Jordan Peterson - Leftist Mumbo Jumbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33E4yBoJvY

Some of his views are very interesting. Here is religious and do not share his views there, but these were very interesting. Its good to listen to many sides of the spectrum on all aspects

Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to coynterbalance your ckaim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

Where have I claimed to hate Left or Right?

Never have, so why do you again constantly lie?

Did you actually listen to what was said Andy?

You clearly never did.

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

Andy love, here's a top tip. Choose your words VERY carefully whenever you challenge Thorin over anything. Cos he will home in on any perceived inaccuracies in your post and focus on that, just to deflect, or use semantics to invalidate your allegations. He is one slippery f@@ker,  a mental image of an eel covered in grease & slime comes to mind. He will skilfully wriggle out of any accusation you level at him.

It would have been better to ask him why he does not equally attack extreme right wing as much as extreme left wing. Even then he'll still wriggle out of it.  If you're going to go in, go in hard otherwise it's a waste of your time.

NO ONE can compete with how much free time he has on his hands  or how mentally unbalanced he is. He's the outright winner on all counts so just let him get on with it! . LMAO!!

On the right you have paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, nationalists, supremacists, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, the alt-right and more.

But everyone on the left is exactly the same.

No they are not Ben, some are more "left" than others. Same as the right, some are more "right" than others !!

nicko wrote:No they are not Ben, some are more "left" than others.   Same as the right, some are more "right"  than others  !!

My post was parody. I was trying to point out that just as on the right, on the left there are different groups that often disagree with one another.

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:No they are not Ben, some are more "left" than others.   Same as the right, some are more "right"  than others  !!

My post was parody. I was trying to point out that just as on the right, on the left there are different groups that often disagree with one another.

I do not think anyone has denied that, but this is about problems found on the left.
Which from some, seem to have lost many of their liberal values.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:No they are not Ben, some are more "left" than others.   Same as the right, some are more "right"  than others  !!

My post was parody. I was trying to point out that just as on the right, on the left there are different groups that often disagree with one another.

I do not think anyone has denied that, but this is about problems found on the left.
Which from some, seem to have lost many of their liberal values.

Sure they have, I totally agree. That doesn't make it fair to lump us all under the label "leftist," as though we think with a hive mind.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I do not think anyone has denied that, but this is about problems found on the left.
Which from some, seem to have lost many of their liberal values.

Sure they have, I totally agree. That doesn't make it fair to lump us all under the label "leftist," as though we think with a hive mind.

Is it lumping you all together though Ben?
If a set of left wingers believed in poor beliefs, are you saying its unfair to call that leftist mumbo jumbo?
What else would you call it?
Do you not also lump all conservatives together when you debate

I would say that righties do complain when I liken them to the EDL or Trump, so why shouldn't I complain when I am likened to someone who blows their top when someone uses the wrong word?

I and the majority of the left tend to take a page from the libertarians (your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose) -- or for that matter, neopagans (an it harm none, do what thou wilt) and say that you can pretty much do anything you like as long as it doesn't hurt another person. But there are different ways of interpreting that.

I tend to be radically in favor of freedom of expression, in the belief that the majority will recognize and condemn bullshit (which is usually what righties are actually complaining about when they complain about freedom of speech -- the fact that it works both ways).

Others, though, think that if you give someone a platform to express hate speech, you elevate that speech in the minds of the listeners, you legitimize the message in some fashion, and you foster an environment in which people might actually think they can infringe on the rights of others. I can see where they're coming from. Can you?

When the right cries that it's not allowed to express its ideas, we should ask which ideas specifically, and with that knowledge, evaluate whether a reasonable person should have the right to say, "you're free to express that, but not on my platform."

Ben Reilly wrote:I would say that righties do complain when I liken them to the EDL or Trump, so why shouldn't I complain when I am likened to someone who blows their top when someone uses the wrong word?

I and the majority of the left tend to take a page from the libertarians (your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose) -- or for that matter, neopagans (an it harm none, do what thou wilt) and say that you can pretty much do anything you like as long as it doesn't hurt another person. But there are different ways of interpreting that.

I tend to be radically in favor of freedom of expression, in the belief that the majority will recognize and condemn bullshit (which is usually what righties are actually complaining about when they complain about freedom of speech -- the fact that it works both ways).

Others, though, think that if you give someone a platform to express hate speech, you elevate that speech in the minds of the listeners, you legitimize the message in some fashion, and you foster an environment in which people might actually think they can infringe on the rights of others. I can see where they're coming from. Can you?

When the right cries that it's not allowed to express its ideas, we should ask which ideas specifically, and with that knowledge, evaluate whether a reasonable person should have the right to say, "you're free to express that, but not on my platform."

But this is turning 180 degrees and it is those on the left who are closing down free speech and it those on the right who are championing free speech and championing Liberal values. You then even prove that you do not back free speech as you then claim what speech is made needs to be evaluated on whether they then have a right to say that. Based on what exactly? Free speech is free speech and you counter bad speakers with reason, or you do not back free speech at all.

So even when you profess to claim someone is promoting hate speech, which some of the left attribute to anyone with views different to them. They are simple shutting down any speech they do not like. That again is not Free speech, but an authoritarian system based on what some of the left constitute what is acceptable speech. That then ceases to be Free speech.

Even those who hold the worst views should be allowed to speak but countered by opposing views to reason why said views are wrong. What you propose is not a liberal value or backs free speech, it only wants or allows speech you deem acceptable. That is not Free speech.

As to the EDL or Trump, who exactly supports them on here on the right?

I'm saying that if you control a platform where expression is done, should you not have the right to decide which speech is allowed?

The government (in the U.S.) cannot abridge someone's freedom of expression, but churches have every right not to allow an atheist to give a speech, websites have every right to not allow speech antithetical to the site owner's views, etc.

Platform control is pretty important. Imagine if a mosque had to allow Christian preachers, or if a BLM meeting had to allow a white supremacist.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm saying that if you control a platform where expression is done, should you not have the right to decide which speech is allowed?

The government (in the U.S.) cannot abridge someone's freedom of expression, but churches have every right not to allow an atheist to give a speech, websites have every right to not allow speech antithetical to the site owner's views, etc.

Platform control is pretty important. Imagine if a mosque had to allow Christian preachers, or if a BLM meeting had to allow a white supremacist.

But that is not free speech and then what you are saying is that there is a speech police and based on what you deem except-able. There is nothing Liberal in that but authoritarian.
A church is sadly protected on daft religious laws, but they are not Universities are they?
Going off where religions can deny countering views, is what is wrong in the first and you use that as your defense?
Seriously.

So platform control is not liberal but authoritarian and again subjective to what people do not like, as we often seem by the left wing tyranny of the majority in Universities.

Funny that.

You really do not back Free Speech at all, which means allowing any views to be expressed but that they should always be countered

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

Righties hate everyone. They want them to get sick, starve, go uneducated, jobless, homeless and helpless...then die and leave all their worldly possessions to their usefuckingless RW, incompetent heirs.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

Righties hate everyone.  They want them to get sick, starve, go uneducated, jobless, homeless and helpless...then die and leave all their worldly possessions to their usefuckingless RW, incompetent heirs.

Wrong again as actually many of us do not hate anyone, which is the issue, that we are wrongly labelled as doing so. 

So why do so many religious conservatives give to charity whether Christian, Jews, or Muslims?

Thorin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33E4yBoJvY

Some of his views are very interesting. Here is religious and do not share his views there, but these were very interesting. Its good to listen to many sides of the spectrum on all aspects

The best part of that clip is the beginning, in which Steven Pinker says that there is no left/right to the issue of Free Speech.  It's simply an open conduit.

That's the same level on which Professor/lawyer/sociologist Laura Beth Nielson addresses repressive tolerance.  Going back to Alexis de Tocqueville, or even Herbert Marcuse, the topic of the subject is not what is said, but how much is said.  People unwittingly associate that with right or left, when it's neither, but on the level of free speech itself...just an issue of the conduit.

When you flood a conduit, or in fact limit the flow through a conduit, you are saying nothing about what goes through the conduit.  It can be clean water, sewage, or perhaps green paint...it makes no difference.  The valves don't affect the substance.

Similarly, when you address the level of free speech, or degrees of tolerance of free speech, you are not addressing what goes through it.  That's either left or right...or indeed, green paint.  The valves don't affect the substance.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I33E4yBoJvY

Some of his views are very interesting. Here is religious and do not share his views there, but these were very interesting. Its good to listen to many sides of the spectrum on all aspects

The best part of that clip is the beginning, in which Steven Pinker says that there is no left/right to the issue of Free Speech.  It's simply an open conduit.

That's the same level on which Professor Nielson addresses repressive tolerance.  Going back to Alexis de Tocqueville, or Herbert Marcuse, the topic of the subject is not what is said, but how much is said.  People unwittingly associate that with right or left, when it's neither, but on the level of free speech itself...just an issue of the conduit.

When you flood a conduit, or in fact limit the flow through a conduit, you are saying nothing about what goes through the conduit.  It can be clean water, sewage, or perhaps green paint...it makes no difference.  The valves don't affect the substance.

