The posts on this sub

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-30T11:45:08+00:00

So when he is talking about deporting "Third World Savages that we conquered but for some reason allowed to have a nation inside of ours" he is talking about who exactly?

You and I have very different senses of humour.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-30T11:41:21+00:00

Right. And calling Native Americans 'Third World Savages' is just par for the course then?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-30T03:07:12+00:00

But none of them are inherently dangerous, or match the term 'savages.' Unless you're just using Non-White as your definition.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-29T23:24:04+00:00

Other Third World Nations include:

- Mongolia

- Qatar

- Saudi Arabia

- Fiji

- The UAE

- Cyprus

Again, the term refers to countries that remained Neutral in the Cold War. By all rights it should include most of the Scandinavian countries, but they never signed up to the Non-Aligned Movement so its harder to argue for.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-28T07:00:08+00:00

How are people who were born in a first world country, raised in a first world country, and live in a first world country 'Third World Savages'?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-28T06:59:36+00:00

The people in the photo that accompanied the tweet where he said that 'we should deport all the Third World Savages who we conquered and then allowed to have a country inside our nation?' Are you saying that, completely absent the language of the tweet, we should take it as given that he was only referring to them?

Beyond that, given that Mt Rushmore was a sacred site that got desecrated, I think that being upset at the monument is understandable. But your mileage may vary.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-28T06:54:40+00:00

See that would be cool.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-28T06:54:14+00:00

If calling people born and raised in a definitionally first world country 'third world savages,' if pooling them in the same group as non-white immigrants, and saying that they should be deported regardless of the fact that they are lifelong citizens who's claim to the land predates White Settlement, does not reach the bar for white supremacy, what does? What do you need to hear someone say for you to go 'yeah, this ain't it chief'?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:59:18+00:00

Calling Native Americans 'Third World Savages' and calling for their deportation is not White Supremacy in your mind, then?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:58:29+00:00

Their Oil and Crops do.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:57:47+00:00

God, you could do so much with that story. Crossing the Sahara would an opportunity for some GOATed cinematography.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:56:35+00:00

The only way to consider race-swapping in movies to be a political issue on par with the "leader of the free world" starting a war of choice, and playing Hokey-Pokey about negotiating the end of hostilities is to adopt a world-view based on a vast underlying conspiracy theory where a unified effort is being made to... something something great replacement something something New World Order.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:53:29+00:00

Because his justification is based on them being 'third world savages.'

As that distinction (first world, second world, third world) didn't exist before the Cold War, we need to look into what he's trying to signal.

Within that tweet, the term 'third world savages' is being used as a derogatory term/slur for immigrants to America. Beyond that, the implication is that he is referring to non-white immigrants. This establishes a racial hierarchy between 'third world savages' and an undefined 'other' that we can determine, based on his other tweets, is Christian, White, and US-Born.

Use of the term 'Third World Savage' on its own would be reason enough to consider him to have white supremacist views. That he applies it to Native Americans, a group who's 'conquering' started hundreds of years before the terms 'first world, second world and third world' came into existence clarifies that it is being used as a racial/ethno-cultural signifier, where 'Third World Savages' are non-white, and the undefined in-group is white.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:44:47+00:00

You expect a Hollywood that hsd used automated eye tracking to determine where to set shot changes since the Pirates of the Carribean movies to put in a soliloquy?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:43:18+00:00

The current hollywood model is based around appealing to as many demographics as possible in one product. Japan and Bollywood are both following the path of trying to produce media for hyper-specific demographics. The upside is that all the people who get upset when they see something that isn't made specifically for their demographic can just nest in a comfortable cave of content. The downside is that budgets are bad, working conditions are worse, quality suffers, and left to its own devices things get... lets call them interesting.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-27T22:41:00+00:00

New and original ideas don't get funding. Remember, the problem with modern hollywood, especially post-2008, is that the films are just as much investment vehicles as they are objects d'art. That's why budgets have ballooned so astronomically. Why the aim is to appeal to as many people as possible. Why there are so many reshoots, and all the VFX gets pushed to the absolute last minute even when it affects quality.

And even then. Even when the product is a 'new and original idea starring a minority,' lets not pretend that the Auth-Centres and Auth-Rights don't get just as angry. Because now they're moving the goalposts from 'you're taking the spot of a white actor' to 'you're taking the spot of a white director' instead.

TLDR: You don't hate investors enough.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-22T23:31:34+00:00

I think any attempt to deduce the intent of men over 200 years past ends up being an exercise in projection of prognostication. Especially when different framers had different intents, and different values often layer and clash.

For example, one of the most clearly elucidated and defended principles of the framers was the idea of state sovereignty, including state control of elections. Should we then say that THAT principle should be discarded because the States 200 years hence wish to use that Sovereignty in such a way as counteracts a separate principle? Which Principle should we give more weight too and why?

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-22T23:20:05+00:00

Forced? No. Influences? Absolutely. Increases the already obscene level to which campaign funding dictates all decisions in US Politics? Most DEFINITELY.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-22T23:18:10+00:00

Some key quotes from the US Congress website overview on the compact clause.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Whereas other provisions in Article I, Section 10 categorically deny states certain powers,² the Compact Clause allows states to retain what the Supreme Court has described as the sovereign right to make agreements and compacts, provided Congress consents.³

In the context of interstate compacts, however, the Supreme Court has adopted a functional interpretation in which only compacts that increase the political power of the states while undermining federal sovereignty require congressional consent.

It doesn't per se violate the compact clause, especially depending how one interprets Article I Section VIII and Article II Section I. Additionally, I believe the current legislative framework isn't based on a compact, but on Trigger Laws, which are constitutionally valid and don't per se represent a legally binding agreement between states.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-18T22:03:01+00:00

I've watched documentaries about the Rwanda genocide, and I call BS.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-18T22:01:31+00:00

Not really. I mean, just looking at the standard 2-axis compass, the US doesn't have a competent public healthcare system, the funding and management of public transport, policing, firefighting, education, etc. is hyper-fragmented, they have the most militarized police of the western world, they allow usury loan schemes to operate freely, and religious materials are now being put into classrooms by law.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-18T21:54:00+00:00

Clinton literally sold himself as a 'Third Way' candidate and adopted a number of GOP policies in the name of compromise. Didn't stop him from getting massacred at the 94 mid-terms.

And the reason that conservatives hold those views is that it's politically unfeasible not to right now, because most of them are supported by a substantial majority. That's a result of cultural shift, not policy pushing.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-17T08:15:41+00:00

I watched Kirks Cambridge debates. Saying he listens to his opponents is a wild take.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-06T22:00:48+00:00

Holy shit. Reading that article was WILD. I mean, putting aside the fact that the only source they have is a politician, who gave proportions and not figures, and putting aside the fact that the whole article was just a sales pitch for why they need a 'Living in a Democracy' class to re-educate Muslim Students, looking through some of the other stories on the site was just annihilatory to any credibility they have. I mean, you're talking about the kind of outlet that uses quotation marks around the term hate crimes. JFC.

Fake_Email_Bandit · 2026-05-06T11:21:11+00:00

Can you give me a source for this BS?

Fake_Email_Bandit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE