Talk:Black Pigeon Speaks/Archive1

Topic
still waiting for evidence of racist quotes and statements said by black pigeon speaks. you called yourself rational but won't give any evidence of black pigeon speaks, racism76.64.80.249 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * can you provide evidence that he is a white supremacist? where are his quotes?174.91.173.134 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Black Pigeon Speaks is not racist. Does he believe whites are superior to other races? Does he support ethnic genocide? Has he ever physically attacked another person for their skin color? If so, did he explicitly state this was the reason or was their skin color incidental? Are the writers of RationalWiki able to read his mind? The answer to all of these questions is no. Therefore unless someone can provide quotes that are not doctored or sound clips that have not been edited with audio editing software, there is literally no evidence to back up the claim that he is racist. Unlike the writers of this highly racist wiki.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.178.24.162 / talk / contribs 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable request, can someone provide this? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 5.67.8.12 / talk

just for the record, here's documented evidence of BPS targeting non-whites particularly for the reason of not being part of the in-group (the west a.k.a. whitey) employing the usual dog- or human-whistles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ-_PR9uMLY. EauDeCologne (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As per the request was for "quotes that are not doctored or sound clips that have not been edited with audio editing software" I would suggest this "documented evidence" falls far from the mark. --Bryankelly (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the above comment is an attempt at an escape hatch argument. Basically any evidence put forward will be dismissed as "doctored", "edited", "tampered with", etc, due conflicting with the poster's pre-held beliefs. 16:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article that mentions talk about immigrants from "incompatible cultures", his rail against multiculturalism, and his repugnant worrying about being "displaced" (e.g. Great Replacement) isn't enough? That's pretty damn racist. 05:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Incompatible cultures" is not racist its addressing the problem of assimilation or lack of. America was built as being a melting pot if it stops being a melting pot, that is a problem, not racist. The "down side of diversity" is backed by science. Being against multiculturalism is not racist. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html its talking about legitimate real world consequences of lack of unity from cultures that are not a melting pot and instead don't assimilate. Calling the migration crisis what it is, a "crisis" and noting that a "displac"ment is happening is not racist. And he talks about these issues by triumphing Asians immigration policy because he is not a racist and has lived in Japan for many years because non-racist people are well traveled, study other cultures, and languages, and don't mind living as .01% minority. All these points of him being "racist" are all original research and opinions. Bryankelly (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this sort of "concern" over multiculturalism is a ridiculously frequent complaint by racist xenphobes. It's one of the central pieces of the alt-right, with this rail again multiculturalism usually not against white Christians (right wing white Christians are as likely to commit terrorism as Muslims and native-born people are also comparative likely to commit crimes) but immigrants from nonwhite countries with Muslim or Latino majority countries being flavor of the week but I've seen China and India being mentioned, and Chinese and Japanese people were treated as being unable to be assimiliated. Being against multiculturalism is racist if you ask me because this doesn't mean you are against white Italians, French, Norwegians, Swedish, and Germans immigrating here and so on. "Displacement" is, however, without a doubt racist: it's the same language as Great Replacement which is a racist conspiracy frequently spread by other racists. If he holds up Japan as a stellar example of society because it is apparently culturally homogeneous, that still doesn't make you a racist or a xenophobe, and you come off as a hypocrite for denouncing immigration while benefiting from it. 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No one said a single thing about terrorism. Strawman argument. I posted the downside of diversity from Pulitzer prize winning scientist Robert Putnam. Which you completely 100% ignored, and pivoted to terrorism. "The Downside of Diversity" has nothing to do with terrorism or crime, nor does PBS's Arguments. Get the argument right. BPS has never claimed that "right wing white Christians [don't] commit terrorism as Muslims" nor that and native-born person "[aren't" also comparative likely to commit crimes." He doesn't talk about crime or terrorism, he talks about civil disunity. So how about you stick to the actual topic being discussed? "Being against multiculturalism is racist if you ask me," no one asked you and rationalwiki isn't a place for your opinions or to drive home a bigoted bias political agenda, its a place to put verifiable information provided by credible sources, keep your opinions out of it. Displacement is not the same language as Great Replacement which is why you can't give an analysis the two arguments. Apples and oranges. Displacement is an actual historical geopolitical term. Its not racist in the least. Displacement is what happened to the Jews over and over again.Bryankelly (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Took me a while to understand your meaning "while benefiting from it". This comment calling him a hypocrite shows the bias you have exactly. He does not hate foreigners or immigration, he has never once said immigration is bad, he criticizes uncheck chain migration. Only bigots can't see the difference. He is not racist. Racists don't move to the other side of the world to be fully ingulfed in another culture, to study said language, to live as .01% minority. He's not a hypocrite, he practices what he preaches, he supports and praises a controlled immigration and denounces open borders as so does all of asia. As so do I, as I have also lived in Taiwan for 8 years, legally, because if you don't they ship you home and never let you back, as a good country should. And you can't rationally argue that which is why you have to be unethical and distort and lie about other peoples views. Pathetic. Bryankelly (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I saw your source earlier and it says nothing what you're saying. It's actually promoting diversity, that diversity is worth it in the long run. The negative effects deal with only the short term, but people like you have done exactly that the researcher was worried about.