Similarly, when you address the level of free speech, or degrees of tolerance of free speech, you are not addressing what goes through it.  That's either left or right...or indeed, green paint.  The valves don't affect the substance.

Piffle Quill, you are again speaking against free speech on what I can only describe as the most inane and misdirection over the stand point itself to be able to speak freely.

There is no levels to freedom of speech and it has nothing to do with left or right, only that people are able to voice their opinions. Not matter how you may disagree with them. What is far more important is dialogue on any views and to reason to the merits or what is wrong with any such views. Basically you are placing again a subjective blocking point to when and how Free speech  can be allowed, which then ceases it to be free speech.

So it does not matter what goes through it, only that people should be allowed to be able to speak freely of their views.

Thorin wrote:There is no levels to freedom of speech and it has nothing to do with left or right, only that people are able to voice their opinions. Not matter how you may disagree with them. What is far more important is dialogue on any views and to reason to the merits or what is wrong with any such views. Basically you are placing again a subjective blocking point to when and how Free speech  can be allowed, which then ceases it to be free speech.

I agree.  None of them are talking about free speech, per se.  They are talking about what is discussed through free speech.

Once again, what Tocqueville, Marcuse and Neilson are talking about is the institution of free speech, not what is discussed.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:There is no levels to freedom of speech and it has nothing to do with left or right, only that people are able to voice their opinions. Not matter how you may disagree with them. What is far more important is dialogue on any views and to reason to the merits or what is wrong with any such views. Basically you are placing again a subjective blocking point to when and how Free speech  can be allowed, which then ceases it to be free speech.

I agree.  None of them are talking about free speech, per se.  They are talking about what is discussed through free speech.

Once again, what Tocqueville, Marcuse and Neilson are talking about is the institution of free speech, not what is discussed.

What does it matter what is discussed?
As its Free speech
Again it should be an open platform where there is counter views
And there is no institution of Free speech, as Free Speech is Free Speech

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  None of them are talking about free speech, per se.  They are talking about what is discussed through free speech.

Once again, what Tocqueville, Marcuse and Neilson are talking about is the institution of free speech, not what is discussed.

What does it matter what is discussed?

Why, I don't know. It's you who keeps calling it "left" or "right". That would be the content being discussed, not the institution of free speech. Speech is just speech...neither left or right.

Stop talking about left/right, and get back to the topic.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


What does it matter what is discussed?

Why, I don't know.  It's you who keeps calling it "left" or "right".  That would be the content being discussed, not the institution of free speech.  Speech is just speech...neither left or right.

Stop talking about left/right, and get back to the topic.

Did I?

Did you not agree with me it had nothing to do with left or right Free Speech?
It does with the left mainly when they try to shut down Free speech

I have been on topic, it was you that invented things like institutions.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why, I don't know.  It's you who keeps calling it "left" or "right".  That would be the content being discussed, not the institution of free speech.  Speech is just speech...neither left or right.

Stop talking about left/right, and get back to the topic.

Did I?

Did you not agree with me it had nothing to do with left or right Free Speech?
It does with the left mainly when they try to shut down Free speech

Oh, so you're not talking about 'left-right'...you're just talking about 'left'.  

Um...would that be 'left' as opposed to up, or down?

Never mind.

I found a Roseanna clip which describes you perfectly:



Never mind.

Oh dear, Free speech is not about left and right, but some of the left are determined to deny Free Speech.

Does that help you understand now Quilli?

I see you do your usual derail the thread when you have no answer.

Oh well, glad I could help educate you here

Jules wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

Andy love, here's a top tip. Choose your words VERY carefully whenever you challenge Thorin over anything. Cos he will home in on any perceived inaccuracies in your post and focus on that, just to deflect, or use semantics to invalidate your allegations. He is one slippery f@@ker,  a mental image of an eel covered in grease & slime comes to mind. He will skilfully wriggle out of any accusation you level at him.

It would have been better to ask him why he does not equally attack extreme right wing as much as extreme left wing. Even then he'll still wriggle out of it.  If you're going to go in, go in hard otherwise it's a waste of your time.

NO ONE can compete with how much free time he has on his hands  or how mentally unbalanced he is. He's the outright winner on all counts so just let him get on with it! . LMAO!!

That was a tad harsh and a little uncalled for really Jules.

eddie wrote:That was a tad harsh and a little uncalled for really Jules.

I've heard worse.

The thing with didge is you have to approach him with a sense of play.  He's not a learner, meaning he doesn't expand his mind.  So on the serious side, one or two passes and then enter a play mode.

