Quote of the day—Andrew Torba @a

Data companies are starting to sell “extremists scores” to help companies avoid doing business to Trump supporters. What is your score?


Andrew Torba @a
Posted on Gab February 11, 2021
[Exercise of a specific enumerated right is evidence of being an “extremist”?

“Extremist”? With those type of numbers…

I don’t think that word means what they claim it means. Or, probably more accurately, someone is doing some really heavy duty projection.

As I have pointed out before, historically, the political left progressively tightens the purity tests and eventually eats their own. It is an almost inevitable consequence of their psychology.

This is particularly relevant to current events. For example. Gina Carano was fired by Disney for an “anti-Semitic” post on social media. One of my sources says this was the post:


This is, at least partially, confirmed by Variety and the WSJ.

Variety and the WSJ quote a Lucasfilm spokesperson as saying:

… her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”

I see absolutely nothing to indicate she did anything even approaching what she is accused of doing. And, as one person in a private post on Facebook said:

Them firing her kinda proves her point.

We live in interesting times.

Prepare accordingly.—Joe]


18 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Andrew Torba @a

    • Not necessarily. Jews who vote the wrong way suffer just like black who vote the wrong way do. These are the people who get dismissed as “multiracial whites”.

  1. I am sure the fired her from the safety of the phone or email.
    She was quite the fighter in her day and could still kick most people butts without to much problem.

  2. She appears to have been fired for criticizing German civilians, AKA “Good Germans” who supported and/or cooperated with Nazi anti-Semitism. She was already on the naughty list for not supporting the trans-gender choose your own pronouns agenda. I haven’t been a Disney customer for quite a while, so joining a boycott would be meaningless, but this certainly doesn’t make me want to sign up for Disney Plus.

    • Not that I would ever support such a thing, but you can stick it to them by enjoying their worthwhile content, like The Mandalorian, by viewing it on third party sites. I think this is called something like swashbuckling or buccaneering…

      Although… if you’re doing it in support of your nation, against the enemies of your nation, it’s privateering.

  3. Ever tightening purity tests that eat their own. Absolutely. Every time.
    Thank god for 5G. That should help speed the process we have to go through to get to the other side.
    I mean, You can take away a 100 million peoples ability to use their EBT cards. And their just going to quit eating? Because your gamma, SJW-ass says they have to? In a country with over 400 million guns? And “rich” people so easy to find?
    A conflict only China could love. And then, only if your in China at the time it’s going down.

  4. Wait a moment … A third of a million people participated in the 6 Jan DC “riots?”


    If that were true there wouldn’t be a city left.

      • That is… odd.

        Because I have made the comment that if you presume 70,000,000 Trump voters, and a half-percent get froggy, it’s 350,000 insurgents. And then I noted that even the Provos (Provisional IRA) didn’t have those numbers and they made the Brits’ lives hell in Northern Ireland.

        If 350,000 people had descended on D.C. with anything more than mischief on their minds, we would probably be discussing where to put the new capitol, as Boris so rightfully notes.

        This is very weird.

      • You know that the “big lie” from the Goebbels speech was criticizing a certain third party, yeah?

  5. A social credit system, government working to get neighbors hating neighbors, etc. Clearly, you’re pointing to a conspiracy. A deadly dangerous one.

    If we accept that, then surely our primary mission should be uncovering the operators of the conspiracy, and most importantly their primary strategists and commander in chief.

    If we don’t accept the fact that there’s a conspiracy (and by the way it would have to be global if it exists at all, one having all the trappings and structure of a major industry or military) then why talk about the conspiracy? Why not shrink into your personal life and let the world burn? For it surely will burn.

    Or do we remain stuck in the mode of trying to convince ourselves that it exists, unwilling to ever be fully convinced for fear of the obligations that such a realization would put upon us?

    In other words, yes of course; there’s been an on-going, coordinated program to eradicate the principles of liberty. We all know it and we all, on both sides of the issue, have known it for generations. At least, anyone capable of functioning in this contest has known it all this time. So what’s your point?

    Can we ever get past the point of breaking the glass and pulling the fire alarm every day, never finding (or not wanting to find, or even desperately wanting to avoid finding) the source of the smoke, much less the cause of the fire?

    Beyond that, what would be the point in fully exposing the conspiracy unless we have the clearly articulated and planned alternative to it?

    In short;
    What do we think we’re fighting?
    What do we think we’re fighting it with?
    What are we fighting for?

    Can anyone answer that, clearly and easily, right now, without having to think it over, and without equivocation or self contradiction?

    For sure, there’s not a Republican politician alive who can do it. Hell, most of you can’t even form a sentence.

  6. It occurs to me that any company trying to generate and sell any kind of social credit scoring, if it contains any information about you personally, you can sue them for libel.

    Why not? Unless they have nothing on you, or they have no score against you, aren’t they asserting a pejorative against you? Even if it is factually true, they’re portraying it as a bad thing, which is not a factual statement, but an opinion that they’re representing as a factual statement.

    In order to be completely neutral about their datamining, they’d have to offer categories for registered/primary voting Democrats, Extremist platform users (Twitter), anti-gun conspiracy participants, cancel-culture enthusiast, participation at BLM/Antifa violent riots, DNC campaign contributor, and the like. Then they’d offer their data neutrally to anyone that wanted to weight and calculate their own score. Then they’d be libel-proof because they are strictly collating objectively verifiable facts with no subjective judgement, and anyone could use those facts as they see fit to make their own decisions. But I’m having a bit of a credulity problem with the idea that they’re going to play this down the legally-unencumbered middle, hmmm?

    • I don’t think so. I think “truth” is always a sufficient defense.

      And I’m also nearly certain that adverse opinions can’t be considered libel or slander. If I call someone a Marxist in the most derogatory tone imaginable and they are openly a Marxist then they cannot successfully sue me for libel or slander.

      • Correct if you’re talking the USA. Truth isn’t necessarily a defense in more benighted jurisdictions, though; I believe the UK is one such.

  7. Pingback: No conspiracy required | The View From North Central Idaho

  8. This appears to be statistical data. Doesn’t prove anything.

    I didn’t do this, but around high school/jr. high the DNR came to the school and did hunter safety training. A lot of my friends did it, just in case they wanted to later. It was “the thing to do.” How many of them actually hunt now? I’m guessing about zero. And now I don’t need it (though I’ve studied the course material, it’s a good idea), because I now live in a state where I’m old enough to be past the age cutoff.

  9. Pingback: Quote of the day—John Rubino | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.