OUR BOY LIVES!!
Possible Mister Metokur Stream Tonight at 7pm
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
He's the shitlord that broke Carl Benjamin (ie, Sargon of Akkad) over his knee.
The One Char
Well-known member
So the worthless fuck who ran away when shit got hot has crawlled back into the limelight? He should crawl back under whatever rock he hid and die there.
What are you talking about?
He's a troll.
That was Sargon's thing.
It started when Sargon got upset that Jim was laughing at his new political activist group the Liberalists. Sargon tried to use a minion to bully Jim into recanting, until Jim forced him onto the stream and confronted him directly. It escalated from there, because Sargon couldn't let it go and continued to feed Jim. The problem was that Sargon could (at least not at the time) not comprehend that Jim was a troll, not a political activist. Jim also liked hanging out with some Alt-Right people, who at the time, had become a real problem for Sargon.
Sargon created a shitload of his own problems. His own running for office is proof enough for that.
It wasn't. Sargon creates his own worse problems. Like when he tweeted a British MP "I wouldn't even rape you". A British MP who was, by the way, a victim of sexual assault. And when the media descended upon him like a horde of locusts, he refused to apologize, citing Donald Trump. It was so bad that he destroyed UKIP. 99% of their people left and started a new party.
Jim didn't run for a political office. Jim didn't get up on screen and called a former sexual assault victim a bitch and refused to apologize for tweeting how he wouldn't even rape her. Or later joking on a live stream about how if he was fucked up enough, he might be able to. Jim didn't then run for office for an official party and let his own behavior drag down the entire party, cratering it.
Jim didn't do that. Sargon did. And he did it because his ego wouldn't allow him to admit that he had done something wrong. Because he thinks that, since he read a few books on morality and political philosophy, that he's so much smarter and more ethical than his opponents.
That fuck-up aside, he probably is smarter and more ethical than his opponents, because that is an exceedingly low hurdle these days.
Of course given some of your other viewpoints on things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you'd have a hate-boner for Sargon.
ETA: And don't think I didn't notice how you just admitted to and excused the double-standard I pointed out.
Of course given some of your other viewpoints on things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you'd have a hate-boner for Sargon.
ETA: And don't think I didn't notice how you just admitted to and excused the double-standard I pointed out.
That fuck-up aside, he probably is smarter and more ethical than his opponents, because that is an exceedingly low hurdle these days.
Of course given some of your other viewpoints on things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you'd have a hate-boner for Sargon.
I used to be a fan of Sargon.
Then he ran for office, destroyed an entire political party, and revealed some of the really dirty shit that he did in the process.
And no, Sargon is not all that bright. In some areas, he is well read, but he is--to quote one of his opponents, not as smart as he thinks he is.
Like lying when it's convenient. Claiming he's part black (when he's not), claiming that his wife was raped (she wasn't), that he was sexually assaulted (he wasn't), doxxing people (Coach Redpill), and can't even humble himself long enough to apologize to a sexual assault victim for sending her a rape-heavy joke at her expense. Or taking money from Candid, like everyone else in his Skeptic group and then burying another Youtuber who was trying to expose Candid for creating an AI bot designed to autoban people they don't like. Or trying to manipulate Alt-Right Youtubers by trying to give them "advice" or trying to use Ralph and his group to act as political tools (Gamergate 2.0).
Sargon is dirty.
Do you have proof of this, or are you just asserting it?
Context?
I honestly give no shits about this affair, so it's a lost cause to keep bringing it up.
Probably the only thing you've listed that I would actually knock him for if it's true.
Care to elaborate?
Right now, coming from you, this doesn't really mean much.
The fact that he claimed his grandfather is black? Or the fact that he's obviously lying? Or maybe you want to point me to any African attributes that I might have missed? Like his thick, ethnic hair? Or darker skin? Or a trademark African nose?