You can still hammer the same point, just look for different ways.  Knowing he will never change his mind, just look for different images and metaphors.  Sharpen your skills...know that others are looking in...play to the bigger audience.  Play with whatever idea you are holding...stretch your own mind.  It's fun, and a way to expand your own understanding of whatever subject you are on.

Ah, Petersen is Didge's new God, to post loads of videos from? Has he gone off the repugnant Sam Harris?

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

Righties hate everyone.  They want them to get sick, starve, go uneducated, jobless, homeless and helpless...then die and leave all their worldly possessions to their usefuckingless RW, incompetent heirs.

I think you have proved my point in that single post. Your whole self is driven by hatred of the right.
but I come to expect nothing less from the majority of the left leaning illiberal regressive in the world today.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Righties hate everyone.  They want them to get sick, starve, go uneducated, jobless, homeless and helpless...then die and leave all their worldly possessions to their usefuckingless RW, incompetent heirs.

I think you have proved my point in that single post. Your whole self is driven by hatred of the right.
but I come to expect nothing less from the majority of the left leaning illiberal regressive in the world today.

I'm not real fond of the knuckle-draggers, you got that right. But WTF, they're no fonder of me. So it's a draw.

sassy wrote:Ah, Petersen is Didge's new God, to post loads of videos from?   Has he gone off the repugnant Sam Harris?

Actually I do not agree with him on his religious views and Sam is brilliant, post many things by him on here

I love how all the let can do is talk about posters and not the points

Priceless

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:

Andy love, here's a top tip. Choose your words VERY carefully whenever you challenge Thorin over anything. Cos he will home in on any perceived inaccuracies in your post and focus on that, just to deflect, or use semantics to invalidate your allegations. He is one slippery f@@ker,  a mental image of an eel covered in grease & slime comes to mind. He will skilfully wriggle out of any accusation you level at him.

It would have been better to ask him why he does not equally attack extreme right wing as much as extreme left wing. Even then he'll still wriggle out of it.  If you're going to go in, go in hard otherwise it's a waste of your time.

NO ONE can compete with how much free time he has on his hands  or how mentally unbalanced he is. He's the outright winner on all counts so just let him get on with it! . LMAO!!

That was a tad harsh and a little uncalled for really Jules.

If my harsh words are a problem, they are the least of his problems.
It's not a crime to be leftwing and it's actually comical to see someone preaching 24/7 at leftwingers from a great height.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:

Andy love, here's a top tip. Choose your words VERY carefully whenever you challenge Thorin over anything. Cos he will home in on any perceived inaccuracies in your post and focus on that, just to deflect, or use semantics to invalidate your allegations. He is one slippery f@@ker,  a mental image of an eel covered in grease & slime comes to mind. He will skilfully wriggle out of any accusation you level at him.

It would have been better to ask him why he does not equally attack extreme right wing as much as extreme left wing. Even then he'll still wriggle out of it.  If you're going to go in, go in hard otherwise it's a waste of your time.

NO ONE can compete with how much free time he has on his hands  or how mentally unbalanced he is. He's the outright winner on all counts so just let him get on with it! . LMAO!!

That was a tad harsh and a little uncalled for really Jules.

Its just another example of some on the left attacking the poster and not their points and look how many on the left back him up for doing so.
Quite happy that they do, as this is all they have, bar Quill, as at least he argues his points, badly sometimes as they are. He argues them

The Devil, You Know wrote:

surely hate is the preserve of the left.

Someone forgot to send your memo to  Anders Breivik before he shot all those teenage kids.
They also forgot to send it to David Copeland the Soho Bomber.
Two of the most notorious far rightwingers in history.
Two missed memo's which could have saved so many lives, doncha hate itwhen that happens?

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:

That was a tad harsh and a little uncalled for really Jules.

If my harsh words are a problem, they are the least of his problems.
It's not a crime to be leftwing and it's actually comical to see someone preaching 24/7 at leftwingers from a great height.

Can I just change that to 'a perceived great height', the height only exists in his rabid imagination.

See, all the regressive left can do is talk about me and not the points of the debate.
I take that as a compliment and more to the fact they are not up to the task.

sassy wrote:

Jules wrote:

If my harsh words are a problem, they are the least of his problems.
It's not a crime to be leftwing and it's actually comical to see someone preaching 24/7 at leftwingers from a great height.

Can I just change that to 'a perceived great height', the height only exists in his rabid imagination.

Ya.

Jules wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

surely hate is the preserve of the left.

