Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[Rekkington]

Hey all, long-time lurker first-time poster.

Going back a few pages here, but this comment jumped out at me and I thought it needed addressing: remember that Sargon is British. "Liberal" as a synonym for "left-wing" is a peculiarly American trait, and other countries don't use the same terminology that you do. "Classical Liberal" in particular means 18th-century Enlightenment-era ideas of being economically free-market, business-friendly and generally laissez-faire, beliefs which most people call right-wing or libertarian in the USA (here's the wiki on it for quick reference). In the UK in particular lefties absolutely HATE being called 'liberal' because it associates them with the Liberal Democrats, who used to be the main 3rd Party in British politics and trace back their lineage to the Whigs. The older generation of Cold War-era Bennite socialists in Britain hate the Lib Dems because their earlier incarnation, the Social Democratic Party (which broke off from Labour and later unified with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats), forms part of their stab-in-the-back myth: leftie legend blames the SDP for splitting the left-wing vote to Margaret Thatcher's benefit in the 1980s. In the 2000s their presence was inflated by a lot of votes from hip young socialists and college students who wanted to vote left-wing but didn't want to support New Labour's soft pink social democracy (the Lib Dems were also early adopters of idpol wokery, in fairness, although back then it was mainly LGB rainbows than the absolute Salem-on-Twitter witchhunting mental asylum it is now), but trendy lefties never read the small print that the party was never as economically radical as they thought it was. The Lib Dems have never been forgiven by grudge-bearing socialists for going into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010.

We know what Classical Liberal means, dude. Everyone defined it again and again for like 3 years straight. The discussion was between me saying he is that precise definition of Liberal, and people saying he was Right-Wing or some sort of Cryptofascist.

 

[Hagfish]

Demonetization was designed to kill off channels from producing work full time. What killed the "Skeptics" (god I hate that term) was having their income yeeted from them. Yes many of the channels fucked it up on their own as well, mundane matt being the prime example, but overall what killed anti-sjw content was demonetization. As channels that didn't want the financial banhammer had to switch politics. Chris Ray Gun comes to mind with this, ever notice that he is not a breadtuber but has very quietly walked back his anti-sjw past. That's not by accident.

Didnt he literally adress this? he hasnt walked back shit, he never apologized and didnt delete any of his old videos or anything like that. He made reactionary hottakes in the past because he was a gamer tired of sjws shitting on his proverbial lawn and flinging shit everywhere, so he went hard at them and said stupid stuff in the process. like the time he said that Spencer was only allegedly a "nazi" to highlight how sjws throw out reactionary labels, only for Richard spencer to literally be an alt-right ethno-nationalist, thus chris made a massive fucking oopsie.

Cue 2020 Chris being called a traitor and an Sjw because he spoke to Vaush and whatnot and you can kind of see why he is less keen on taking sides, being that shitflinging humonculoids appear to be the vanguard of both "sides". But that hasnt really stopped him from calling out SJWs. i mean, his immediate video after going on Vaush's stream consisted of dunking on Jack saint for being retarded.

Likewise, i think its quite apparent that pretty much no one who makes political content, left wing or right wing, is going to face much success especially economically without a Patreon or subscribestar to back them up. Pretty sure David Pakman and Kyle Kulinski were completely demonetized since a long time back.

What killed the "skeptic community" if you can call it that, was being full of smug pretentious asshats. If the presence of Bunty King and Mundane matt didnt already cue you in. Lolcows, lolcows for days.

 

[Mr Cuddles]

Didnt he literally adress this? he hasnt walked back shit, he never apologized and didnt delete any of his old videos or anything like that. He made reactionary hottakes in the past........

I have to ask, you a fan of his? To describe the former "Skeptics" as reactionary is a tad strange, did he use the term or was it all yours? Chris has deleted his library, but he did private "punch a nazi" and I didn't watch his stream with Vaush but from I heard he was saying things that he wouldn't have agreed with 4 years ago.

As for your take about the "Skeptics" downfall I disagree.

 

[Pope of Degeneracy]

congratulations sargon, "smear merchants" was said by Tucker Carlson

 

[Hagfish]

I have to ask, you a fan of his? To describe the former "Skeptics" as reactionary is a tad strange, did he use the term or was it all yours? Chris has deleted his library, but he did private "punch a nazi" and I didn't watch his stream with Vaush but from I heard he was saying things that he wouldn't have agreed with 4 years ago.

As for your take about the "Skeptics" downfall I disagree.

Eh, wouldnt call myself a fan. occassionally checking in on the channel out of curiosity, but i got tired of the "lol im idubbbz" routine back in 2019 or so.

I think the term reactionary, discarding specific political affiliations of the word, can be applied to left wing and right wing political positions. Strong knee-jerk reaction to an issue that defines a person's angle of approach to the subject etc.
Likewise i think the anti-sjw storm of 2014-2016, with stuff like gamergate and whatnot, sort of represented a degree of reactionary mentality, though not unwarranted considering the people they were up against.
So i chose to apply the word "reactionary" to, at least in this case, Chris Ray gun's way of approaching the issue of Sjws infecting platforms and hobbies. From his unscripted videos and poor research to immediate jumping to conclusions, decisions which have bit him in the ass nowadays.