Let's see. By his initial claim, he was a quadroon (his grandfather being black), then later when he claimed that his grandfather was half-black, that would make him Octoroon. Clearly you can see his proud African heritage:
Why, I dare say he's almost as ethnic as Elizabeth Warren.
As for his rape/sexual assault claim, he made two different claims. The first time, when he was out campaigning and he was heckled for his rape joke, he claimed his wife was raped. Later, during an interview on the BBC, he claimed that he was sexually assaulted. Funny how he doesn't mention his wife's rape. Or tell the heckler that he had been sexually assaulted.
Kinda funny how on the subject, he tells two different people two different things, without mentioning the other incident that was relevant to the discussion in each.
He literally made a video exposing Coach Redpill's real name and past on his channel, after going on and on about how he hated doxing.
Do you not know what happened?
When the media brought up his old tweet (because at the time it had gotten some low level publiclity when he'd made the joke like, 4 years earlier), instead of admitting that TWEETING A RAPE JOKE TO A FORMER RAPE VICTIM WAS BAD, his dumbass tried to blame the media, saying they were the ones bullying her for talking about what he had done. Then the very ethically and politically smart SARGON OF AKKAD, decided to justify it by telling the woman interviewer "It's a joke, at your expense" and "when a woman is being a bitch, I'm going to be a dick". Even AFTER the interviewer told him that his justification for why he had sent the tweet in the first place (ie, the MP laughed at male suicide) was in fact, not correct--but rather she had laughed at something earlier in regards to men not being able to bring up men's health issues--he did not recant.
If you can't realize how stupid and scummy Sargon is by his behavior in that context, there's really no help for you. So I'd recommend you see the interview. Because Sargon really does show is true colors there. He repeatedly lied and made shit up, on the fly, to justify himself. All because he refused to apologize.
Sadly, such information is long gone. Sargon being the smartest of the bunch, would have hidden or destroyed that information. And yet, we know that Sargon helped to coordinate the attack on Harmful Opinions. We know that he helped to shield them from criticism. So either he got paid like the rest of them, or he covered up for their scummy behavior.
Carl likes to think that he's fucking Xanatos from Gargoyles. He tried to persuade MillenialWoes that the Alt-Right's methods of political activism was poorly thought out and they need to start adopting the same tactics as the SJWs. It's not like he was trying to get them to swallow a poison pill or anything. He legitimately thought it would help the group of people that he had repeatedly insisted were his enemies.
And then he thought that after his interview with Bannon, that he could use Jim, Ralph, MundaneMatt, and a load of other former GamerGaters to push the hashtag Gamergate, in the hopes that the media would pick it up. That way, he could manipulate Donald Trump into commenting on it. Because Sargon wanted to fight his opponents on subjects that he was actually capable of fighting them on, rather than stepping out of his comfort/competence zone.
Lol, sorry. I guess my word is dogshit.
What was it that pissed you off? My moderately rightwing views or my moderately leftwing views? I'm curious.
Last edited:
People who are only a 1/4 are just as likely to look entirely white as not. Probably more likely. Incidentally, I know a few people like this, siblings actually, and two of the three of them look entirely white. This is the entire butthurt behind people who "pass for white." So I'm going to take this as you have no actual proof of this being a lie and are just asserting it.
Or perhaps both are true. Do you have any actual proof, or are you again just asserting?
I have no idea who Coash Redpill is, which is why I asked. To be frank, I used to be against doxxing myself, but at this point I am all for using forcing the enemy to live up to their own standards.
Yes. It's not a joke I would have made, but he got exactly what he was asking for. As for demands of an apology, you know that's just struggle session shit and wouldn't have actually helped him in any way, right?
Okay, and? I mean, you have to keep in mind I have no respect for the actual alt-right anyway, but I don't think Sargon is realy wrong in thinking it's time to use SJW's tactics against them.