Someone forgot to send your memo to  Anders Breivik before he shot all those teenage kids.
They also forgot to send it to David Copeland the Soho Bomber.
Two of the most notorious far rightwingers in history.
Two missed memo's which could have saved so many lives, doncha hate itwhen that happens?

Mao
Stalin
Pol Pot
Tito

Let alone some other examples

• 4.4.1Bulgaria
  
  
• 4.4.2East Germany
  
  
• 4.4.3Romania
  
  
• 4.4.4Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  
  
• 4.4.5Democratic Republic of Vietnam
  
  
• 4.4.6People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
  
  
• 4.4.7Hungary
  
  

sassy wrote:

Jules wrote:

If my harsh words are a problem, they are the least of his problems.
It's not a crime to be leftwing and it's actually comical to see someone preaching 24/7 at leftwingers from a great height.

Can I just change that to 'a perceived great height', the height only exists in his rabid imagination.

You really need to tell your signature to all the families of victims of left wing murder and genocide Sassy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Others

See, I said in another thread, you don't have the intellect to diffentiate between communism, socialism and democratic socialism. That's why you get laughed at, you talk about making points, others read and think 'why the hell does he think he's made a point'. Never mind, they say the weakest minds are the happiest because they are easily pleased.

sassy wrote:See, I said in another thread, you don't have the intellect to diffentiate between communism, socialism and democratic socialism.   That's why you get laughed at, you talk about making points, others read and think 'why the hell does he think he's made a point'.     Never mind, they say the weakest minds are the happiest because they are easily pleased.

So now its not really leftism when they butcher millions according to Sassy, it must be on the right.
Now i am not the one making claims about the right, as you are that they are all bad.
I neither think all the left are bad, only a substantial minority are regressive
There is even many Liberal points I value, which those regressive do not value, when it comes to bad beliefs they refuse to be critical of.

You see when people like yourself and Quill claim all the right want to fuck anyone over its based on a lie.

I mean if I was to change your statement as follows, what would your reaction be?

"Atheists want to make life easier for as many people as possible, Muslims want to make life easier for themselves and fuck everyone else."

Would the above be unfair and inaccurate?
I think it would be.

Because my statement is true, and based on the ideals of leftwing and rightwing concepts, yours isn't.

See, lack of intellect again. Never mind, you can't help it.

sassy wrote:Because my statement is true, and based on the ideals of leftwing and rightwing concepts, yours isn't.

See, lack of intellect again.   Never mind, you can't help it.

Okay sassy, then why is it the most charitable people are religious and many religious people are religiously conservative in their beliefs?

So how can your statement be true unless you think many Jews, Christians and Muslims want to fuck over everyone else?

So your statement is based on emotions and not any facts

Thorin wrote:

sassy wrote:Because my statement is true, and based on the ideals of leftwing and rightwing concepts, yours isn't.

See, lack of intellect again.   Never mind, you can't help it.

Okay sassy, then why is it the most charitable people are religious and many religious people are religious conservative in their beliefs?

So how can your statement be true unless you think many Jews, Christians and Muslims want to fuck over everyone else?

So your statement is based on emotions and not any facts

Guess you don't know many Christians, Jews and Muslims then, because those I know are as left wing as they come.   Then you get people like May who profess to be religious, praises those who help others, but makes damn sure they don't get anything for doing so.   Religious conservatism is simply not possible, just read what Jesus is supposed to have said.   You know, the bit about the rich man having trouble getting into heaven.

lol, so this is based on how many you know, which would not amount to no more than a few score compared to the billions of believers in the world.

Priceless flawed logic there sassy

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

So are you calling Nicko a lefty?
cause he does that shit all the time to me and wolf

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:Wot, no rightist mumbo jumbo to counterbalance your claim to hate both the left AND the right.
I shan't  hold my breath.

surely hate is the preserve of the left. As is spitting and calling everyone, who does not fawn over them, scum.

I don't hate the left, I despise quite a few leftists but certainly don't hate them.

"..hate is the preserve of the left."

What a load of empty-headed drivel..

You are both a racist and scum, Deano -- as well as a lying little tax-dodging troll.

So suck it up, 'snowflake', as those labels all fit you 'to a t'...

You are talking to and about dinosaur Dino, who runs the site where Anders Breivik was lauded as a heroic celebrity by 2 or 3 posters, who cheered as every bullet slammed into kids heads and exploded their brains.
Dino sat back, laughed and DID NOTHING AND SAID NOTHING.
Moreover, those same posters initially starting venting fury at Muslims as they thought the perpetrator  was a Muslim, until it transpired he was a fellow rw extremist.
Their fury turned to a party.

That sums up Dino and his site in a nutshell.