(04-11-2016 09:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Credentialist control freaks

This one may have some promise, as it has echoes in American history in a crucial realigning election, that being 1828, which was undoubtedly the nastiest campaign in history.

John Quincy Adams, the incumbent, but who had come to power in a fix which was termed "the corrupt bargain" of 1824 (sound familiar?), ridiculed Andrew Jackson in 1828 because he misspelled basic words like government "goverment" and congress "kongress."

But this backfired because these imperfections were common in the American population at the time. It, to them, was a display of Adams' snobbery and how much he disdained not just Jackson, but his own people. Jackson of course, won the 1828 rematch in a stomp.

Finding something similar, which displays this snobbery so visibly amongst the imperfections common to the population at large today, can achieve the same effect.

"Credentialist control freaks" is close, but not quite there. The information is out there, we should try to find it.

Ya Libertas every leftist pulls out the "smarter, more educated" line while never having an independent thought. Bunch of fucking faggots.

^ I usually make a point of that too. They pretend to be all high and mighty, they say my ideas are bad or out-there or old-fashion or whatever. So I just say: "these ideas you have preached, did you produce them yourself? or are you just repeating what you're supposed to say? expressing the sentiment you've been taught to express? the safe thing? anyone can do that."

(04-11-2016 08:13 PM)911 Wrote:  OK just for the sake of balance:

They all look like this in Houston, right?

New polls:

Connecticut:

Can't even read the financial news without being reminded that "Trump got it all wrong"

(04-12-2016 07:56 AM)dispenser Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:27 AM)godfather dust Wrote:  Pharisees is no good, while I agree it is a good insult and what I call Zionists to a couple close friends it discredits you as an anti-Semite.

Hell the banking cartel are all Pharisees, they killed Jesus for flipping their tables.

There's nothing anti-semitic about the word pharisee. It was a term for one group of Jews in particular.
That's like saying bolshevik is anti-Russian.

It doesn't work because modern Jews are the cultural/religious inheritors of the Pharisee sect that later became simply "Rabbinic" Judaism. Thus, it's rather the equivalent of calling them "Jews".

(04-11-2016 11:34 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ You have to realize most Americans are deeply bluepill, to a degree you can't even imagine. "Traitor" is good and it's true, but it simply isn't palatable to mainstream America. We've probably lost the language war; the left simply has too many tools at its disposal.

Reading YOutube comments and manosphere sites might give you the impression that the country is full of skeptics and otherwise rational people, but this simply isn't the case. The vast majority are clueless stooges who view Trump as the antichrist and want our heads to roll.

Sad but true. When someone gets called a "homophobe" or "racist" what's the first reaction? It's not to laugh and brush it off but to hit the panic button and start insisting that he isn't racist or homophobic. Even if it's totally true that the person isn't either of these things by rushing in matter to quickly dissociate himself from those terms that person is already on the defensive and fighting on a battlefield of his accuser's choosing.

If we call a SJW a faggot it doesn't hurt him at all since he simply feels no shame about his lack of masculinity and society as a whole is valuing masculinity less and less every day. People however are ashamed of being un-PC and hence why a lot of the typical SJW buzzwords have the impact they do.

(04-12-2016 12:48 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 11:34 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ You have to realize most Americans are deeply bluepill, to a degree you can't even imagine. "Traitor" is good and it's true, but it simply isn't palatable to mainstream America. We've probably lost the language war; the left simply has too many tools at its disposal.

Reading YOutube comments and manosphere sites might give you the impression that the country is full of skeptics and otherwise rational people, but this simply isn't the case. The vast majority are clueless stooges who view Trump as the antichrist and want our heads to roll.

Sad but true. When someone gets called a "homophobe" or "racist" what's the first reaction? It's not to laugh and brush it off but to hit the panic button and start insisting that he isn't racist or homophobic. Even if it's totally true that the person isn't either of these things by rushing in matter to quickly dissociate himself from those terms that person is already on the defensive and fighting on a battlefield of his accuser's choosing.

If we call a SJW a faggot it doesn't hurt him at all since he simply feels no shame about his lack of masculinity and society as a whole is valuing masculinity less and less every day. People however are ashamed of being un-PC and hence why a lot of the typical SJW buzzwords have the impact they do.

What's the best reaction to this? SJWs use this tactic on me all the time and I usually reframe the conversation to make the other person seem like a bully (the exact thing they claim to hate) for arbitrarily smearing me with buzzwords but I never get much of a response to it.

I've also tried explaining that throwing around words like "racist" devalues it and hurts people who have been victims of real racism, but that doesn't work either.

If someone calls you a racist/xenophobe/etc, that's when you bust out the traitor response. Ultimately, the fight will be settled with violence because they refuse to reason, so it is important to identify the enemies now.

Connecticut polls:


Interesting that Kasich polls better than both Democrats, can that be an indication for the general election? Normally this state is Democrat.