It's more along the lines of I have no idea who you are, so I'm not just going to take your word on things, and this is hampered even more by a lot of the other things I've seen you saying on other subjects (like Trump).
That's my line.
No, seriously, I've been accused of being both a commie and a fascist, so it's all old hat to me.
No, no they don't.
Try "not at all".
First off, I assume you're referring to people in the USA?
Yeah, here's the thing about that. The vast majority of America's "black" population are a quarter to a third white. It's just that because of Deep Southern culture, if you were part black, you were "black". In most other countries, you'd be "colored" or mixed. So when you start as the baseline black gene pool in the US only being about 2/3rds black, then you have a kid who is white and "black", you're not getting someone who is half and half. Instead, you're going to get someone who looks like they're more between mixed and a quarter black. Forward that another generation and they'd be closer to someone who was 1/8th or 1/16th.
So yeah, if Sargon was an American, I would take his claim more seriously. Because when you get to 1/16th or 1/32nd, you aren't going to have many obvious traits pointing to your mixed ancestry. This the issue with a lot of people from the Midwest who claim to have Native American ancestry; most of them are 1/16th, 1/32nd, or 1/64th. Like myself, I had a Native American ancestor, but I'm a few generations removed, so I'm either 1/32nd or 1/64th. So it's not immediately apparent (if ever) that I might be anything other than pure white. Similar sort of situation with Elizabeth Warren.
Carl Benjamin however, is from the United Kingdom. There isn't a large amount of mixed African Americans in his gene pool. So the claim that his grandfather was black or half black, is a little less believable. It also wouldn't be hard for him to track down. Nor did he ever try to back up his claim with a DNA test or show any sort of ancestry that would prove it. Something that, given what he made at the time, would have been relatively cheap or easy to prove with an ancestry tree, which would not have been any threat to him, since his face and name was already out there.
I won't go into the details of someone who can "pass", because someone who could pass can also point to certain features that make it obvious what their heritage is. There is absolutely nothing about Sargon that hints that he is anything but pure British, with maybe some Welsh or Irish or Scott thrown in here and there. Since there is no obvious genetic marker that has manifested, his story has changed, and he refused to provide any evidence of his own--why should I believe his claim?
Especially when he's admitted that he'll lie for the sake of convenience?
Then why didn't he mention it in his interview? During the interview, he was pressed on the point of how harmful his comments were to rape victims. He claimed that ONE person, whose name he would not provide, had messaged him and thanked him for his rape jokes. He was so cavalier about throwing his wife out there before, when heckled on the street, why not talk about how his wife was raped? And how his rape jokes had helped her? Instead, he doesn't mention his wife at all.
It's almost as if he flat out lied about his wife being raped when he was being heckled, because he thought no one had noticed. And when he was pressed by the interviewer, he claimed sexual assault. Did not expand upon what had happened to him to qualify as sexual assault, but claimed it nonetheless. No matter which way you slice it, if his wife had been raped, supported him, and his behavior--then he would have brought it up in the BBC interview.
Some alt-right conman. He'd been involved with a deal or business venture that had gone bad. Sargon had taken his dox from kiwi farms and put it up in a video. And look, if Sargon had a change or heart, that's fine. The problem is with Sargon is that he kept insisting that he wasn't for doxing and at the same time--let Kraut get tarred and feathered for having a doxing server. Let him take the entire fall all on his own.
If Sargon had a change of heart, that's one thing. If he felt exceptions should be made, that's also one thing. But he was trying to play to the Skeptic crowd and his own past complaints about being doxed.
Wait, hold on.
It's not a joke you would have made. So you agree that it was a joke made in poor taste, right? So why couldn't Carl Benjamin just say that it was in poor taste and that in hindsight, it was immature and doesn't represent himself or his campaign? Because that would have blunted the damage. It would never fully go away, but it would have kept the media from using it to repeatedly attack him or his party.