I did see that he had unlisted "Punch a Nazi", but his "there aint no rest for the triggered" and "come be PC" still remains up, so If it was him running away from his Anti-sjw content he would have removed those videos too. According to Chris himself this is entirely because "punch a nazi" was co-opted by the Alt-right and frequently used among them to actively misinterpret his message and maliciously twist his words. The video went from being about SJWs liberally using the term Nazi to discrediting everyone and everything they dont like to being used by Nazis to rile up anger against their opposition.

Most people might not see the big deal, and you can interpret his decision to private the video however you want. But personally i think its fair for a puerto-rican who lives in LA with his black friends not to want to be affiliated with literal white supremacists.

 

[Rekkington]

Eh, wouldnt call myself a fan. occassionally checking in on the channel out of curiosity, but i got tired of the "lol im idubbbz" routine back in 2019 or so.

I think the term reactionary, discarding specific political affiliations of the word, can be applied to left wing and right wing political positions. Strong knee-jerk reaction to an issue that defines a person's angle of approach to the subject etc.

But you can't divorce it from the specific political and ideological affiliations, because it can't just mean someone who reacts to things cause that's literally everyone. Cause then anyone who dislikes a thing falls into that bucket. If David Duke says "I hate niggers," all black people aren't reactionaries if they tell him to fuck off, or if you think OnlyFans is bad for society.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

Watched a video talking about him and saw a recent picture of him. Surprised he's lost a lot of weight; I don't even think you can call him fat now.
View attachment 1986514

Sure I can, skinnyfat. Look at those moobs.

 

[Hagfish]

But you can't divorce it from the specific political and ideological affiliations, because it can't just mean someone who reacts to things cause that's literally everyone. Cause then anyone who dislikes a thing falls into that bucket. If David Duke says "I hate niggers," all black people aren't reactionaries if they tell him to fuck off, or if you think OnlyFans is bad for society.

True, my logic for my usage of the term hinged more on the inherent difference between "reacting" and "knee-jerk political response" to what you see as a rising threat in the form of society progressing or "reforming" in a certain direction. The left wing response to Trump aka "literally hitler" would constitute this to a degree at the very least, in part because establishment politicians of the left (and right) thought trump would shake up the establishment. The response by the anti-sjws to the sjws would definatly be reactionary in terms of "going back to a status quo of the past", at least in media and gaming as a hobby.

Reactionary is generally a term applied to the right wing, but i think its clear that if you look at politics from either side, if nothing else as microcosms, that the terms "reactionary" and "progressive" can be applied to either side almost interchangeably based on individual issues and, moreso, the solutions proposed to said individual issues. lest we forget that reactionary is synonymous with regressive, a term people often feel comfortable applying to hard authoritarian leftists who, in order to fight racism at campus, unironically advocate for forms of racial segregation. Not nessecarily regressive/reactionary through intent, but that is the end-destination.
You also have examples of intentionally reactionary politics coming from the left, such as the refusal to withdraw from the middle-east, a clear example of people wishing to maintain a status quo against spooky reforms/progress.

the big difference is generally the logic applied behind the reactionary policies.
When the right advocates restricting immigration: They're taking our jobs through low-wage labour.
When the left advocates restricting immigration: It undercuts the working class and labour unions, removing their ability to negotiate.
Both are, at least in essence, reactionary by solution if not intent.

I remember it like it was yesterday when the right were the ones talking about nuking the middle-east as revenge for 9/11, cue today when its the democrats pushing for forever-war in the middle east in order to protect "the poor people being subjugated by *insert dictator we dont like*". and at this point war in the middle-east is the status quo, and maintaining it is reactionary.

Is it a stretch? sure, and i'll admit that my own usage of the term lacks pinpoint accuracy (as shown with this reply). I do think however that we should just call a shovel a spade if its shaped like one rather than pretend that there is a massive fundamental difference.

 

[Toucan]

I can unironically see Sargon making a comeback. Breadtube doesn't have much of a future, I give it 2 years max. The only ones that will last are Hasan and Vaush. The rest will be irrelevant or quit since half of them have severe depression.

One of the lessons we must learn from Carl is that culture, particularly niche internet culture, means fuck all when trying to influence politics.
Trump was not elected by memes, as carl is so fond of saying, and breadtube will not overthrow the monarchies of the world.
All youtube political circles are show. Even the serious ones like Joe Rogan.
We know this because Carl himself failed to get elected and on the flip side so did Bernie Sanders.
We can all stop caring about it. None of it has any consequences on politics in the real world. Only real world shit can do that.

 

[Hagfish]

One of the lessons we must learn from Carl is that culture, particularly niche internet culture, means fuck all when trying to influence politics.
Trump was not elected by memes, as carl is so fond of saying, and breadtube will not overthrow the monarchies of the world.
All youtube political circles are show. Even the serious ones like Joe Rogan.
We know this because Carl himself failed to get elected and on the flip side so did Bernie Sanders.
We can all stop caring about it. None of it has any consequences on politics in the real world. Only real world shit can do that.