(04-12-2016 01:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  If someone calls you a racist/xenophobe/etc, that's when you bust out the traitor response. Ultimately, the fight will be settled with violence because they refuse to reason, so it is important to identify the enemies now.

Also you can call it for what it is a majority of the time, racism accusations are thinly veiled power plays. The minute you buy into their frame and meekly accept your wrong-think fate, you lose. The racism accusation is usually a debate-ender for people who don't have the mental capacity to discuss past 1 losing argument, it effectively just silences someone else, brands them as wrong no matter what else they say, and paints them as some sort of sub-human neanderthal who doesn't deserve to live in the world. Most people never experience true racism in their lives, but they know if they do it's like hitting the lottery nowadays, and they know they can cash their victim chips in and win a big payday!

It doesn't work in an argument, but eskimobob is right, the word racism has lost most or all of it's meaning in today's world. Attacking the word itself is another (less successful) tactic. The word racism was only invented around 70-80 years ago after the Holocaust, because killing millions of people, now THAT is something we need a new word for, that was indeed racism. But before WW2, there was literally no word for racism, the concept had hardly been thought of. Segregating by races was considered natural and just the way the world worked. No one had considered the inverse at all since it went against so much of what society was built on (homogenous culture, high trust society, benevolent neighbors, ancestral worship, like-minded church, community, family etc). SO of course all that had to be broken down before the racism narrative could be accepted and believed en masse, but at any time in the history of the world before around 50-60 years ago, If you didn't identify with your own race primarily and didn't work to do the most good for your own tribe you would have without a doubt been labeled mentally defective and a traitor to your race.

Perhaps a good counter to a person making a racist accusation is that someone is anti-free speech, or scared of intellectually debating a topic without a handicap. They are arguing from a place of false intellectual superiority, and it makes them unable to take intellectual leaps without a safety net. Making racist accusations is like bowling with bumpers in the gutter, to them playing the racism card makes them incapable of losing and they know it. It's like taking a child's security blanket away, they would be lost without the crutch to lean on and the cudgel to beat people over the head with. Challenge them to continue the discussion without using the word and see how far you get.

(04-12-2016 09:26 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Why bother trying to pick an existing or creative word? Just call them all leftists. That's their label. That allows the battle lines to be drawn. That allows us a point of focus, a lynch pin to vilify and associate with sabotage and social destruction.

Especially those claiming to be conservatives -- they're the easiest target. Defend gay marriage? Leftist. Defend illegal immigration? Leftist. Doesn't matter what they claim they are. A cuckservative is simply a leftist in conversative's clothing.

The problem with this is that "leftists" is too broad a term. You have to distinguish between the cultural marxists and the blue collar working class. The former are a bunch of brainwashed idiots and a lost cause, but the latter are potential allies, if they only realized that Clinton sold them out to the globalists.

A lot of those "leftists" are Reagan Democrats that Trump should target: Blacks and American Hispanics (especially the men) who will be the ones most screwed over by aggressive trade deals like the TPP. Their communities were also particularly ravaged by the cultural marxist agenda. Black males were specifically targeted starting with the anti-family welfare schemes from the late 60s (the so-called "Great Society") and on to the drug wars.

Trump needs to find high-profile allies from those demographics.

The Donald, Live in Rome, NY @ 5pm,




The MAGA Train keeps rollin with another YUUUUGE Rally less than an hour away!

(04-12-2016 09:44 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 09:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Credentialist control freaks

This one may have some promise, as it has echoes in American history in a crucial realigning election, that being 1828, which was undoubtedly the nastiest campaign in history.

John Quincy Adams, the incumbent, but who had come to power in a fix which was termed "the corrupt bargain" of 1824 (sound familiar?), ridiculed Andrew Jackson in 1828 because he misspelled basic words like government "goverment" and congress "kongress."

But this backfired because these imperfections were common in the American population at the time. It, to them, was a display of Adams' snobbery and how much he disdained not just Jackson, but his own people. Jackson of course, won the 1828 rematch in a stomp.

Finding something similar, which displays this snobbery so visibly amongst the imperfections common to the population at large today, can achieve the same effect.

"Credentialist control freaks" is close, but not quite there. The information is out there, we should try to find it.

conceited credentialists
Ivory Tower intellectuals
Ivory Tower syndrome
Unreality thinking
Unrealistic thinking
Fantasy thinking
elitist thinking
intellectual seclusion
intellectual isolation
Hypothetical intellectualism
impractical intellectualism
imagined intellectualism
scholarly seclusion
oblivious academia
academically arrogant
sheltered superiority

Words I like to describe establishment idiots/libtards/anti-speech types/people who sell out their nation:

1. Faggot
2. Traitor
3. Faggot Traitor
4. Libtards
5. Cucks

But I think I have some good candidates for a new buzzword (a few possible varations):

1. SJW Red Guards (SJWRGs)

2. SJ Red Guards (SJRGs)

3. Neo-Red Guards (NRGs)

I like the latter two the best but especially the last one (NRGs) since it removes any pretense of being about about "justice" in any capacity. It also can be applied to anyone of any political affiliation who is anti-free speech and believes that using unjustified violence and intimidation is a proper course of action to get their way.

