Know your Enemy: Steve Bannon by Amy Goodman

Post Reply New Topic

The alt-right has been labelled "political punk rock", which I think is rather apt. They're loud, they're crass, they're disruptive and they're effective. You don't have to like them, I'm certainly not a fan, but I disagree that they can't be engaged with meaningfully. Trolling is a behaviour, not a character archetype.



I accuse you of demonising Bannon because you presented a propaganda video which does precisely that, and which you are arguing in defence of. You are literally portraying him as "wicked and threatening", so no, it's not hyperbolic to call it what it is. That also calls into question your judgement of what you consider "habitual" behaviour in myself.

If you can't argue the message, keep your guns holstered. I don't appreciate the ad hominem.



The fact that you believe my perspective can be described as "extreme" or "partisan" is proof-positive that you don't understand it at all. Which of Bannon's beliefs, policies or opinions do I personally hold?

By contrast, you presented arguments solely from the "left" about a figure on the "right"; arguments which relied on implication of guilt via association, presumably because they can't actually point to any wrongdoing by the man himself.

My unwillingness to buy what you're selling does not make me an advocate for Steve Bannon, nor does it make me "right wing".



Except I'm not the one asking you to accept my definition of what constitutes a good person and, by extension, who is a bad person, simply on my say so.



I was the first to chastise Jacoby for doing so.



Trolls are also voters.



Because God forbid that should turn out to be even slightly close to being true!



Excellent. So what's the point of this thread? We've established that you have a partisan position, that you're not open to opposing viewpoints and that you have a low threshold of tolerance for anyone who challenges your opinions on this matter - going as far as calling my views an "extreme partisan perspective" and accusing me of being hyperbolic, as if either ad hominem would constitute a valid argument even if true.



I've provided you with quotes from Ben Shapiro, and a link to a piece by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, both of whom are pertinent to the discussion. One on the grounds that he's the subject of anti-semitic sentiment that was attributed by association to Bannon in your post, the other on the grounds that he's a prominent Rabbi who directly addressed the problem of bias shown by the ADL and whose expressed viewpoints were, like my own, entirely non-partisan. One might even go as far as to suggest anti-partisan.

You've elected to ignore those quotes about him and focus your response on me personally. As such, if you're genuinely interested in understanding who Steve Bannon is, I suggest you climb down from atop Mount Morality and invite you to engage with perspectives that don't match your own.

Last edited by adifferentname on 02 Feb 2017, 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Any more irrelevancies to share, or are you done?

My sincere apologies, adifferentname -- shortly after starting that response I had to do something else, and when I came back, I had conflated your comment and one from Jacoby. The comments about habitual behavior, etc. are a reflection of that confusion.

Please accept my apologies.

I will try again later when I can give it the time it deserves.

Very much accepted. Honestly, I didn't have you pegged as being that vitriolic, so I was somewhat taken aback by it.

Look forward to reading your response.

Sure, certain Muslim groups are clearly our enemies, and are a threat to our nation. But shouldn't the same be said about Alt Right white nationalists? They're clearly enemies of the values that represent America. And that would clearly include Steve Bannon, who as former editor of Breitbart, had facilitated those fanatics, and was very likely one of them.

Nancy Pelosi called Bannon a white supremacist:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelos ... premacist/

Saying otherwise is just another "alternative fact" or as it's correctly known, a lie.

Really? I did not think they would even read it, so I am surprised you thought it had an effect on them.

"Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam - sources"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN15G5VO

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

"Hoda Hawa, director of policy for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said she was told last week by people within DHS that there was a push to refocus the CVE effort from tackling all violent ideology to only Islamist extremism.

"That is concerning for us because they are targeting a faith group and casting it under a net of suspicion," she said."

Apparently my statement went over your head.

Or under it, you keep this up and I will have start treating you like them.

The alt-right is about as punk rock as is trump.

Punk is about being antiestablishment.

You guy have DC, contradictary terms.

Trump's looking out for his Alt Right white nationalist friends. Seriously, what else could it be?

Just wait someone will be by in a moment to try and find an answer to excuse this too.

No they will not, they will just acusse liberals of doing it.

Maybe. They're other favorite excuse seems to be "but Obama was already going to do that"

That is the response I recieved from adifferentname when I adsked why the musilm ban did not include the countries where the 9/11 terrorist can from.

I actually laugh out loud when I read that.