What happens on the internet definitely has real life impact on politics and culture, especially when tons of money are involved. The issue is reach and audience and an actual strategy when getting into politics. Neither of which Carl had particularly much of when he dove headlong into the political trough hoping to become king of England.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

What I find hilarious about this is how Sargon has made several videos going after David Pakman in the last year or two. Even when directly targeting somebody he can't draw their attention.

To be fair David Pakman doesn’t seem like a control freak where he searches himself in google every day. Correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Sam Losco]

Interesting. Sargon on with The Critical Drinker discussing Moana.

 

[Penrowe]

Saw someone on twatter say Carl had a child of his own now. Can't be bothered to search for info on this since all I get are people shitting on the man for saying "it depends on the child" but would like to know if there's substance to this claim or if it's a ruse.

 

[Arm Pit Cream]

Carl "it depends on the child" Benjamin, defender of open pedophile/child porn advocate Amos Yee, recently did an interview with Lauren Chen where he railed against the Labour Party for wanting to lower the age of consent (there's no actual new news regarding this, Sargon just made it up based on half decade old tabloid news)

Sargon advocating for the age of consent to be lowered to 11 because "it depends on how the child matures", but remember guys he totally wants it to be 21.



Full interview

 

[CisnaHet Scumale]

Gross Sargon gets some sleep FFS!

Spoiler: Sargon's Eyebags

 

[0 1]

Gross Sargon gets some sleep FFS!

Spoiler: Sargon's Eyebags

View attachment 2069128

This is an edit, since people can't tell sometimes.

 

[Kamikaze]

View attachment 2069289

This is an edit, since people can't tell sometimes.

>ITT a bunch of Jim's lost boys who don't have to stay up late to feed their wife's dinosaurs in ARK

 

[WeWuzFinns]

View attachment 2069289

This is an edit, since people can't tell sometimes.

That image looks like my wife's rapist.

 

[Toucan]

Sargon advocating for the age of consent to be lowered to 11 because "it depends on how the child matures", but remember guys he totally wants it to be 21.

Perhaps Justicar was psychologically capable of having sex at such a young age. He does seem like an intellligent chap. That said THE VAST MAJORITY of 11 year olds are not. A blanket ban on having sex with 11 year olds therefore seems reasonable, and not a case by case basis as Carl so stupidly suggests.

Another reason , apart from my oh so quaint moral panic about 11 year olds getting fucked in the ass, is that it is probably not a good idea for a society to encourage the proliferation of pedophiles. Thats the sort of thing, like putting lead in the water pipes or using aesbestos as insulation, that could potentially lead to a serious downfall in society.

 

[Hagfish]

Perhaps Justicar was psychologically capable of having sex at such a young age. He does seem like an intellligent chap.

I hope this is sarcasm, because "intelligience" is completely irrelevant.
It doesnt matter if lil Sam or Samantha are big brained enough to do daddy's taxes or understand biology and anatomy. They're still neither physically or mentally or hormonally mature yet for sex, as well as economically dependant on their own parents still in a "worst case scenario" aka pregnancy.
btw, was the girl same age or 16-18+ (assuming this wasnt another milo situation)? because both scenarios are equally fucking horrid. Unless Justicaar had it all planned out, intending to put on a fake mustache, call himself Juan and take up a fast-food job to pay for his child's college, being that he was so mature for his age. put down a loan for a house and become a good father.

There is literally no angle wherein this isnt several rungs of violently stupid, and Carl as a father should be not only be able but adamant about refuting the very idea at the face of it.

And this is without going into a essay spanning tirade about how this is paralell with what happened with Milo and so many other young people who had sex way too early, often with adults. They try to own it, they try to cope with it by talking about how they were in control or they felt comfortable or how they understood what was going on 100%. its a coping mechanism anyone with any sort of trauma, mild or severe, eventually does. Certainly healthier than the SJW tactic of repeatedly stabbing yourself with how bad your trauma was just to justify your own inadequacies, but its nevertheless a horrid coping mechanism, especially when used as an argument in age of consent discussions.

To me, Carl immediatly buckling under pressure when met with mild resistance, even on a basic bitch topic like this, just tells me that Carl is a failed Chameleon. If its a person he is friendly with, Carl will shape and bend whichever way is nessecary in hope of appeasing them. (bit of a digression, but another example) Like when he, Metokur and Louis Le vau talked on stream about the whole Liberalists thing and rather than just talk openly and frankly with Metokur about his intentions and beliefs he had to coat it in "totes self-aware" criticism. "oh yeah, i know im cringy, so fucking cringy. i hate being on stage and in front of people and being important i fucking hate this lol".

Note before someone brings this up as an "argument": i know young teens are curious about sex and whatnot, and experimentation is par for the course as hormones are brewing in their little brains, but clearly what is being talked about here isnt the mostly innocent experimentation between young teenagers, what is being talked about here, or more specificly argued for, is the abolishment of age of consent on the basis that his one dude claims to have been mature enough.

Its true, no one can say that Justicar was 100% incapable of consent, all they can say with 100% scientific accuracy is that he wasnt even on the onset of puberty yet which alone is enough of an argument why he is fucking wrong.