Donald Trump knew better. Even he apologized for his "Grab them by the pussy" comment. If Carl had simply made the same excuse, he would have fared much better. Instead, he didn't apologize and the media was able to paint him as a remorseless psychopath who hated women. If Trump hadn't apologized, he would have lost the election. In fact, Trump went so far as to push the "Women for Trump" group to bolster his image. He also attacked his opposition for abusing women.
Sargon was both too arrogant to apologize for a joke told in poor taste and too ignorant of how politics actually worked to damage control the situation. Instead, he destroyed his own party in the process.
Ugh, I hate to go this deep, but...
I would point you to Professor Jonathan Haidt and his book, the Righteous Mind, where he goes into human morality. First, you need to understand intuitive intelligence and reasoning intelligence. Humans do both, but intuitive intelligence is the dominant partner. That's basically how you feel about something. Reasoning intelligence is good for higher thought, but it rarely actually changes your mind. Hence why people tend to talk past one another in debates. The purpose of reasoning on how you feel about something is only to put forward some sort of logical theory that satisfies your intuition. You do not rationally think something out and then come to an objective conclusion. That's an illusion.
Second, humans have six moral dimensions. Compassion, Karma, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Liberals are very high in Compassion and fairly high in Liberty. But low in everything else. Think of Harry Potter. The entire setting is about being yourself (ie, magic being the liberal factor), but the core morality is compassion. And compassion (ie, love and caring) surpassed all other things. Things like Authority were treated at best, as being incompetent or out of touch with the people it was deemed to governed and at worst, a tool of evil. And evil itself was staged around Purity (ie, pure bloods). And that purity was only possible because the bad guy of the series was born without understanding what Compassion (ie, love or caring) was. He was a sociopath.
But that's not the only morality. In fact, it is the minority. The other large, but minority moral group is Libertarian. Libertarians are generally very high in Liberty, but very low in almost all other things. They care most primarily about their personal freedom. Almost any intent on limiting that freedom is deemed as a great evil. An extreme example is Sovereign Citizens, who go to great extents to skirt or disobey the law. Turning a traffic ticket into serious prison time because they refuse to pay their fines or provide their information or whatever. But Libertarians are actually really good at cutting through red tape where it doesn't make any sense.
And then there are Conservatives. Conservatives are relatively balanced in all areas of morality. If you want an example of this, you'd look to the Lord of the Rings. There is compassion, but compassion is not the driving savior of the story. There is bad things happening to bad people, but that doesn't drive the story. Liberty is important, but it is not the sole motivation. Loyalty is important, but not overly so. Same with authority. And purity. Instead, all six of these important moral pillars are present in Tolkien's work. Sauron in turn violates every single pillar. He is pitiless, he hates people being free and happy, he has very little loyalty to anyone save his master or himself, refuses to recognize the true authority, and defiles all that he touches.
Now, I know that's sort of a TLDR moment, but try to stick with me. What Sargon suggested to the Alt-Right wouldn't work because the Alt-Right aren't liberals. They aren't high in caring. So anything the Alt-Right thought leaders tried with SJW tactics wouldn't work because their own support base wouldn't care, because it does not strongly violate their own morality. In fact, as there is a high likelyhood that many Alt-Right are low in caring, it would actively turn off their audience. Which is why MillennialWoes was mostly just confused at the suggestion.
Could you be more specific?
That's my line.
Anyway, my real point is that Sargon is at best--an idiot who made his own trouble. He picked a fight with someone he didn't understand and it made things worse for him*. At worst, he is (well, was--this was all like 2-4 years ago by now) a scummy idiot who made his own bed.
*Frankly, that Sargon thought of Metokur as some sort of internet activist. Metokur basically jumpstarted Gamergate. And Sargon and others within the Skeptic group always held him up as a sort of leader. And Sargon even accused Metokur of running away from his responsibilities. And Sargon felt that Metokur was swinging on over to become Alt-Right. In reality, Metokur has always just been an internet troll.
