Serious Riots/protests Across The Country

NOTE: If you don't live in the U.S. or simply don't care about the U.S., this post may not be for you. Also yes, I am back. Also I don't remember if this would be against the rules, so if it is I will delete this ASAP. I realize I will be getting many different viewpoints and most likely some hate, but what am I supposed to do.

Okay, lets get to the point.

There are protests across the nation. From California to Florida to New York, these protests are getting tense.

And that ain't good.

To start off, this will include some of my opinions, so don't say I am "biased" or anything. These are just my opinions. But other then that then well, I don't know what to say to you. Just, protests, protests, protests. If anything, I am sure many people- Democrat or Republican- or getting tired of these. We get the message from these marches- you hate Trump. Sure, maybe more specific issues like feminism and immigration. But I mean, come on, a lot of these marches and protests are targeted towards President Donald Trump. Now, I am not saying people don't have the right to do this, everyone is perfectly allowed to express their opinions. But when opinions come, people will have their opinion.

So, lets talk about the protests.

Fires, smoke, yelling, and signs. That'd be my quick definition of the protests. In many peoples eyes, these protests are good. In many peoples eyes, these protests are wrong. My view? Mixed.

The fact is, people have the right to protest while many of these protests just don't seem to make much sense. One example is burning the American flag. Many people decide to burn the American Flag.

Why?

I mean, when it comes to that and the constitution, then that is a whole different story. But in general, its just flat out wrong. Many of these people who don't like Trump is because they don't think he is right for America which, even though I'd argue about it and such, is okay, it just doesn't make sense to then burn the American flag. Donald Trump isn't going to be the last president. Its not like America is now Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. In other words, many of these people are acting like Trump is fascist when obviously he is not. Not only that but if they hate America where they'd want to burn the flag, why live here? We'd be fine seeing you move to Australia or Canada like what many liberals *cough* Amy Schumer *cough* said, as long as you don't ruin our country or whatever country you are moving to.

Then comes looting and vandalism.

Whenever there are these protests and riots, looting and vandalism surely aren't rare. But no matter what, why would you do it? Its the same question asked earlier but its one needed to be answered. Like, what is the point? Do you think congress will act to impeach Donald Trump or Trump will resign just because you simply destroyed a window at Starbucks or Bank of America? Now, that brings me to this next point, which is that many of these stores, restaurants, banks, etc. that are being destroyed are ones that supported Hillary Clinton. For example, Starbucks. CEO Howard Schultz had literally endorsed Clinton during the election, and yet some liberals still decide to smash windows. Bank of America gave more money to Hillary Clinton than it had to Donald Trump.



So in conclusion, these protests can happen but can't happen. Its confusing. Also, I am not assuming these are the only protests going on, there are many peaceful protests out there. Other then that, I didn't say much here, that is for sure. But I think I proved some well points. Reply what you think, I'd be happy to hear. Just don't do it in a violent manner. Thank you for reading, and yes I am back. Don't know why, since I don't do much here.

 

Never believe people who say to you that hate only comes from a certain demographic of people, those are identitarians.

The moment you start to argue in this fashion :

​

You lose your grip on reality and you omit political violence such as the riots of Berkeley, Trump supporters being beaten, punched, and aggravated :

Spoiler

, , .

After Richard Spencer got sucker punched by a guy that claimed "he's a nazi", all the crazies put themselves on a high horse and asserted that political violence is SOMETIMES justified. Hell, I even know people that I argued with that would punch me just because I "defended a nazi".

The very instant you start to make justifications for violent reactions to words and ideas is the moment you lose any defence against violence being iniatiated against YOU for YOUR ideas.

 

Ah look some good old patriotism. Firstly, "its just flat out wrong" - wat. "just doesn't make sense to then burn the American flag" - wat. I think you completely miss the point, they are showing that they don't support a country which is going to be led by an utter twat. And what's the problem with burning a flag you bought yourself? Don't tell me that's actually illegal or something? It's a bloody flag, who's emotions are you hurting, the founding fathers? Secondly "people are acting like Trump is fascist when obviously he is not" - yeah, no. Trump is pretty close, let's compare to the dictionary meaning - " A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.". Capitalist, excessively nationalist and mildly racist, yep. Not quite there but close.

