who

Left leaning sargon but with actually decent production value.

sounds boring

Quite.

Oh well, time to make some drama

A Youtuber. You should check her out, her videos are fun and thought-provoking.

I just started the video, but there's something off about her. As if my brain is telling me that she is unnatural, and a thing that should not really be. Weird vibe tbh

Shes more then willing to poke fun at that lol.

Yeah, she gets really weird in her videos. I think her biggest influence is John Waters.

Yeah it's more because she looks like a man.

I think it's more because he is a man

I'm literally shaking rn. How dare you misgender her?

and I have a seriously dark sense of humor. Like...one of the funniest things I've seen recently was Bennett the Sage staring silently at the camera with full-on crazy eyes for 15 seconds while bleeding profusely from the mouth.

/u/LuckyStampede that's not dark, you pussy. This shit is dark.

Git gud nubile, this is the real dark shit

I think it's pretty clear from this thread that Ghazi has no real interest in being introspective regarding real world violence they enjoy.

/thread

And that scares me. There's a name for a philosophy that has an aesthetic love of violence.

/u/gavinbrindstar at least fascists are open about our beliefs.

lol I know he means fascism but the idea that the left doesn't aestheticize violence is the most richly ahistorical bullshit that I've ever heard. qu'importe la victime si le geste est beau lmao

the left only kills people who are already on their way out

Fascists aren't open about their beliefs, or very few are. Many of them spend a lot of time trying to either pretend they aren't fascists or trying to moderate their message.

And this is thanks, in no small part, to the fact fascism isn't an actual doctrine but more so a set of emotions.

Why the fuck would anyone go to gamerghazi and expect anything different?

this is why i'll never understand outrage subs that aren't ironic even this place is losing it's sense of irony

There is only so much times you can laugh at "post bussy".

Post gussy

Ew

Haha... Nah, it's not doing it for me anymore.

:(

She goes on to try to continue making a point about people on twitter having names like Kill All Terfs (oh no people expressing themselves in their own social circles how fucking horrible)

/u/PoliteTimesplitter

So basically you are saying it's okay to an edgelord if the target are people you disagree with but if someone said Kill All Feminists, that would a literal call for genocide and you be literally shaking rn?

Contrapoints is now a terf

wheres that trump meme account

If subreddits had scents, I'm pretty sure r/GamerGhazi would be old socks and disappointing their mothers.

Gotta love Sargon in the comments defending the slaughter of millions to own the libs.

Inspired me to click the video link just to upvote Sargon in the comments. Pretty solid trolling there.

/u/whoisthisgirlisee

We don't, as she falsely asserts, need to convince people that "trans women are not creepy men who want to assault cis women." I'm honestly so disappointed in her that she makes this point. By and large the only people who believe trans women are "creepy men who want to assault cis women" are TERFs and radical Christian terrorists. Neither group of people are going to be swayed away from their beliefs by anything trans people do ever. The fact that she thinks the solution is to allow the oppressive hate group to control the conversation and discuss their bigotry as if it's a valid intellectual argument that needs challenging is basically everything wrong with her approach in a nutshell.

So what you're saying is that you're perfectly fine with the fact that some people believe they are? Like, you really think that kind of skepticism is only found among those extremist groups? If that were true, wouldn't you expect to run into those attitudes much less often than you actually do?

And why exactly do you think that having discussions with other people that are obviously wrong, would result in them "controlling the conversation"? Do you not actually have any faith in the idea of making a convincing argument? Have you ever attempted to make a convincing argument for your own positions? Why do you believe the things you believe? Were you reasoned into them?

Why are you posting this here and not just directly responding to my post? Are you scared of the people in that subreddit or something?

So what you're saying is that you're perfectly fine with the fact that some people believe they are?

Nope, I just know from experience as a Jew, a woman, and a trans person that you don't convince people out of their stereotypes by changing your behavior in response to their stereotypes.

Like, you really think that kind of skepticism is only found among those extremist groups? If that were true, wouldn't you expect to run into those attitudes much less often than you actually do?

By and large, yes, the only people who think trans women are "creepy men trying to assault women" are those who are actively transphobic.

And why exactly do you think that having discussions with other people that are obviously wrong, would result in them "controlling the conversation"?

Once someone has stopped seeing you as human they stop listening to the things you have to say.

Do you not actually have any faith in the idea of making a convincing argument? Have you ever attempted to make a convincing argument for your own positions?

