Palmer Luckey is funding Donald Trump's internet trolls with his Oculus money
theverge.comIf you have any doubts about his true beliefs, just look here: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/palmer-luckey-alt-right.
And? I thought the US are the land of the free and brave.
The mainstream propaganda has done its job.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. If your political ideology is to be a douche tech brotarian, don't be surprised to receive criticism for it. This guy is literally copying Putin's web brigades/online army. [Why does anything associated with Trump often lead to some relation to something Putin is doing, however, indirect?]
This reminds me of "libertarian" Peter Thiel, who backs Trump, whose Palantir profited mightily off of the military industrial contracts for surveillance. Can't people make a billion, thank their lucky stars, and chill out instead of becoming assholes?
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
Criticism, or a media wide "witch hunt" about his weight etc.? Oh, those memes and jokes don't count ? So far I've checked, he's still a legitimate presidential candidate. What the mainstream media doesn't obsess about is the Clinton business, not to mention censoring the whole health issue as a "conspiracy theory".
> Why does anything associated with Trump often lead to some relation to something Putin is doing, however, indirect?
I have no clue, because only one obsessing with Putin are the regressive left Americans. The boogeyman mantra apparently still stands and can be used effectively.
*Disclaimer: I'm a EU citizen and don't even believe in "left" or "right", because those are idiotic terms to frame political belief. The world isn't "left" or "right", or "white" or "black", or "blue" and "red". This is a very simplistic view of the world and I'm afraid very typical for US. I also believe a very simple life rule, the answers to "cui bono" (who benefits) and "who pays the check" ? Because those answers are at the end the only ones who have some weight, everything else is based on emotions.
I want less involvement of USA in the world affairs and the boosting of the empire, so I agree with Trumps words of minding your own business and cleaning crap at home first. Not to mention that Clinton is pro-war with Russia, Trump is not and that's fine with me.
Good grief. The issue with Trump isn't left or right, as he doesn't appear to have any core ideological values. The issue with Trump is that he's
1) a bad manager and executive, bully, narcissist 2) apparently has a low attention span and no appetite for work 3) a thin skin that is prone to retaliate 4) a fraud who uses the tactics of a salesman and appeals to the devils of peoples nature, namely: bigotry, xenophobia
You think Trump is an isolationist who will reduce America's empire footprint? In 2000, George Bush, running against Bill Clinton, claimed he would be a President with a "humble" foreign policy, as opposed to Bill Clinton's interventionist ways (referring to Serbia/Bosnia). He would not engage in "nation building" or attempts to spread democracy by force. He appointed Donald Rumsfeld as SecDef, and had Cheney as Vice President. What do you think happened?
Trump has said the following: 1) he wants to outsource the functions of the Presidency, that means foreign policy will be delegated mostly to beltway neo-cons 2) he called for bombing libya 3) he has called for carpet bombing syria, killing the families of terrorists, and doing "a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding" 4) he's talked about using nuclear weapons not as retaliation for a WMD first strike.
You can find ample saber rattling from Trump, and given his past inability to stay the course on any stated policy, and his inability to even run his own businesses without delegating, what on gods green earth makes you think his Presidency would be less aggressive and militaristic than Hillary? It's a complete unknown. Hillary's a known quantity, yes, she is hawkish to a degree, but most US Presidential candidates have been. But it's a predictable quantity.
Trump's level of retaliatory involvement is unknown. If another 9/11 happens, who is going to show more restraint, Hillary or Trump?
The mere fact that the man actively courts openly racist supporters and won't disavow them (even a few days ago, Mike Pence wouldn't disavow David Duke), is bad for the fabric of American society and threatens the rise of neo-nazi politics here, and is enough IMHO to completely disqualify him.
Ergo, any techbro billionaire in SV, who presumably should be smart enough to evaluate these issues, and supports Trump, IMHO, deserts heavy criticism. This is not a normal election between left-wing socialist/progressives/liberal ideology and right-wing/free-market/conservative ideology, and Trump is not the torch bearer of the latter, he's something far worse.
That's the best you've got?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPyZNxnRK-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZBDTHy1o4 "Hey, we forgot to make them promise to give us half the oil"
Do I need to even bring up the videos of Trump essentially saying we should plunder Iraq and Syria for oil? It's not even thinly veiled imperialism, Trump literally says "We should go in and TAKE the oil".
Do you understand that part of "Make America Great Again" is a return to former empire glory? It's stone cold patriotic nationalism, the same forces at work in Russia supporting Putin, with ideas of returns to former glory.
