Bring Back Trash and Miguel Bain?

Trash and Miguel Bain, former commenters who were banned for a variety of reasons, mostly for being disruptive and not getting along with other commenters, have returned.

I am willing to give both of these guys a second chance if they promise to be good boys. If they can’t promise that they’re not coming back.

Since you all sort of run this blog in a way according to my philosophy of radical democracy, I will throw this out to the other commenters. If you all want these guys back, I will bring them back. If you don’t, I won’t. You can either say your opinion here or you can email me with your opinion.

Neither of these guys has ever given me a nickel, and I don’t expect them to this time around either. A leopard doesn’t change its spots. On the other hand, they both use up a lot of comment space. This was the problem with Trash. I spent so much time reading his comments that I barely had time for anything else. And he wasn’t paying me for my time.

I think I am going to limit Miguel to three comments a day. With Trash, I am thinking of imposing a similar limit (3 comments a day) with him. I don’t mind having these guys back, especially Trash. He is intelligent and entertaining and he’s very smart. Also he fits in with this site here because Trash is absolutely Alt Left whether he recognizes it or not.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

10 thoughts on “Bring Back Trash and Miguel Bain?”

  1. Man, that’s been a long time since those people have been allowed back. Without going into any details, did they give you any feasible reasons for wanting to be let back now? You don’t have any obligation to rehash the reasons for them being tossed.

    1. No, they didn’t. Miguel said he was going to be good. Not sure if Trash agreed to that too.

      So I should have both of these guys petition me by email to be let back in? Ok, I’m cool with that. They have too submit applications to me about why they should be let back in, and I will either approve or disapprove. Yeah they have to apply. That’s how it’s been for everyone else.

    2. I’ll bring them back as an experiment, but if they start driving commenters away, they will have to be banned. They were both driving away all the other commenters. The more those guys posted, the less everyone else commented.

      Anyone else who has an opinion one way or the other about these guys, feel free to comment.

    1. And I did comment on other sites. But they did not have the intellectualism of Robert Lindsey’s site.

      That’s one thing I love about this site. The content and commenters are both quite intellectual, often in surprising ways that you just don’t see anywhere else. For instance, commenters’ general views on race here are not found in many other places. We seemed to have moved beyond that dichotomy between the insanity and stupidity of modern antiracism and the truly ugly open racism that is often opposed to it. There is a third position, and that is the Republican position, but that’s retarded too.

      The real problem is the racism of the Democrat Party! Blacks are failing because they are on the Democrat plantation! Democrat Party run cities are the cause of all Black peoples’ problems.

      WTF. It’s not modern antiracism at all and it’s not open ugly racism either. It’s just some retardation in between that doesn’t illuminate much of anything. But the line of modern antiracist insanity that the Republican position is some ugly Black-hating racism is not justified. On the other hand, if one is Black, I would not say that the Republican Party is on your team. The massive voter suppression of Blacks alone should make the Republican position obvious. It’s not that Republicans don’t want Blacks voting – if Blacks voted just like White people, there would be no voter suppression in this country. Republicans suppress Black votes because Black people vote 90% Democratic. If they voted 90% Republican instead, you think the Republicans would suppress them?

      It’s different from Jim Crow Black vote suppression. That was to keep Blacks from representing politicians who would forward the interest of Blacks, presumably at the expense of Whites. Also if Blacks were allowed to vote, a lot of them would vote to dismantle Jim Crow and US Southern Whites were deeply invested in segregation for all sorts of reasons. on the other hand, Southern Whites did not suppress Blacks simply due to the color of their skin, etc. It was due to Black behavior. If US Blacks acted like Norwegians or Japanese, there never would have been Jim Crow in the first place.

      Yes, Chinese were suppressed, but that was due to labor. The suppression of Chinese in the US was actually a leftwing position driven by labor unions. The bosses were bringing the Chinese in to break unions and neuter White workers’ demands for better work conditions. The Chinese were strikebreakers. Yes, Japanese were suppressed for several years, but that was due to a vicious war we were fighting with them.

      1. Jim Crow was based on a belief in the innate inferiority of Black people.

        Well-behaved Black people were not spared under Jim Crow. Well-behaved, successful Black people were often resented and hated more in the Jim Crow South, because they were a threat to the idea of innate White superiority.

        Sometimes attempts by Black people to better themselves were met with resentment and suppression in the Jim Crow South. Black people who sought to leave the South were resented for trying to get out. I heard of one case where a Black woman was eventually able to stay home and be a housewife and tried to quit her job as a domestic. Her employer lost it and demanded that she get back to work!

        The Jim Crow South wasn’t just about “bad Black behavior.” Those people needed Black people to be beneath them, for their own internal reasons.

      2. DEAR SIR

        Roosh V readers and even Roosh himself read this site. So I drifted there. But I was often called a “cuck” and “a shill”. The political and economic commentary was engaging, but there were too many Eliott Rodgers-furious young incels.

        I moved on to an Alt Right site. But here I was called a Leftwing Libertarian-and I’m not Libertarian. I was rather offended by that.

        When I pointed out the harm of neoliberal markets I was accused of being a shill and cuck and all the usual tedious Gen Z tags.

        For example, I posited that George Bush had bankrupted the country on an Alt-Right with 20 year wars for fun and profit in the ME. There appears to have been little of either.

        Back came the response from one Unz Poster “Do you realize how f***ing gay that sounds, boss?”

        Meanwhile, on RETURN OF KINGS, commentator’s wanted to tell me how “Alpha” they were and what a “Soyboy” I was.

        1. If you want to write more than 60 lines a day, you have to help support the site with a donation. You’ll never do that though, and I know. It’s ok though. You can’t really help your personality.

          We got rid of the mandatory donate clause.

    1. Ok folks, X is Miguel Bain. I’ll bring him back as an experiment, but if he starts driving away commenters again, it’s back to a ban I am afraid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)