 * And this is Putnam's view on diversity.


 * And my point on terrorism: crimes (including terrorism) by migrants are usually a point by xenophobes to limit migration. This is not a "strawman", it's perfectly relevant to mention that native people are as likely to commit crime and therefore harm society. This is also conveniently overlooked by the xenophobes who also tend to be white. Your point on "civil disunity" is just waffling on undefined and vague terms. Is crime not "civil disunity"? Xenophobes use crime rates as an example of people that "cannot be assimilated", so it's puzzling you consider my point irrelevant. If "displacement" isn't "replacement", then what is it, then? No one in Europe is getting exiled in favor of migrants.
 * This whole "he doesn't dislike immigration, just chain migration" is meaningless since "chain migration" has been vastly overblown by the racists and xenophobes. What doesn't he exactly like about "chain migration"? Also, no one has ever argued for open borders, so saying Asia denounces it is a moot point. He's still a hypocrite for living in Asia, this whole opposition to "chain migration" is cognitive dissonance special pleading to justify your own immigration behavior as somehow "unique" from the others (and not to mention, Taiwan's policy on immigration might be different and its situation might also be different). 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "...America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching" Right, his conclusions differ from BPS but his findings are nevertheless true. His findings say nothing about Valuable or enriching. Those are terms he has never defined, those are just his conclusions of how to continue the research. Anyone is free to disagree while not violating scientific evidence.
 * "he's also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language." Argument of association. This article is about BPS, not people who sent Putnam emails.
 * "Is crime not "civil disunity"?" read Putnam, I'm not here to educate you on Putnams ideas, read "Bowling Alone". This article is about BPS, I merely mentioned Putnams claims as reference to similar ideas.
 * "And my point on terrorism: crimes (including terrorism) by migrants are usually a point by xenophobes to limit migration." If black pigeon speaks has never made that argument, then it IS a straw-man. What other people "usually" do is irrelevant. Intellectualism and rationalism is about drawing distinctions, not blurring lines, and not using argument of association.
 * "This whole "he doesn't dislike immigration, just chain migration" is meaningless since "chain migration" has been vastly overblown by the racists and xenophobes." What racists and xenophobes say has no bearing on the words of another individual. Argument of association. "Chain migration" is a definable term, and an individual should only be judged by their use of the word. The abuse of words do not make words irrelevant, it only makes the case for stronger definitions. Phantom fallacy
 * "Also, no one has ever argued for open borders, so saying Asia denounces it is a moot point." Open borders means " free movement of people between jurisdictions with FEW or no restrictions on movement" and people are always arguing for it. Every last American Democrat argument about immigration is for fewer or no restrictions. Amnesty means eradication of all restrictions that were held on illegal immigrants already here.
 * Legal immigration from a strict border controlled nation by definition is "unique" from the others. Phantom fallacy, circular reasoning, changing the goal post. You are so unethical and disingenuous its mind blowing. Be intellectually consistent. He is for a strong border, and immigration control. He has never once said a country should have no immigration. Get it right. It is in no way hypocritical, to be an immigrant and be against chain migration. Any expat living in another country has first hand experience dealing with immigration and first hand experience how other countries do things, verses how america does (or doesn't do) it. My wife is an immigrant, in fact most legal immigrants in American are against the American immigration policy as being too lax. And they are not hypocrites, that makes you a bigot suggesting so.