The entire point of these protests is for them to be "tense" no? If protests are a problem they will have to be dealt with somehow, the ultimate solution being the removal of Trump.

Why in hell would you defend a Nazi. If you really did, with all due respect, screw you. Such stupid liberal views of everyone being entitled to their own views no matter what are so tiring. Certain opinions deserve a "sucker punch", that's a fact. The alt-right as they prefer to be known are hands down Nazis and should not be allowed to exist as a party. How can you bring yourself to such the point of being a liberal so much so that you defend people who want the genocide of non-whites. God the way you wrote that is making me cringe, "claimed" - are you actually suggesting that these people aren't Nazis. Y'know I'll give you that, they aren't Nazis, they are Neo-Nazis. Just as bad, here's some evidence that he plans to be the next Hitler. That article proves that point well if you would care to read through it. Racism is not free speech, racism is racism, along with anti-antisemitism and the general idea of white-supremacy. As I said before, these are not opinions you have, being racist is ignoring the facts and is well deserving of a punch. I'll stay on my "high horse" if being on the ground means being a supporter of racists, thanks.

Also Sally Kohn is known to be a generally stupid person, so I'll just ignore the fact you used a tweet of her's to support your point.

 

Nice arguments you're proposing, very based in reason and not emotion, really shines on your character.

People are entitled to what they believe, yes, what the fuck are you proposing, thought crimes ? Who would enforce that ? By what standards ? By what method ?

Your subjective reaction based on an emotion isn't a fact.

The alt-right exists solely as a counter culture to the authoritian left, it has a nugget of white nationnalism for certain individuals, while some ahbor the label just to piss off people.
You fail to give an accurate definition of the alt-right, a movement that isn't homogenous, without any guidelines and you expect me togive you the green light to punch somebody based on your feelings ?

Nevermind the fact that you're saying certain political parties should be forbidden.

In France, we used to have a far right party with a leader that was openly anti jew, anti gay, and all this shit. Now, the leader has changed positions, and the new one has started a campaign by claiming "The mainstream media doesn't allow us a voice, everybody else hates us for no reason, some even want to ban us!"

Don't play into their hands and censor them, this won't defeat their ideas, and worse than that, it will only further any victimhood narrative they will be pushing in the future.

First off : Quote me Spencer saying we should genocide the non-whites. At least have some basis in your claims. Got it ? Good.
I'll brush aside the fact that you're defining my political leanings without knowing me personnaly and my position on most things, but that's okay, it's not important.

I bring myself to defend people expressing their opinions based on the golden rule : A functionning society cannot allow people that feel justified in their beliefs to punch their political "opponents". This is grounds for either anarchy and bloodshed, or totalitarianism and rampant censorship.

Here is one fact you're missing : Not everybody will agree with you, not everybody will have the same definitions as you, and not everybody will think with the same strength as you. Knowing this, and because your entire reasonning is based on feelings and not logic, it makes it 100% subjective, so subjective in fact, that if you apply this SAME reasonning to nazis, they're justified by YOUR "logic" to threaten you with bodily harm.

Simple : "Nazi" as a term has lost all of its meaning thanks to the culture of outrage that is ruling the authoritarian left.
Recently, I've seen people that fall under the left side of the political debate being called "nazis" because they didn't subscribe to a certain ideology, that being transgender kids, white privilege, and feminism.
By your "logic", if these people are called nazis and are being punched as a result, that would be justified, right ? Or would you be honest enough to say that there is a flaw in how people might perceive opinions of others ?

This is precisely why because I'm so strongly against the death penalty : Humans are failible, and we can't excuse bodily harm done to innocent people, even to a "greater good".

They're just as bad in the sense that their ideology is putrid, I would agree with that. Not harmful, badly informed, yes.

I watched that video, and while I was apalled at this display of identity politics, it certainly isn't evidence of any plans of his, you're trying to judge intent. And you're going to fail, because you can't judge intent.

Are you that unable to defeat this with your rationnale by yourself or do you need to result to petty violence as a response ? This is childish and unbecoming of somebody that aspires to live in a coherent and thoughtful society.

That article doesn't prove anything, the video is evidence enough of his opinions.
This article is just a summary of what the video actually captured. Do you get your opinions spoon fed to you as well or do you actually do some research before spewing this as "evidence" of the fourth Reich coming to your town ? That's a pathetic excuse for a reasonning, yet again.

