Whatever You Do Don’t Let the Opposition Speak

Andy Warski has made it to the big time!  As article bashing him at a site called Right Wing Watch was featured on SPLC’s Hatewatch blog.

Welcome To YouTube ‘Bloodsports,’ The Alt-Right’s Newest Recruiting Tool

Over the past month, prominent alt-right personalities on YouTube have carved out platforms for themselves on a handful of popular livestreamed political debate channels, where they’ve engaged in debates against “classical liberal,” libertarian and “anti-social justice warrior” YouTube talkers.

The series of debates, which have been affectionately dubbed “bloodsports” by their participants, have provided the white nationalist alt-right with its latest chance to thrust itself into the political consciousness of young people and to appeal to members of some of the subcultures that have splintered from the movement in recent months.
One of the most prominent channels hosting these debates belongs to Andy Warski, a YouTube personality who has grown increasingly sympathetic to the alt-right. Warski appeared this month on the alt-right, anti-Semitic podcast “The Daily Shoah,” hosted by host Mike “Enoch” Peinovich, where he said that he thought people falsely believe Peinovich advocates genocide. (The word “Shoah” translates to “Holocaust.”)

In the last few weeks, Warski has hosted debates featuring nearly every popular white nationalist YouTube figure, including J.F. Gariepy, Tara McCarthy, Richard Spencer, Colin Robertson (“Millennial Woes”), Greg Johnson, Peinovich, James Allsup, Nick Fuentes and Tim Gionet (“Baked Alaska”). More often than not, these white nationalist personalities have been paired against conservative opponents who offer incredibly weak pushback to their arguments. On only a few occasions have they faced true, strong counter-arguments. One of these debates—featuring Sargon of Akkad and Tarl Warwick (“Styxhexenhammer666”) debating Spencer and Gariepy—became the highest-trending live video on YouTube during its broadcast. Afterward, Spencer declared that he had “destroyed” in the debate.

This raises the age old question: if their arguments are so bad, wouldn’t you want people to hear them so they’d know how stupid and evil these people are?  For instance, I did in fact listen to all of the Sargon/Spencer debate.  Everyone had a couple good points, but my conclusion was that Sargon is an idiot and Spencer a smug megalomaniac.  I was not suddenly possessed of an obsession with murdering Jews and setting myself up as an elite in an ethnostate.

SJWs know that if their opponents are given a chance to speak, some people will realized that they aren’t all rabid, drooling nazis.  And SJWs are so incompetent that they can’t even take down a Fake-Righter like Spencer, so they rarely agree to debate.  So the only other option is deplatform and attack anyone willing to let them talk.


The Coming Googlepocalypse

Google has done a great job making itself ubiquitous.  Gmail works great.  Google Drive is very useful for anyone who collaborates or switches computers a lot.  Hangouts.  Maps.  Translate.  Chrome.  Android.  Ads.  Search engine.  You name it.

So what happens if the benevolent Google decides to pick up its toys and go home?

The more ubiquitous Google is the more it’ll hurt when it decides to yank everything you’ve worked on and come to rely on away from you and deny you a platform.  It’s time for more alt-tech.

Justice for The_Donald

r/The_Donald is usually the second or third thing I look at in the morning.  Today I was greeted by this:



Reddit has been imposing “special” rules on The_Donald because The_Donald is full of awful mean people who are mean to the rest of Reddit and need to be taught to be nice.


Reddit admins don’t understand that a centipede is a nimble navigator and has two hollow fangs.  CENTIPEDES ARE PREDATORS.  This isn’t going to blow up in their faces I don’t know what will.

Internet Censorbot in Development

The Regressive Left is at it again: trying to squelch free speech.  Do they ever stop?  They’re probably working around the clock to shut up everyone who disagrees.  Who’d have thought we’d be rooting for the trolls over “polite society”?  We’ll take the internet’s free — even though sometimes “impolite” or even downright nasty —  speech over a sanitized, leftist-policed version — if that’s what we wanted, we’d just watch the MSM exclusively.  Thinking people can sift through the internet’s chafe to get to the wheat.  We’re not interested in having predigested propaganda served up to us.  It’s not surprising that the Media are the first ones calling this developing tech a good thing.

Have these people never seen/read any dystopian stories where an A.I.is developed to control people in some way?  Yeah, that always ends well.  Any time humans try to forcefully create Utopia by taking away the freedom of others, people suffer greatly.  Even in the novel from which the term is taken, it quickly becomes apparent that Utopia is really what we’d call today a dystopian society.

Here’s hoping that if this thing ever gets off the ground there will be ways around it and/or a legion of hackers to destroy it.  War on Comments: Google Built an A.I. to Censor the Web, And the Media Is Celebrating:

“What if technology could help improve conversations online?”
That’s the lowkey Orwellian message that greets visitors to the website of Perspective, Google’s new AI system for detecting (and potentially deleting, hiding, or burying) “toxic” comments on the web.

Perspective is still in early days of development, but in the future, you may have to adjust your speech in order to satisfy the lofty standards of Google. Otherwise, the company’s faceless AI might just have to “improve” you. Where’s Sarah Connor when you need her?

The good news is that, for now at least, Perspective is about as effective as C-3PO with a lisp. Software engineer and columnist David Auerbach has found the program woefully inept at sorting “toxic” comments from ordinary ones. Because the AI currently focuses on words rather than meanings, inoffensive comments like, “Rape is a horrible crime,” or, “few Muslims are a terrorist threat,” were assigned “toxicity” ratings of over 75 percent.

Of course, even if Perspective could successfully sort “toxic” comments from innocuous ones, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to be deleted or buried. According to the project’s homepage, the system performs no function other than detection.

But statements from the project’s developers make it clear that censorship is the end goal. Indeed, the system seems to have been developed to augment the left’s ongoing war on comments sections. The software was initially made available just to organizations that are part of Google’s Digital News Initiative, including the BBC, The Financial Times, and The Guardian, which promptly began testing the software to moderate their comments sections.

“News organizations want to encourage engagement and discussion around their content, but find that sorting through millions of comments to find those that are trolling or abusive takes a lot of money, labour and time,” says Jared Cohen, president of Jigsaw, the Google social incubator that built the tool. “As a result, many sites have shut down comments altogether. But they tell us that isn’t the solution they want.”

Google couldn’t be clearer: it’s a censorship bot. And just because it’s currently limited to news sites and comments sections doesn’t mean it won’t be rolled out to social networks and the rest of the web. Twitter, which just introduced yet another system to punish users who hurt celebrities’ feelings, would probably love to get their hands on a working version of Perspective.

Twitter already has a tremendous depth of data on its users, including gender, location, and personal interests. Imagine that data, combined with an AI tool designed to pinpoint inconvenient content, in the hands of a CEO who has done little to conceal his political biases.

The idea of an all-powerful Google robot watching over us all, making sure our speech is “improved,” has greatly excited mainstream media…