 * "(and not to mention, Taiwan's policy on immigration might be different and its situation might also be different)" Yes, that's what intellectual people can discuss, and that doesn't make you a hypocrite, xenophobe, or racist to discuss these differences. And same with Japan, which is the direct knowledge BPS is discussing about. And the policy is different largely because the culture is different, maybe if you weren't so xenophobic yourself and were actually multicultural not overly bias with American Universalism, you could put yourself is someone else's shoes and see how they view the world. Bryankelly (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Some fellow from the Harvard Kennedy School did a well-researched report and analysis on BPS (link). Lemme know if this should be put in the main article (I think it should, tbh). BuckledDegree (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it should, and perhaps it could provide some evidence of him being a Nazi and a racist that isn't opinion or original research?Bryankelly (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't anti original research here. This isn't wikipedia, we aren't trying to establish a fully academic case based on secondary sources for everything every article says.  Just a sound case.  If it requires synthesis of two disparate pieces of information and some reasonable deductions, there's no reason it shouldn't be in a RW article.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I like how the evidence we di provide is completely dismissed as "doctored" and then concluded as "opinion" or "original" research. This link is consistent with what this article is saying. 18:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What would you call a taking a clip and editing it into only one word snippets? Overly edited? Its a fact, its doctored. It IS original research. You just don't know what you're talking about, At least Ikanreed made a valid point. if you don't care about it not being original research then fine, but be prepared for a daily fight, because I'm not going anywhere, there is no "reasonable deduction" and no "synthesis" of any kind between BPS's words and actions and what is being said about him. See you tomorrow. Bryankelly (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument at all. You don't even know what "doctored" means. What do you expect those video makers to do, include the entire thing in there? And as I said earlier: the link from Harvard Kennedy School that you agreed to putting in the article is consistent with this article's conclusions; did you read the link??? If you don't like the quotes being presented, demonstrate what context is being taken out, why a dogwhistle isn't a dogwhistle, etc. This isn't a difficult thing to demonstrate. I got completely nothing from you except accusations it's "doctored" or "original research" and that I'm "unethical" and "lying" and "biased" and my actions are "pathetic". 23:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about a "video marker" i said repeatedly "one word snippets". Can you not read or are you just intentionally being disingenuous? Perhaps we are talking about two different things. Yes, i agreed to putting in the article, because although "rational"wiki's policy may not require strong non original research, rationalism nevertheless should. Yes, i read it but i didn't have to. Research is research, and if you stay to actual academic true wiki standards i could easily find a source that contracts it and then both apposing view points could be represent. As per the article, it never calls him a Nazi, it literally says he has overlapping ideas, which i already discusses exhaustively. And it explicatly states he does not identify with any of those beliefs. What quotes? I havne't seen any quotes, did you ad it into the article? I'm still arguming about the first line of this wiki page calling him nazi, when you can't find one source that can. It's also not a difficult thing to demonstrate. Do you not know what origional research is? The only evidence I have seen are you people discussing his actual videos. Thats origional research. And the other clip i saw had nothing but word word snippets just repeating BPS saying "'Muslims'(cut)'immigration'(cut)'immigration'" and then 30 minutes of some dude talking lame rhetoric and not quoting BPS at all. ""'Muslims'(cut)'immigration'(cut)'immigration'"" is overly edited, verging on doctored, and provides zero meaning, as I've already illustrated ad nauseam. Bryankelly (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * RationalWiki does not prohibit original research... Did you even read our guidelines? 23:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * secede the point alreadyBryankelly (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you can selectively agree with someone and subsequently ignore that pesky "we aren't anti original research here" the same person said right in the first sentence. 23:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you can state two apposing and contradictory arguments right after each other to sound like two people or at least a split personality. I seceded the point about 'rational'wiki's policy but you continuously putting "original research" in quotes, and suggesting its not original research most of this page is. And the other video mentioned was not original research but it was overly edited one word snippets that provide no meaning. When the original topic starter asked for "evidence of racist quotes and statements said by black pigeon speaks." When no one as of yet has provided a single one. Not one. Just arguments of what a bunch of other racists have said. Quite telling of how rational you people are. Bryankelly (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See? This is why I said your request for evidence was an escape hatch. Because you will straight up deny any evidence you don't like. Let me be very direct. BPS is a Neo-Nazi, and most of the internet outside his little fandom knows it. Hell, even other Neo-Nazis know it. So, if you attempt to whitewash the article, it will be reverted and you will be vandal binned. Which I see prior to posting this comment that you've done so. Enjoy only editing once every half hour. 12:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that myself and are two different people, and as such are of course going to raise differant point, and have different views and perspectives. It's actually quite odd that you think we're one and the same. oh, and for going after our site's name like every other immature lazy hack before you,   12:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you, i was talking to you, leftygreen who said, "the same person." No I don't see. Please explain to me how providing a source with no quotes, fulfills the request to provide a quote. Its not an escape hatch. Furthermore, I literally said more than 4 times now, use the shorenstein center article. What am I escaping from? Use it, and use any published credible source you want to. But you have no journalist whos reputation, legal liability, and journalistic creditials on the line to suggest PBS is a neo-nazi. This article is in violation of wikis articles on living people guidelines, that says to pepper living people articles with fact tags. I attempted that, and they were removed. The guidlines also warn about the legal ramification of this type of deformation, which I also already addressed. Goating is no excuse for deformation of a living person. Please tell me the justification for removing fact tags on a living person article. Bryankelly (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that lovely word salad. Try again when you sober up. 14:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this seals the deal
Black Pigeon Speaks is a Neo-Nazi. I saw his videos and he has all the hallmarks of one: promoting German nationalism and Nazi/fascist apologia, promoting pseudohistorical Western exceptionalism, engaging in anti-Semite conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial (using Daily Stormer as an example of the oppressed Holocaust "questioner"), being an overt racist (see videos on how the brown people are killing Western civilization, see the video on blacks and IQ). This is worth a read. 23:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Real name
If he doesn't reveal it, I don't think we should. Christopher (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . Christopher (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * [1] He did reveal it, on previous videos on another clickbait channel, before he jumped to the alt-right clickbait bandwagon. [2] He has 30 million views and a quarter million subscribers. To me, that makes him clearly a public figure -- and public figures don't get very little privacy rights. 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If he did reveal it that's fine, definitely didn't get that ping though. Christopher (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * His real name is Aaron Lace (not Felix Lace).

Delightful
https://www.reddit.com/r/BadSocialScience/comments/627i9i/in_which_islam_is_defined_as_isis/

04:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

He's an alt-right fascist who believes in ((((central bankers)))) and George Soros conspiracies and white genocide conspiracies? Should we suggest he might be a Nazi?
He might be a Nazi.
 * He's anti-Semite as far as I know. Not sure about being Neo-Nazi, though (which is like a subset of antisemitism, not interchangeable with it). 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi? National Socialist... Reading the NSDAP Manifesto, the document that essentially says what it is to be a National Socialist, I can't see what he says that fits with the National Socialist viewpoint. I am not very familiar with Black Pigeon Speaks work. However, a 'Nazi' slur is usually unwarranted, and used by the poorly educated. So what you are asking is, does basic ill-educated mud slinging suit RationalWiki? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 5.67.8.12 / talk


 * If you don't see where his views align with neonazism, then it's incredibly ironic that you'd call anyone "uneducated," especially if the only source you're relying on is a manifesto. Relying on a manifesto in an attempt to define a movement as complex as a political movement with a century of history is laughable at best, and really quite stupid. BPS is definitely a fascist and quite possibly a neonazi. Your ignorance of the subject matter changes nothing. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing where someones views align with neonazism is not the relevant issue. Overlapping view points does not make you indefinitely a proponent of said view points. Christianity overlaps with Jewish tradition, with many respects. It doesn't mean you can logically call all Christians Jews because Jews don't believe in the savior when Christians do. Much of the conservative American movement aligns with much of neonazism because they are both right wing movements. Same with much of the left wing American politics "aligns with" communism. It doesn't mean you can paint everything with large brush strokes. Intellectualism and rationalism is about making distinctions, not blurring lines. --Bryankelly (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * or u can just legitimately point to where he uses neonazi rhetoric like we do here already and be done with it EK (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing, no real difference. And yes I read your post, all of it. It was a complete non-argument, BPS is a Neo-Nazi. The ideas he espouses are indistinguishable from those of Neo-Nazis. If most modern Conservatives also fall into that camp as well, well that's too damn bad. 