Racism is an opinion and can be a form of speech.
Free Speech is the concept that speech should not be restricted by any means.

This is as retarded as to say "Cars are not highways, cars are cars"

Racism, whether you like it or not, is speech and an opinion. One that you don't like (and frankly, I don't blame you) but that exists nonetheless.

By this logic, I could say that believing in winged horses or in a deity is not an opinion.
You're losing your grip on reality at a rate that is fascinating : Whether you like it OR NOT (get that through your skull, because the world doesn't revolve around your ideas), opinions can be distinct from facts, but that doesn't mean that they stop being opinions. Really feels like I'm talking to an ideological wall at this point, honestly.

Your subjective opinions on what "constitutes" a punch shouldn't be legislated and I hope people like you never get to write laws.
You'd make a fine totalitarian if you keep trying.

It's honestly hard to not insult you at this point. I'm a "supporter of racists" because I acknowledge that they are people that have INALIENABLE RIGHTS just like EVERY other human on the planet.

They are people. They have the right to body integrity. They have the right of assembly, and they even have the right to voice their opinions publicly without you assaulting them for it, sorry to say.

You seem to think that they're lesser humans for believing in an outdated and frankly, disgusting ideology, yet you still think you're on a the moral high ground while ignoring their inalienable rights protected by the constitution and the united nations.
The lack of self awareness is staggering to me.

I'll leave you on some words coming from a person I admire that hopefully will smash some retrospect in that cranium.

Source​

 

@IllusionarySpy, I know we certainly disagree on a lot of things, but I have to agree with you here. Free speech is free speech, except for when its intention is to purposefully cause chaos and harm (look up Schenck vs USA before arguing with me about this, but that's not the point).

You can be a horrible racist, your speech is still protected.
You can spew nonsense about white genocide or some shit, your speech is still protected.
You can burn an American flag, your speech is still protected.
You can call the president an idiot and a tyrant, your speech is still protected.

It is one of our country's inalienable rights to be able to do so.

Assault and destruction of property is not free speech, but that is what happens when violent anarchists decide to mix in with innocent protesters. Legally, you can not attack someone, even if they are a white supremacist (morally - I may be willing to look the other way, again, not the point) and you can't smash in windows. I don't know what these people are trying to accomplish, but it certainly isn't helping our cause.

 

I don't think we even disagree on a lot of things, I'm still falling pretty in the middle between left and far left. It's just easier to point out the crazy shit in your own camp because then you're able to "clean your ranks", so to speak.

I'm in favour of an universal salary, healthcare, abortions when needed, gay marriage (fucking duh), gay adoption, staunchly against the evils of corporations that fuck their customers over, I'd force business owners to respect stuff like anti discrimination laws, and I don't understand nationnalism/don't mind about migrants that come legally. No I'm pretty left.

Limits to free speech has always been a very touchy subject for me, because I can see the slippery slopes that come with it, ranging from legal repercussions to social repercussions.

People always cite to me "Well Free Speech shouldn't free because threats and yelling "FIRE" in a theater is a dangerous idea"
But this argument fails.
It fails because it conflates the definition of "speech" as in "words spoken that have a meaning to them" with "opinions/ideas".

And with that also, you get the issue of jokes, which I don't agree should be filed under "hate speech" (whatever that means), no matter the joke.
Not even this amazing banter from pewdiepie recently, which was pretty funny tbh.

I'm pretty sure most countries have laws against this, which is basically the same as letting somebody die or harming themselves.
Not to even add how wrong it is to put a "filter" of people you're going to save (if their lives are indeed in danger, which they might as well be, with how brutal some beat down can be).

 

I was kinda joking about that part- of course assault is wrong, no matter the person. I don't have to like them.

Exactly.
Hence, why the Schenck decision is certainly constitutional.

 

I also wanted to respond to the points that you make above to the OP, since I believe they prove you manifest either blatant hypocrisy or wear ideological blindfolds.

I don't know why the condescending tone in this, patriotism isn't necessarily evil or misplaced.