"My own positions"? You mean that "I am a human being whose life experience is legitimate"? No, I've never felt the need to argue that. I do know from experience that no matter how well reasoned, logic, and sound what I have to say is, that people who don't see me as human do not listen to me. It's a waste of time, effort, and emotional energy to engage with such a discussion.

Why do you believe the things you believe? Were you reasoned into them?

From experience and observation.

How many US citizens do you think are "Nazis"?

0, because I was talking about Nazis. You know, the ones who committed genocide and required violence to stop. In the past. You could just read my responses I've already written for clarifaction though instead of bringing it in here.

TL;DW: Violence is a messy, multi-dimensional concept and there's no obvious answer to any moral quandary regarding the ethics of violence.

lol

/u/P--S

Looks at comments and "other discussions."

Oh god dammit, here we go again...

Wow, life sure must be tough in a world where people disagree with you. How do you get up in the morning?

Most internet commentators and their viewers have the mind set that the average person is VERY easily persuaded if the conversation is not heavily controlled

They wallow in the comments section where its entirely supportive and any negative response is crushed down

Lets be honest, the people who watch youtube commentators either don't really read the news or anything and are looking for "who is right" or people who agree with them

Contrapoints is a little too thinky for Ghazi. Ghazi no like the thinky.

"Murder all people I perceive as fascists" == good

"Maybe we should have a little more introspection when we discuss our fondness for violence and our role in fighting oppression" == verrry problematic

/u/whoisthisgirlisee

We don't, as she falsely asserts, need to convince people that "trans women are not creepy men who want to assault cis women." I'm honestly so disappointed in her that she makes this point. By and large the only people who believe trans women are "creepy men who want to assault cis women" are TERFs and radical Christian terrorists. Neither group of people are going to be swayed away from their beliefs by anything trans people do ever. The fact that she thinks the solution is to allow the oppressive hate group to control the conversation and discuss their bigotry as if it's a valid intellectual argument that needs challenging is basically everything wrong with her approach in a nutshell.

So what you're saying is that you're perfectly fine with the fact that some people believe they are? Like, you really think that kind of skepticism is only found among those extremist groups? If that were true, wouldn't you expect to run into those attitudes much less often than you actually do?

And why exactly do you think that having discussions with other people that are obviously wrong, would result in them "controlling the conversation"? Do you not actually have any faith in the idea of making a convincing argument? Have you ever attempted to make a convincing argument for your own positions? Why do you believe the things you believe? Were you reasoned into them?

It's the same with Nazis. You don't convince Nazis that Jews are people, that's an impossible task. Instead you have to stop them with violence, including punching them in the face.

How many US citizens do you think are "Nazis"?

There's an easy explanation to this. I figured out the Left a long time ago. Note that I mean the capital-L left; the ones who discuss intersectionality, black bodies, problematic things.

The reason they never do much effective work or attain their goals is that they don't want to win. That's it. It's that simple. If they win, they don't get to be special. They don't get to go against the grain.

This is why they don't want a wider appeal to the public. It's why they're hostile to differences in their peers, hostile to nuance and fairness and thought. Everything you see the Left do that makes you scratch your head and think, "how is that supposed to help anything? How is that supposed to convince people you're right?" can be explained by this. Blocking traffic, not all men, bash the fash. None of it is designed to work, it just increases the conflict and causes more fighting and dysfunction.

I figured out the Left a long time ago

Oh this is gonna be good

That seems like way too convenient a model. That sort of thing smells more like subtle internal sabotage than people actually just wanting to shitpost and never actually accomplish anything.

After all, here in /r/Drama we understand precisely what the latter smells like, amirite.

You can't punch up if your on too and punching is so much fun, who wants to give that up?

I give it 12 months until contra and Laci green start a lesbian relationship and have the wedding announced on a voice for men

What makes LSC such a terrible joke is that by saying these things, it's abundantly clear that they're totally divorced from socialist movements that are active around the world. Movements that recognize the dangers of charity work in perpetuating or excusing injustice, but also understand on a more fundamental level that human suffering and death from lack of any action is even worse, because inaction makes you complicit with the power structures causing that suffering. Silence is complicity, and while LSC is super quick to condemn complict silence and inaction when it comes to "bashing the fash", whenever testosterone laced violence isn't the answer, you can hear a pin drop. This simply exposes LSC for who they are, worshippers of violence and suffering in "service" of a worldwide movement they only know about from quick scans of wikipedia articles about Bakunin or Trotsky when they totally want to rip into a reactionary on the internet.

But with ghazi