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you so much for telling me you read my post "all of it". I don't know what I would have done with out that piece of information. I too, have read your post, all of it. Saying there are overlapping beliefs that don't make someone part of that opposing value system is an argument. Apples and oranges are round, they have seeds, they are fruit, apples ARE NOT oranges. "Intellectualism and rationalism is about making distinctions, not blurring lines". That is reality, that is an argument, and this is truth. You on the other hand had no argument other than sticking your head in the sand and ignoring everything I said. Tell me one "ideas he espouses are indistinguishable from those of Neo-Nazis." Just one. Just one. One single idea, you rational thinker you. "If most modern Conservatives also fall into that camp as well, well that's too damn bad." And here it is, nice you ignored the reference to communism that has murdered anywhere from 100-200 million in the 20th century alone, instead lets just point out the one comment I said about right wing. You're just an anti right wing bigot who is incapable with dealing with blatant observable and verifiable facts. That being BPS has never one said a single thing, not one thing, that makes him a neo Nazi. Be rational, draw distinctions, provide evidence, and if not be counted the bigot you are, you Antifa member, behind the keyboard. Guess what, your lies don't make reality. Bryankelly (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "A phantom distinction is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone spends time arguing for the superiority of one term over another (rather than the intended debate)" The intended debate IS THE TERM that you intend to call BPS. That is the topic, that is no phantom distinction when the debate literally is the what term to call BPS. You must have a conversation about the meanings of words. Words have meaning. JezzBryankelly (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * what does "as far as you know" even mean?
 * If someone espouses views that are indistinguishable from Nazism, they're a nazi. Your slippery slope argument is meaningless, as is your apologia and superficial understanding of the topic. BPS promotes positions that are indistinguishable from those of Nazis, therefore, at best he is functionally a nazi. I'd go further given his track record and social connections and point out that he pals around with out and out Neo-nazis, meaning he's mostly just shitty at the dog-whistle part of dog-whistle politics "That being BPS has never one said a single thing, not one thing, that makes him a neo Nazi. Be rational, draw distinctions, provide evidence, and if not be counted the bigot you are, you Antifa member, behind the keyboard. Guess what, your lies don't make reality." Ok. BPS is a Nazi. And so is most of the GOP. As for me lying, prove it. Prove I intended to deceive. Cite sources. 15:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S; Despite your attempt to smear me with the label of an "Antifa member" I'm not a formal member of any Antifa groups. I do oppose Fascism though, weird how you seem have a problem with that... 15:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * "If someone espouses views that are indistinguishable from Nazism, they're a nazi." Yes you are right, which the arguments must be made. Which views are "indistinguishable from Nazism", and what are just overlapping similarities? I never made a slippery slope argument. "BPS promotes positions that are indistinguishable from those of Nazis, therefore" no he doesn't. [Argument of associate|Argument of associate]. [Apples and oranges|Apples and oranges]"I'd go further given his track record and social connections and point out that he pals around with out and out Neo-nazis" Yeah, because so many neo-Nazis living in Japan. "Despite your attempt to smear me with the label of an "Antifa member" Oh we are acknowledging smearing, like how you smear BPS by calling him a Nazi. What did you post links to? That does nothing of what I asked. Tell me one thing he has said, and show me how it is indistinguishable from NeoNazism. And don't engage in argument of association and apples and oranges. Comparing and apple to an orange does not making something "indistinguishable". Bryankelly (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you illiterate or disingenuous? You're obviously one or the other, but I'd like to know which. (Yeah, I've stopped taking you seriously since you're now arguing in bad faith) I linked to both BPS' listed views and those of the original Nazi party. You'd have to be stupid, or dishonest to ignore that. He's a Nazi, get over it. Oh, and I'm adding the appropriate categories, since your only argument amounts to "Nuh uh! He's not a nazi cause I say there's differences that I refuse to demonstrate!" 