Trump wants more than Waterboarding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FXMJ46pVA
Trump wants to assassinate people's families: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRoLRJCW3js
Trump's AIPAC speech far exceeded the pandering by Hillary and other politicians.
I could go on and on. We know the kind of politician Hillary is, we see it every 4 years. Pandering to AIPAC, defending the existing foreign entanglements, acting tough so as not to be seen "weak on national security".
Do you understand that there's a difference between that, and a man literally saying he wants to make torture legal, and to assassinate families, to plunder foreign resources via military conquest? Why don't you take this man at his word?
Are you Russian and just pro-Trump because you think he'll be nice to Russian interests?
> Are you Russian and just pro-Trump because you think he'll be nice to Russian interests?
I am not. I'll just repeat the previous statement : "only one obsessing with Putin are the regressive left Americans. The boogeyman mantra apparently still stands and can be used effectively."
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The media have freedom to do whatever they want as well.
As opposed to Hillary Clinton? Her supporters have spent quite the sum pushing back against users on most social networks.
It's the rhetoric that's been put forth in this election to pander to the lowest common denominator, whether we like it or not.
I don't think the main issue here is that he is supporting or giving money to Trump. It's that in a time of awful political discourse, he is bankrolling an organization whose mission is literally dedicated to proving that “shitposting is powerful and meme magic is real.”
It's dumbing down discourse even more to stupid memes and caricatures and shitposts.
> Luckey has “liked” many alt-right memes
Thought crimes will not be tolerated. Extrapolating 'likes' to mean sympathy with racists (which is what Motherboard's article infers) is disgusting, surely.
This culture of witch-hunting people for what they liked on Twitter (which could mean anything from 'I like this' to 'interesting insight' - not that it matters) or who they choose to support is shameful.
Believe it or not, people are allowed to have views that differ from your own.
Luckey can express/support anything he desires and that's fine for him -- however ignorant his views are. But it's another thing to say we shouldn't call him out on it.
Of course. But call him out for what exactly? That he liked a Tweet? That he supports Trump?
And by calling out, you mean public shaming him for his beliefs. I see it on my FB feed everyday - "look at this idiot Trump supporter". Or from the other side - "these libt_rds actually believe this stuff".
Remember when Viralnova made big bucks making cute cat pics go viral? We don't see them anymore because media outlets have figured that outrage gets more clicks, and the results are so unhealthy for our discourse.
On Twitter right now, a million person witch-hunt is in full swing, calling for the virtual expulsion of a person for beliefs it has been inferred he holds.
No point in letting Luckey explain himself, of course. That would take too long and we're outraged now!
It's not just his tweets, likes, or his support of Trump. It's proven in detail now that he is actively funding a fringe alt-right group that peddles bigoted/racist/xenophobic crap.
Most of us want to live in a world that says this is not ok.
As do I. I wish that world didn't use struggle sessions and collective guilt (his girlfriend has been driven off social media) in the process.
A few days ago somebody from Vice and/or BoingBoing was trying to put a bounty on Peter Thiel.
Given his association with this Trump group, I think his Twitter likes on alt-right memes are absolutely relevant to the story. You may have a point about witch hunt culture but I do not believe this is the best example. If a news outlet was trying to make a story from his likes alone, then okay, I'd agree.
His Twitter likes on alt-right memes are the story.
Was GamerGater a person opposing selling positive game reviews or opposing ... sexism? What was the other side?
Oh lord. Why did the term 'shitpost' gain such popularity? Such a nasty dismissive term.
Forum culture on certain communities in the Internet lends itself to eyecatching buzzwords like 'shitpost'. Note, however, that shitpost is not always a negative term. Often, 'shitposting' is the game and the end goal; users laud one another for clever or topical shitposts, and particularly popular ones may be reprised in the form of memes. This trend encouraged the adoption of shitpost as both an affectionate and perjorative term.
It warms my heart to see everything that I loved about the Something Awful forums as a teenager in the early 2000s seeping into mainstream culture.
I'm in the inside looking out and this whole alt right thing is BS. I'm a minority -- one who would be "hurt" by Trump's "build wall" policies -- and liking a smug Pepe meme or /pol/ meme isn't something one should worry about. All, I get from Luckey is that he thinks memes are funny and he doesn't like HRC; calling him anything else is dumb and inflammatory. This whole election is a joke; hell I'm slowly being motivated to vote for Trump just to add to the mixture of ridiculousness.