Fiosfan Banned for his Personal Opinion

Repped you for giving the correct and proper definiton of "globalist'.

Any author/article that tries to associate "globalism" to "anti-semitism" most likely has a political ax to grind.

 

Allow me, again, to point out the small but real distinction between globalism and globalist.

It's especially striking if the sig in question did, in fact, talk about destroying from within.

C'mon, are people really arguing this? If @Knave 's recollection is correct, then this debate is silly. It was patently offensive to Jews, Fiosfan was asked to change the sig, and refused to do so.

I just feel worried for Andrea Pirlo now that Fiosfan has more time on his hands. Stalker alert!

 

The House, Senate, and Presidency are controlled by Republicans. 26 state governments are entirely controlled by Republicans (e.g. governor and legislatures) whereas only 8 are entirely Democratically controlled (the remainder are split). More Americans self-identify as conservative (35%) and moderate (35%) than liberal 26% (according to Gallup). "The liberals" are neither in control, nor a majority.

 

I'll say it again...go to stormfront (when not on a work computer!) and look for how they use "globalist."

Just because YOU don't know of the connection doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

"Globalist" + "enemy" + "must be stopped" and/or "be destroyed from within" (we had both versions) is what we're actually talking about. I am not aware of any alternate definitions of this combination of words. If you wish to debate our actions, please include that trio of words/phrases together.

(Actually, you can debate it in any form or fashion you want. This is the context, though.)

 

You know, it'd really be nice if someone had the foresight to screenshot the signature before it got scrubbed. That way we'd actually know what it said and could apply the proper context. It'd also largely diffuse the discussion.

 

That's true in the narrow context of the banning.

This thread has a larger context in which many posters think "globalism" is only a Davos/Tom Friedman thing. @Bill Archer claimed that the left made the word offensive.

My response to that was, I don't think so. Nazis use the word a certain way, and that engendered a response from the left.

But rather than just assert that, I'm saying people should go to stormfront and see for themselves. For those who don't know, stormfront is a website by and for Neo Nazis and Klansmen. By that I don't mean conservative, or ultra conservatives, or any damn thing except literal Nazis and literal Klansmen.

 

That's stupid as hell .... I'd drink a phurking Red Bull for a weekend with Sandra Bullock.

 

In fairness, you have just as much of a chance acquiring HIV from a heterosexual relationship as one would from a homosexual relationship. So, yeah, I could see why they would be upset over that. In reality, the question should be re-phrased to, "Have you ever had unprotected sex?". Diseases, unlike humanity, do not discriminate.

 

You're kidding me, right? Somehow that combo of words implies anti-semitism?
What, Semites have a patent on the use of those words and can only be applied to them?

Who comes up with this s**t, the left-leaning media?

 

So if we change "globalist" to "capitalist", does it change anything? I honestly suspect it does, even though there are certainly fringe groups that consider a "capitalist" to be an inherently bad thing that needs to be destroyed. Just like there are fringe groups that consider a "globalist" to be an inherently bad thing.

The point I'm making is that the overwhelming majority of people don't make a distinction between the "-ism" and the "-ist," and that a very narrow definition is being arbitrarily applied here.

I'm not going to bat for Fiosfan by the way, and there are a wealth of things he's got under his belt that are ban-worthy. For example, his comments about Mexicans in the CCL thread a month back were not only over the line, but also totally out of left field with basically no provocation. I actually thought he got off pretty light for that.

 

I googled "stormfront" and all I got was Video Game Developer.

Edit: nevermind, I saw your other post that explains it.

 

This is the problem right here. An opinion doesn't have to be right or wrong. It is an opinion. The fact that you think BS has the right to deem what opinions are wrong is the issue. Stop censoring things you don't agree with.

 

They are in the media. There are very very few main media sources that are not liberal.
The media is the one aiding in this "open-minded" censorship of anything that might be offensive to someone or anything they disagree with. It has gone overboard. The yelling of "racist" has gone overboard. You guys sound silly. Grow up.

 

Theres your problem. You probably want to try a different search engine that doesn't deliberately bury stuff they don't want people to find.

It is a real thing and it is a rats nest for racist nut jobs. Though I did hear they got the plug pulled on them by their web host a few months back. Not sure if they found a different host though.

 

I couldn't rep you more!

Mods, can we please have a "Super Rep" function!

 

Surely search engines don't use their power to shift focus away from things they don't agree with...nobody would do that...including BS mods.
haha

 

The thread title isn't an opinion. It's an assertion. @Bill Archer claims to know WHY he was banned.

Bill was wrong about that. I hope that Bill comes back to this thread to discuss this further. Otherwise, it's a pretty shitty thing to do, to fart in the elevator and then get off.

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

The intentional conflation of economic globalization (the reduction of barriers to moving labor and capital between states) and economic neoliberalism with social / political liberalism, progressivism or internationalism is a lie concocted intentionally to deflect populist ire away from the architects and beneficiaries of systems like NAFTA and the ill-fated Maastricht Treaty (elites) and toward those who've generally been the most vulnerable in society: immigrants, the poor and historically oppressed minority groups.

The "enemy within" type of language make this particular dog whistle unmistakable, as there is a clear difference from those who oppose organizations like the UN and WTO (and I'd even add FIFA and the IOC, personally) and those who incite action against nameless / faceless "traitors" in their own country and communities. It has nothing to do with being "offended" and everything to do with understanding that that kind of language makes certain members of society vulnerable to naming of names and worse. It is the classic redirection of working class angst by deputizing them against an "internal enemy" (those darn liberals, Jews, immigrants, Muslims, blacks, etc.) on behalf of the elite.

 

I'm aware about Google's censorship. I actually use DuckDuckGo for sensitive info.
But in this case I used Google because it's kinda silly to say "I just DuckDuckGo'ed ..."

 

That is frankly false, or perhaps an indication of the lack of breadth of political discourse in our country (after all, you have people in this very thread complaining that being asked to recycle plastic is just too damn liberal.)

 

Both ends of the political spectrum do this. The current political zeitgeist tends to give the left-leaning version of this more of a pass though. Both are honestly a problem because they push people towards radicalization at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

So you are saying the vast majority of major TV news, newspapers and online news is not liberal? Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a sheep.