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are unethical and disingenuous and the slander and libel you are engaged in is literally punishable with jail time in most countries. "I linked to both BPS' listed views and those of the original Nazi party." Yes, again you put an apple next to an orange, none of those views are indistinguishable from the other. None. Zero. And even if they were, it is original research, so me someone with some kind of ethical standard of journalism or academia to live up to that says the same. You have zero sources other than your own bias and obvious bigotry. Bryankelly (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 01:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"As far as I know" is just from videos I've seen from him and from this article. Not super extensive information from him, hence the qualifier. I didn't call him a Nazi because he's not toying that line. He's alt-right, he's an anti-semite conspiracy monger, he's a racist bigot. But unlike other known Neo-Nazis, he hasn't explicitly praised Hitler, Nazisms, denied the Holocaust or endorsed extermination of Jews despite promoting anti-semite conspiracy theories. I used Owen Benjamin as a benchmark, and he doesn't seem to fit other Neo-Nazis like Patrick Little, Greg Johnson, Richard Spencer, or Michael Coombs. Black Pigeon Speaks just isn't in that zone compared to those. I don't think anti-semitism and Neo Nazism are interchangeable, but they do heavily overlap. 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am already engage in the discussion of calling him a Nazi. That's good you agree with me, so you should rectify the article. But I asked you about being anti-semetic. Talking about George Soros and his known proving funding of things, barely constitutes being called a "conspiracy" and (literally every person on the right doesn't like George Soros and what he supports) why is it "anti-Semitic" because Soros is a Jewish atheists? BPS has never said anything along the lines of "Jews are doing...". Never. That is racist and slanderous to BPS. Unless you can show a negative bigoted opinion that he has against Jews, no, talking about George Soros doesn't make him anti-semetic. https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/09/20/tucker-carlson-soros-funded-prosecutors-letting-criminals-go-free/ Here's some evidence for you, now Tucker Carlson is anti-semetic too? Finally, youtube terms of service themselves prove that BPS is not anti-semetic or a Nazi, because they don't have channels that support those ideas. Bryankelly (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So, first off Youtube is notoriously lax in enforcing their ToS, so invoking that doesn't mean shit. Two, Chain migration means "bringing their families" not, "large amounts of refugees". Further, refugees are a protected class by law, so banning their entry is actually illegal. (Not to mention unethical.) 17:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "Barely constitutes being called a 'conspiracy'"
 * Check the references that support our claims.
 * "George SOROS: The One-Man Illuminati Machine" -> "George SOROS: The One-Man DESTABILIZATION Machine"
 * "How George SOROS May Help Hillary STEAL the ELECTION"
 * "Obama’s Slush Fund + George Soros set to DESTROY TRUMP"
 * "How Harvard, the NYTs & George Manufacture VILLAINS"
 * "Manufactured Consent & the Homogeneity of Public Discourse"
 * This is plain as day baseless conspiracy mongering. The "right" doesn't like Soros? We know this! He's the right-wing conspiracist bogeyman!
 * Don't give me this "he's just doing it for effect lol" especially when all this videos are formatting with these highly emotionally-loaded scarecaps. 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW I changed my mind. He's a Neo-Nazi. 02:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That pigeon self designation is ironic.
IMO pigeons represent immigrants pretty well. Humans create a good suitable environment for them. They follow. Humans hate them even though they're integrated pretty well into the city scape and as far as I know, don't seem to affect the native bird population. Finally, in America, humans deliberately invited them and they were successful. I assume this person's moniker is a rock dove, but could be something like the Victorian crowned pigeon or the band-tailed pigeon. Anyhow, just like to comment and that and actually, I really love pigeons and feel bad when people unnecessarily hate what are essentially consequences of their own success (and I don't like it when critics attack the pigeon part). 09:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * His pseudonym is actually unironic and literal, far from the straw-man being depicted here. In an interview with Laurence Southern (see https://youtu.be/lOwF0hDrHS4?t=283 ) he said he chose that pseudonym because he loves pigeons and use to rescue them.
 * At the date of the interview (2017) he said he was taking care of 3 pigeons. With a fourth one being rescued on camera during the interview itself, which suffered from a severe constriction wound due to and entangled wire around his foot.2001:67C:2660:425:7:0:0:354 (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's a decent and commendable thing to rescue pigeons and take care of them. It still stands that his anti-immigrant sentiment contrasts with the rock pigeon's relationship with humanity, though. And it also still stands that people that attack the "pigeon" part of him isn't being fair to him or the pigeons. But I don't feel really bad for people that say things like "women destroy civilization" or "women are inherently worse at chess than men". I did, however, remove the cross-out as I wasn't aware he actually does like pigeons rather than picking a name because it sounds cool. 19:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)