I also like the use of Red Guard since it really brings home what SJWs/libtards/the modern left and the kind that associate with them are really all about. They are not warriors; they have more in common with Chinese Red Guards. You don't have to build up viciousness of the phrase since it already has negative associations; similar to how anti-Trump retards throw the word "Hitler" around for effectiveness.

Think of how Trump uses phrases that play on what a lot of people are already thinking below the surface (Lyin Ted, Low Energy Bush, etc) to great effect. It's not a stretch at all to call the modern libtard a Neo-Red Guard. The similarities between SJW/libtards and the Chinese Red Guard are very strong.

From wiki:

Quote:Attacks on culture quickly descended into attacks on people. Ignoring guidelines in the 'Sixteen Articles' that stipulated that persuasion rather than force were to be used to bring about the Cultural Revolution, officials in positions of authority and perceived 'bourgeois elements' were denounced and suffered physical and psychological attacks.[12] On August 22, 1966, a central directive was issued to stop police intervention in Red Guard activities.[17] Those in the police force who defied this notice were labeled "counter-revolutionaries." Mao's praise for rebellion was effectively an endorsement for the actions of the Red Guards, which grew increasingly violent

Quote:Public security in China deteriorated rapidly as a result of central officials lifting restraints on violent behavior.[19] Xie Fuzhi, the national police chief, said it was "no big deal" if Red Guards were beating "bad people" to death.[20] The police relayed Xie's remarks to the Red Guards and they acted accordingly.[20] In the course of about two weeks, the violence left some one hundred teachers, school officials, and educated cadres dead in Beijing's western district alone. The number injured was "too large to be calculated."

Quote:The most gruesome aspects of the campaign included numerous incidents of torture, murder, and public humiliation. Many people who were targets of 'struggle' could no longer bear the stress and committed suicide. In August and September 1966, there were 1,772 people murdered in Beijing alone. In Shanghai there were 704 suicides and 534 deaths related to the Cultural Revolution in September. In Wuhan there were 62 suicides and 32 murders during the same period.[21]

Intellectuals were to suffer the brunt of these attacks. Many were ousted from official posts such as university teaching and allocated manual tasks such as "sweeping courtyards, building walls and cleaning toilets from 7am to 5pm daily" which would encourage them to dwell on past "mistakes".[22] An official report in October 1966 reported that the Red Guards had already arrested 22,000 'counterrevolutionaries

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards_%28China%29

Oh yeah, another option:

4. American [or any country] Red Guards (ARGs)

(04-12-2016 03:53 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Words I like to describe establishment idiots/libtards/anti-speech types/people who sell out their nation:

1. Faggot
2. Traitor
3. Faggot Traitor

Faggot Traitor! This one has to sting, with its high-energy sound: like the crack of a whip... The kind of insult an old-fashioned, tough and fearless alpha-male would drop with a snark:



Maybe Lizard of Oz's preferred words and yours could "cohabit", depending on the circumstances, situations and people targeted.

Sometimes, a short high-energy word like traitor, to shock them (SJWs) out of their lethargy, or at other times, some more "intellectualized" derogatory terms, linked to history, to make them pause and think on their (faulty) principles.

Red Guard Faggot Traitor...

Has a distinct ring to it.

You guys are putting me to sleep with all these advanced insults.

(04-12-2016 12:40 AM)MiscBrah Wrote:  This is getting too complicated for me. I'll just stick with faggot

Agreed but the proper spelling is Phaggot. .

The 'Ph' lends the word some extra high energy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-wall.html

Tulane University fraternity causes uproar on campus after erecting 'Trump wall' that reads 'Make America Great Again'

Photos of the wall circulated online after it was erected on April 7 on the off-campus house of Kappa Alpha Order fraternity at Tulane
As part of the local chapter's annual tradition, it builds a wall around its private property each spring ahead of its 'Old South' formal ball
However, upset students said this time the wall was 'filled with connotations of hate and ignorance'
The wall has since been torn down by unidentified individuals alleged to be Tulane football players
University spokesman said leadership in the local chapter said members used Donald Trump's name and slogan on this year's wall as satire

(04-14-2016 09:54 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  The biggest mistake in all that is not how much unfavorability is going to move, but assuming that unfavorability matters at all. Plenty of people vote for the politicians they personally don't favor, and vice versa.

Yup, that is what is implied here.

(04-14-2016 09:46 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Since both their unfav rating is over 50%, it's 100% certain that there are people who view both of them unfavorably. Even if the fav/unfav ratings stay the same as it is now (70 to 58), if there are enough voters who view Trump unfavorably but also as the lesser evil compared to Clinton, Trump still wins.

Ok which one of you guys brought up Lindy West Disease on r/The_Donald

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comm...me/d22hjvk