The point I believe he was trying to make would be more akin to this line of reasonning :

- A country's flag represents past history, shared connections, cultures, and people
- A country's governement at present isn't overlapping the entirety of what that country stands or stood for
- Therefore it is exaggerating to burn the flag itself instead of let's say a picture of the current leaders

But since we're dealing with symbolism, what people feel and interpret, I think it's useless to dwell on this question further. Nobody can prove intent.

The only problem I can see is that it's pissing certain people who share a "bond" with this flag off, but that's the most it can do.
That and possibly burning someone who sets it on fire like a total moron.

And here is the funny part to me. On one hand, you play this narrative of "Well fuck the feelings of patriots, they shouldn't dictate what I can do".
And on the other...

"They're not opinions okay, being racist is SO BAD THAT YOU DESERVE A PUNCH HOW DARE YOU"

You can't just alternate between these two attitudes of not giving a fuck about feelings and being an emotionnal savage on the other. Pick one or live with your blindfolds on.

Coming from the person advocating we punch people if they disagree with you politically, and even suppress the democratic process as well, I find this particularly rich and bitter.

> Capitalist
I don't know where you fucking live but even China has elements of capitalism to it. And it's not even like Trump isn't in favour of regulations to protect the economy of the US (Referring to TPP mainly). But then again, you stopped being objective eons ago, so that's not surprising you would worry more about capitalism than actual acts of violence that even Brain Dead Joe can condemn.
Trump isn't for a completely unregulated market, he's not a right wing libertarian.

> Excessively nationnalist
I also like how you put the "excessively" there, just for good measure. Trump is a republican President, and you're surprised he's going to take an interest in his country's problems ? That's what he campaigned for and was elected for. That's why we have the Senate and Congress totally red now, for fuck's sake.

> Midly racist
Of course you needed another vapid, buzzword term to close this. Racist ? Not even citing anything anymore, are we ? What am I supposed to do when you assert shit without providing any source ?

If I wanted evidence that you completely lost this world and went to take refuge into your own universe, this would be it.
The President, Trump, was democraticaly elected, and you think some protests and a bit of riots will impeach him or he will resign.
But let's say he does. Let's say tomorrow he resigns. What do you have ?
President Mike Pence. But let's say he resigns too. What next ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

You're basically going to go through fucking 7 different layers of red there (going as amazing as Betsy DeVos), I doubt that's what you want.

Your most reasonnable position would be to wish Trump success for America, not to try and weasel your way out of a democratic election.

 

Your arugment is pure ideology, that's a fact. You have no solid detail to back up those ideals, so what better of a way to fight ideology than with fact? Let's look at a case study, Nazi Germany. After failing at a violent takeover Hitler decided to gain power through the democratic system. The Nazis did poorly initially due to the current government being effective enough, they were dismissed as a small extremist party and allowed to carry on. And so they did, using their free speech to spread their bigoted views. When the wallstreet crash occured they surged in popularity and got a proper entry into the democratic system. Through various sneaky maneuvers Hitler became the Fuhrer, with one key feature of his rule being the poor treatment of Jews. Throughout his rise Hitler made it clear what he would do to the Jews, so surely the Jews could gave just not voted for Hitler, problem solved, no mistreatment. No, that brings me to the point of this case study, when the group that will be oppressed by a party is the minority, how will they protect themselves? You preach how everyone should be treated equally, but how will you ensure their equal treatment when they are the minority? The USA is preominantly white, the alt-right wants white power, if for some reason everyone white person voted for them the non-whites wouldnt be treated fairly. Maybe violence against the alt right is a bit far, ill give you that, but hate groups do not deserve free speech nor to exist as a party in the democratic system, due to the non negotiobale fact that in every country certain ethnic groups hold the most voting power.

Also just thought I'd point out how silly that quote at the bottom is "Revelling in the punching of a Nazi who's done nothing but think and speak nazi thoughts is not a better action than a Nazi revelling in your getting punched for merely thinking and speaking yours.". That is so incredibly ignorant stupid to say. A Nazi advocates the removing of ethnic minorities, and last time I checked Republicans nor conservatives, don't advocate the wiping of a race off the face of the Earth. That person you quoted seems to use the idea that "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" in a nutshell. If you're going to preach that ideal so much, you have to apply it to everything, another base of logic, it's all or nothing. If I'm not allowed to be against an ideal because I don't wish to die, then surely if Nazis wish to hurt others - they themselves should be prepared to be hurt. So until that person makes a decisive decision on it all being right or all being wrong - that point is invalid!

