Spectre Unmasked: Racist 'Alt-Right' Podcaster Used To Be Local Reporter

!!!!!!!

Corinth MS is less than 50 miles from me. And Marshall County is about the same in the other direction. Creepy.

Paladin has been pretty consistent in his views - I remember when he stated the reason that Scandinavian countries could implement democratic socialism was racial homogenity. In other words, they don't have brown or black people there. It can't work in the US, because we aren't racially homogenous. If you didn't know by then, you weren't paying attention.

And then of course he supports Trump and refuses to admit he did anything wrong, despite it playing out in our TV screens and person after person in his own sphere coming out now and saying he tried to overthrow the election in multiple ways. Hell, he is on tape trying to alter vote counts with Georgia's secretary of state. This isn't disputed.

These aren't disparate views. They are the same view, expressed in the same manner, for the same reason.

But I routinely see people palling around with him here.

Guess some people can't learn. 'But he's so much more polite than Storm.' Is he, now.

I don't understand certain posters on this board.

For example, @Bickendan liked your post above, but earlier he also liked this post:

And I've also noticed that both he and @Ancalagon seem to give Paladin a lot of attention in the Russian invasion thread.

Makes no sense to me.

That's a common trope in right-wing politics. Dayton also expressed similar views. The "generous" argument that one could make is that the issue isn't tied to a specific ethnicity, but that because societies that are genetically homogenous (regardless of what ethnic group they might fall into) have an easier time of doing things to support the least amongst their societies, still doesn't strike me as all that good.

It is basically saying that the only way a society can advance is if they don't have an ethnic minority in their population whom they can oppress. So, the reason the US doesn't have UHC is because the fascists in our society can oppress a particular minority, and that if we're not willing to kick out certain minorities, we've got no hope of having a society that truly recognizes basic human rights.

If the argument is "universal health care and other elements of a strong social safety net can't win broad support unless the country is homogeneous," then there is a reasonable explanation for the argument, and it may even be true. People, on average, are more likely to support helping people who they see as being similar to themselves. And when a diverse society has groups that have historically been "in-groups" and "out-groups," it is inevitable that the historical "out-groups" will benefit more, on average, from social spending that's based entirely on need, which can provoke resentment from members of the "in-group." Who, in turn, have an outsize role in determining whether a policy has broad public support.

If the argument is "universal health care and other elements of a strong social safety net can't work unless the country is homogeneous," and the countries being used as comparison points are all in northern Europe, then the implication is pretty clearly "strong social safety nets only work when most of the people are inherently hardworking and virtuous, which white people are, and other people aren't."

Paladin's comments on Putin's folly have been reasonable. My policy is to respond reasonably to reasonable post. I try to avoid what Ten Lubak correctly points to as binary thinking. I find the fact that John Bolton rose to the very heart of the Washington power structure (more than once) deplorable, but that doesn't make him wrong about everything. YMMV.

If you don't see the issue with that kind of thinking, not sure there's much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Yes, it is a common trope, because right wing politics are seeped in racism. And comparing Dayton to Paladin is spot on.

But no, it's not saying that the only way they can advance is to oppress minorities. It's explicitly the opposite. It's saying that because the minorities are less than, they can't be trusted to work to the common good. They are moochers, less than the good white workers.

That's pretty explicit. And that's why it's so contemptible. Rush wasn't saying we need someone to exploit - he was saying blacks and latinos exploit white people.

There is a world of difference in those assumptions.

Plot twist: "Your" job was lounging around and now the welfare check got cut off...

Terk err jerbs !

*Turk

@Ten Lubak please note that it's not just Americans...

It's not binary thinking on my part.

What you and a few others on this board are doing is called "enabling". It happened for years with the poster who is the main subject of this thread, and I'm guilty of falling for it. Never again.

Specifically, an awful human being who says or does the occasional "reasonable" thing cannot change the underlying fact that they're an awful human being. Many of Paladin's postings may seem benign but his actions are certainly contributing to societal divisions and the decline of America. (!) You may think I'm being hyperbolic, but that's actually the insidious nature of evil.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil..."

Disagree with me all you want but as I said, if you're unable to to see the issue with your enabling behaviour, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Paladin: "Please, just leave me alone."

We Are Borg: "BEHOLD THE EVIL PERSON DIVIDING AMERICA!"

Paladin:

Also Paladin:

Also Paladin:

1 + 1 + 1 =

See you're not wrong, but he's also made salient points/observations regarding Russia.

That said, dammit @Paladin, we already had that callout thread last year(?) when I got drunk and tired of your shit

I give up.

...s cheeks.

(Psst, that was your cue to find and revive that callout thread)

Some people must be really, really bored.


"Did you come back so I can look after you again?"

Familiar name pops up in this article.