, but he also sat down with the man and praised him for being against political correctness. Orban's rejection of political correctness included actual anti semitism and holocaust denial. You'd think Jordan would have objected, a little.

He also manages to criticize Muslim countries for how they treat women, while supporting a rosy view of traditional, 16'th century European marriage customs.

Peterson has suggested that professors who disagree with him should be put on trial for treason.

Peterson claims a truly amazing array of unscientific woo. Among other things, he believes that only God can help you quit smoking and that psychoactive drugs are proof that God exists. On the other hand, he's stopped taking his medications, eats only beef, salt, and water, and claims to have not slept for 25 days straight.

That's a good idea! :)

Another gem deadly waves of stupid.

It's illegal here in Canada not to call someone by their gender identity. So basically if someone wants you to address them by the word "xir" in the context of gender, they can take you to court where you'll be ordered to comply. If you say you're not going to, then you go to jail for contempt.

That's why social justice extremists are bad for the transgender community. They make up a bunch of rules, demand people adhere to them and eventually become confused for being the actual representatives of people with gender dysphoria. Then people like the Prime Minister and friends go "Hey, this group of liberal people have an idea. They sure stand strongly for their idea. Well I'm a liberal too, just like them. I guess that means it's a good idea" and then poof: A new law that enforces compelled speech is born.

That's not entirely true. What is forbidden is misgendering someone as a form of harassment. This is now in line with other anti-harassment laws for other minorities.

Also, not all transfolk have gender dysphoria. The two terms are not equivalent.

Actual transfolk do have gender dysphoria. That's what it is. The ones who don't are the ones who treat it like a trivial thing to feel like they're special. That's why people in the trans community label them "transtrenders".

What's disgusting about the whole thing is that group A: people with a legitimate psychological challenge known as gender dysphoria, never asked group B: people who think because "gender's a social construct therefor I can just make up a bunch of words and call them genders", for their help. But nope, group B decided "Hey this also makes us trans too!" and because of all their "you must accept us!" the line gets blurred and people start to think that folks from the "xir" "xi" and "they" camp actually represents people with gender dysphoria, which they don't and never did.

Gender dysphoria = transgender.

Non gender dysphoria transtrenders = people who are a flaming bag of bad ideas.

They say the suicide rate among people with gender dysphoria is around 44% but quite frankly I won't be shocked if that number climbs because of transtrender assholes who just fuck things up with their bullshit.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone's going to just waltz right on in, set up shop and play "transgender pretend" because they want a slice of the "I'm special" cake without thinking about how their actions affect people with a legitimate psychological condition, they can go fuck themselves and anyone in support of the "xir" "xi" "they" "non-binary" folk can go eat a bullet for being the real enemy of people with gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. If you are transgender, and it's not affecting you in a negative way mentally or socially, you aren't dysphoric.

"The second necessity is that the condition should be connected with clinically important distress, or affects the individual significantly socially, at work, and in other import areas of life."

So, if you're trans and not distressed by it, you ain't dysphoric.

I just recall recently when he cried while talking about his dead wife and about 20 alt-right figureheads dogpiled him for being "weak", like it confirm he wasn't "good enough" for their treefort club.

What do you expect? They have no loyalty to their own, either.

I mean I get what you're thinking, the SS purged the SA kinda thing but...

My takeaway is he was never "one of their own". He was convenient in a few narrow ways for his creative works. The alt-right focused on a few passages from his books, an unintentionally got a lot of their recruits to read them and start actually thinking for themselves. Peterson was never fully compatible with the agenda. So they waited for a dumbshit reason to attack.

Being used without consent by extremists doesn't make one an extremist. Even though assassins love his book, JD Salinger never said to kill anyone.

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/....._OAZFJESLe9gw8 Aaactually.

I have taken to wearing being called a sjw as a shining badge of honour if our legal justice system worked well social justice would not even exist or have enough traction to even be a thing.

oh hey, did someone say ｆａｋｅ　ｎｅｗｓ？

Which part is fake, exactly? It's not news - it's a person writing about their experience.

The whole 'Muh PewDiePipeline™' and more broadly the libertarian>alt-right pipeline is transparently bullshit that's been utterly debunked beyond any need for citation. And basically everything in the 'a few takeaways' section is similarly crap. This guy's got a book to sell, I'd wager.