Also the final statement of that quote is so pathetic, "You will never be able to kill an idea". Oh how edgy, what a strong statement! Sure, I'll agree it's impossible to wipe out any idea whatsoever. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If everyone were to believe in such a cliche quote the world would be well fucked. If that statement was true maybe Truman would have just though "Oh yknow, whats the point of trying to work against racism in America, I'll never remove it entirely so what's the point!" - be it a made up example, it still illustrates my point. Continuing with racism in the USA, racism was never killed as an idea, but it was changed from being a standard trait of every white man, to a disgusting thing to be in today's society. I repeat myself - you can't kill an idea but you can make it taboo and disgusting.

 

We're arguing about ethics, there is no "fact" per say to back them up, we're arguing at which society would be better to prosper in, one who silences certain opinions VS one who allows them all to run around and be debunked.
If my argument is pure ideology, then what is yours ? You're advocating an active and VIOLENT stance against people who don't agree with you ? That is purely ideological in principle.

You can't possibly be serious.

"Let's look at a "case study" that happened once, isn't replicable, was born out of a specific era specific to a culture and mindset prevalent in those times"
Are you honestly comparing a post war Germany to the divided United States of America ?

The US has a constitution, which legislates a legal branch that isn't at the whim of the President, a Supreme Court, the House of Representative.
The powers are separate and will remain as such. You have no way of proving that this will actually happen in a distant future.

You're actually seriously implying that white nationnalists and actual neo nazis will be in power soon without certainty, this is my key problem with your reasonning. You're using fear mongering as an excuse to silence a minority's free speech.

And whether you like it or not, racism is not a fucking majority viewpoint in the US, and the KKK has less influence than ever still.
Just look at the massive uproar that happens when Trump says he's going to restrict travel from 7 countries. Pure shit show and everybody was outrage. I still have YET to find a single person that agrees with it. You're clearly blowing this out of proportion with your shitty false equivalence.

​

You're saying to me right now "But Spu, look, clearly neo nazis and white nationnalists will soon be a majority in ALL of these seats, right ? That's totally a thing that can happen BECAUSE GERMANY."
You're not even ideological, you're paranoid.

It's not a "bit far", it is morally, socially, and legally reprehensible, and justifying violence in any way is a bankrupt of honesty.
I would be as outraged as if it was a communist that was beaten up for believing in Marx' ideas.

See my bit above about the divided powers in the US that exists in almost all western world countries.

Who defines "hate group" ? Who defines who's part of a hate group ? I don't think you listened to what I quoted last night, but I'll post it again so that my point is immaculate.

I don't think I'll be able to make this clearer :

-Everybody hates nazi ideology, unless you're a nazi
-The mainstream opinions shouldn't be the default opinion and shouldn't be the only one
-Mainstream opinions sometimes switch due to subjective perceptions

As I said again, by your own standards, if you legitimize violence and silencing other people because you "deem them dangerous", who's to stop somebody for saying the same shit to you and have everybody else agree with them ?
What about people who get mislabelled ? Are you still going to advocate silencing them because you think they might be a nazi ?

 

Racism was not a majority viewpoint in Germany post WW1 either, but when the times get tough people are desperate for someone to blame - that's human nature, the ultimate barrier. This isn't just one case, it's a fairly recent trend, with extremist parties becoming increasingly common across Europe as a result of the refugee crisis. You don't get the point do you? It's the possibility that counts - must I repeat myself? The Nazis didn't look like they were going to get into power, but they sure did. You can't allow any risks in anything volatile - be it nuclear reactors, spaceships, or human society. ""deem them dangerous", who's to stop somebody for saying the same shit to you and have everybody else agree with them ?" - i dunno - maybe the fact that I don't advocate dangerous ideas such as white power.

You can also stop desperately looking for points to fault me on thanks - "What about people who get mislabelled ? Are you still going to advocate silencing them because you think they might be a nazi ?". Not getting baited into your false claims.

 

Hate speech is illegal until it causes physical harm to someone, so until you see the Alt-Right literally campaign to kill everyone else, it's going to keep existing.
If you don't like their views, the best thing Americans can do is not fucking vote for one next election.