Ah, I see. So, in other words, you don't actually have anything but a whine.

so in other words, you have no refutation for obvious facts.

You've yet to offer any. Feel free to show sources.

I see you haven't read my response. I provided nothing but fact until my closing conjecture.
If this guy thinks pewdiepie either is a racist or creates racists, he never held the beliefs he professed to have held in the first place.

Additionally, the entire notion of someone's beliefs having consequences is pure partisan spew because beliefs cannot have consequences.

Er, no, you didn't. Where are these 'debunkings'?

Are you suggesting beliefs don't lead to actions? Do you think people are not guided in their actions by their beliefs? I'm more than willing to entertain your argument, if you get around to making one.

are you implying that beliefs and actions are one and the same? or that having beliefs somehow necessitates committing atrocities for them?

I take it you've never heard of the radical concept of edgy jokes being funny because people know the reason they're edgy is because the views they bank their humor on are backward and incorrect?

Not everyone who shoots up a synagogue is guided by ideology, but I can't think of anyone who's shot up a synagogue who wasn't.

As for edgy jokes, I'm uncertain that being backwards and incorrect necessarily makes them funny.

Consider the following joke:

Hitler, seeing how poorly the war is going, tells his guards to bring him a fortune teller. The only guy they can find is an old Jewish man they had to pull out of a prison camp. So, they clean him up, throw a costume on him, and set him up with a crystal ball. Hitler comes in and sits, and the old man gazes into the ball.... "Ahh!"; the man exclaims! "I see you dying on a Jewish holiday!". Hitler is shocked, and stammers out 'But, what Jewish Holiday?" The old fortuneteller says "Believe me, whatever day it is, we'll make a holiday!".
........

So, we've got all the makings of an edgy joke - ethnic speech patterns, Nazis, an unlikely situation, the Holocaust.... Is it backward and incorrect? Would you classify it as a joke Neo-Nazis would like?

Looks like you didn't think that first part out. Can you think of anyone who got away with shooting up a synagogue without immediately either killing themselves or being arrested and sent to prison and made an example of?

As for your joke, it isn't edgy. It celebrates the end of the holocaust. You might want to reevaluate your definition of edgy.

Sure can. Reinhard Heydrich. See, that's an edgy joke. I don't see what punishment or suicide has to do with it? We're discussing motivation - clearly a suicide bomber is motivated enough to die.

I'm sorry if my joke lacks enough edge for you. What would have made it more edgy? Racism?

Ever heard of deterrence? How many ideologues would you reckon there are, and how frequently do they commit atrocities? And what would you wanna bet that the discrepancy has more than a little bit to do with the most recent example of the thing i asked for being part of the ruling class while committing his atrocities?

Also, jokes are supposed to have a punch line. You might need to update your definition of 'joke'.

How many atrocities do you find acceptable?

Also, you've yet to actually answer my questions. You just ask more questions. Poor debate style, there. Defend your statements, sir.

Nice non-answer.
In the case of acceptability, the numbers are irrelevant because extremist fuckwads gonna extremist fuckwad, and you literally can't get rid of extremist fuckwads.
How much censorship do you find acceptable?

I don't believe in censorship, at all. That being said, nobody has any inherent right to any particular platform they don't own themselves. As you're aware, corporations have been found to have human rights by the Supreme Court. Thus, Facebook, for example, cannot be forced by the government to require speech it disagrees with, any more than the government can force me to pray.

Also, nice non-answer. I see why people block you rather than debating you.

Way to ignore an answer.

The thing about your Muh Private Cumpny™ point is that if a platform doesn't allow speech that doesn't directly violate someone's rights (credible threats, libel/slander, direct incitement), then it isn't a platform. It's a publisher. And if they specifically disallow the voicing of particular opinions, guess what? that's called censorship.
#2, take Twitter for example. It provides government services such as weather alerts, thus cannot be considered a private platform.

Nope. That's been debunked, itself. The Twitter argument, that is. *sigh*. I see little reason to continue,as you won't argue in good faith.

Anyway, if anyone would like to see more of this particular debate, let me know and I'll set up a Patreon. Otherwise, I don't debate 4chan kidz.

Do you have another theory about why Pewd does what he does, other than racism? Mental illness?