 

The possibility enough isn't grounds to justify sullying the first amendement or what the Enlightenement brought to Western Civilization.
What separates us from dictatorships is precisely censorship and autoritharianism.

You're failing again to put yourself in the shoes of others, that's precisely my point. You deem them dangerous because of their ideas. That you can do.

But what they can also do (and I feel like it's been said like 3 times already), is deem you dangerous SOLELY based on your ideas and have you censored because of wrongthink. Take in fucking mind that I'm not saying acts, but ideas. You don't need to do harm to speak your mind, and you can't certainly defend yourself by saying "Well I don't believe that!".

How do you prove somebody doesn't believe that ?

Let's say I accuse you of being a nazi with a burning hatred of jews.
What's your rebuttal ? "I don't believe that". Well who's to say you're not lying for covering your ass ? Let's grab a pitchfork, we'll ask questions later.

​

I'm not even trying to bait you, I'm asking simple questions, and your failure to answer is quite telling : How do you, after legitimizing censorship, defend people who might be mislabelled and censored by mistake under your system ?

This is the problem I'm talking about : Legitimize censorship and/or violence for certain ideas, and you're left with a very vague notion of hate speech that is more often than not left up to individual (and subjective) interpretation.

 

And since I noticed you added some stuff after you posted, I'd have a go at it :

You're completely missing the point, yet again :

• Vernaculis advocates that if you're willing to initiate violence and censorship, you must be willing to also submit if the violence is turned against you.
• You're conflating the state of "being against an idea" or hold one, and "hurt others". In your quote, you state that :

If I'm not allowed to be against an idea(l)​

because I don't wish to die ,​

then if Nazis want to hurt others,​

they should be prepared to be hurt.​

It is possible for a nazi to not hurt anybody.
Just because somebody holds a hateful ideology doesn't mean they enact violence by default.
It is possible for somebody to be against an idea, yet still discuss with people holding different opinions.​

I'm glad you agree with the edge of reality.

Then try defeating it with your speech, words, and ideas.
Don't tilt at windmills and censor people who hold no power in this society with threats of bodily harm or party disbandements, it never helps and only fuels their victim narrative. That's only what I'm advocating.

"You will never be able to kill an idea" isn't a defeatist statement, he used it to retort back at the people who seem to think neo-nazis aren't deserving of their inalienable human rights. He's not claiming "Oh well what's the use in debating neonazis anyways they're silly".

When you place it back in context, you can clearly see that some people think punching people and threatening their lives is what he meant by "killing an idea". You may scare the people, punch them, kill them if you will, but the idea will live on.

I don't know what world you're living in, but I don't believe neonazis and white nationnalists get any treatement of sympathy from anybody here.
Not even me to be honest. I only defend their right to exist peacefully.

 

Oh crap what did I start

________________________________

And I am getting this from a guy who has Joseph Stalin in his profile picture? I am not saying you can't put him there, its the matter that you are telling me all of this "fascism" stuff yet you have Stalin in your pic.

 

​

 

Ahh, that quote from Churchill. He always got our backs.

 

Wow that is horrible art. It looks like everyone is shitting around burning stuff.

________________________________

He's actually (sort of) against free trade. One of the first things he's done as a president was take down the TPP, and he's talked about removing or renegotiating NAFTA, if I remember correctly.

That is Orwellian as fuck

________________________________

I think that's the number one reason everyone is at each other's throats. For example, with climate change, right wingers can say that all the studies supporting it are being done by scientists corrupted by the solar industry and whatnot, and lefties can say the arguments against it are being payed for by the oil industry. And it also affects everything else in politics. For example, the travel ban is hated by the left because they think it goes against American ideals, while republicans think it protects Americans from people who don't support those ideals. Because of that, both sides end up accusing each other of intentionally trying to "destroy america", while believing they themselves are protecting it

 

I'd refer to that picture as anarchism rather than fascism, but they are 2 sides of the same coin.

________________________________

Churchill was one of the worst leaders of all time in my books

 

Really? If I remember right, Anarchism is the complete breakdown of rules and societal norms, while fascism is the absence of free speech and thought, as well as the ability for an individual to choose. Those seem like opposites.

________________________________

fuck you, he believed in aliens