|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 28 2017 21:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 17:37 Acrofales wrote:
Oh wow. This thread really spent two pages fighting over the false dichotomy instead of discussing the underlying issues? Ok. Have fun with this:
GH AND Danglars BOTH have to answer.
Fuck, kill, marry:
Stalin, Hitler, Al Baghdadi.
Go! It's this thread's red scare. You don't answer a dishonest question or defend free speech rights too hard, and three or four leftists think you harbor sympathies for nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK. And then it's framed that you refuse to answer. Pathetic. It's like my turn to be thread whipping boy (as previously designated for the 'vermin' moment).
I think GreenHorizons' question was pointless, but this characterisation of his reasons is inaccurate; his perception that you appear to be considerably less eager to defend the rights (such as free speech) of people of colour, etc. is a major factor in his assessment of your motivations.
|
On August 28 2017 22:00 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 21:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 17:37 Acrofales wrote:
Oh wow. This thread really spent two pages fighting over the false dichotomy instead of discussing the underlying issues? Ok. Have fun with this:
GH AND Danglars BOTH have to answer.
Fuck, kill, marry:
Stalin, Hitler, Al Baghdadi.
Go! It's this thread's red scare. You don't answer a dishonest question or defend free speech rights too hard, and three or four leftists think you harbor sympathies for nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK. And then it's framed that you refuse to answer. Pathetic. It's like my turn to be thread whipping boy (as previously designated for the 'vermin' moment). I think GreenHorizons' question was pointless, but this characterisation of his reasons is inaccurate; his perception that you appear to be considerably less eager to defend the rights (such as free speech) of people of colour, etc. is a major factor in his assessment of your motivations.
GH's question wasn't "do you like nazis" btw, in case the thread needs a reminder.
|
On August 28 2017 22:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:00 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 21:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 17:37 Acrofales wrote:
Oh wow. This thread really spent two pages fighting over the false dichotomy instead of discussing the underlying issues? Ok. Have fun with this:
GH AND Danglars BOTH have to answer.
Fuck, kill, marry:
Stalin, Hitler, Al Baghdadi.
Go! It's this thread's red scare. You don't answer a dishonest question or defend free speech rights too hard, and three or four leftists think you harbor sympathies for nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK. And then it's framed that you refuse to answer. Pathetic. It's like my turn to be thread whipping boy (as previously designated for the 'vermin' moment). I think GreenHorizons' question was pointless, but this characterisation of his reasons is inaccurate; his perception that you appear to be considerably less eager to defend the rights (such as free speech) of people of colour, etc. is a major factor in his assessment of your motivations. GH's question wasn't "do you like nazis" btw, in case the thread needs a reminder.
Right, he said
It's completely and wholly disgusting to me at this point that you all keep doing this and keep pretending it's about their "rights". This has nothing to do with Nazi's constitutional rights and we shouldn't keep pretending that it is.
and my posts
represent some of the most despicable parts of the country
When I point out that his favored groups (false equivalence to other groups claiming oppression of their civil rights) didn't have problems with others even saying they had those rights, he jumps to demanding I pick between BLM and Nazis. It's an exercise in poisoning the debate and deflecting.
On August 28 2017 22:00 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 21:46 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 17:37 Acrofales wrote:
Oh wow. This thread really spent two pages fighting over the false dichotomy instead of discussing the underlying issues? Ok. Have fun with this:
GH AND Danglars BOTH have to answer.
Fuck, kill, marry:
Stalin, Hitler, Al Baghdadi.
Go! It's this thread's red scare. You don't answer a dishonest question or defend free speech rights too hard, and three or four leftists think you harbor sympathies for nazis, white supremacists, and the KKK. And then it's framed that you refuse to answer. Pathetic. It's like my turn to be thread whipping boy (as previously designated for the 'vermin' moment). I think GreenHorizons' question was pointless, but this characterisation of his reasons is inaccurate; his perception that you appear to be considerably less eager to defend the rights (such as free speech) of people of colour, etc. is a major factor in his assessment of your motivations.
I drew the distinction that people here presume people of colour have rights such as free speech but there's a vocal minority in this forum that think law abiding citizen's political beliefs mean they don't have rights such as free speech. GH himself thought it was Reddit memeworthy to defend all citizens rights. Himself and others asked bullshit questions alleging defending the rights of all meant you were a nazi sympathizer. I know the thread went fast and it was interspersed with hurricane talk, but that's the exchange and I'm thankful two or three saw through the stupidity.
|
It IS rather curious that you expend far more energy and time defending the rules of law and freedom of speech of regarding nazis and white supremists than against the rule of law and freedom of speech in anybody but those groups. Afterall, your response to the pardoning of Joe Arpachio was that it was a political bipartisan issue, as opposed to being riled up over the far more serious issue of the disregard of the rule of law.
|
On August 28 2017 22:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It IS rather curious that you expend far more energy and time defending the rules of law and freedom of speech of regarding nazis and white supremists than against the rule of law and freedom of speech in anybody but those groups. Afterall, your response to the pardoning of Joe Arpachio was that it was a political bipartisan issue, as opposed to being riled up over the far more serious issue of the disregard of the rule of law.
I said he was a clear example of trampling on civil liberties. I also responded to a post on "Anti-anti-Trumpers" (Oh golly gee, I wonder why they're not called Trump supporters ... maybe because we also oppose most of what Trump does. And then we still have our head screwed on straight to see when the criticism goes haywire into delusion territory) because people were talking about getting rid of pardon power.
|
I'm sorry Danglars but at this point I think it would be insulting for me to assume that you are arguing honestly. You are clearly smart enough that there's no way you can honestly argue GH's question is trying to tie you to nazis when he has written specifically that he acknowledges you have distanciated from them in the very formulation of his question (something you somehow didn't quote). I also had a chuckle at "framed that you refuse to answer", something that the evil leftists get to do thanks to your... clear and factual refusal to answer.
|
On August 28 2017 22:07 Danglars wrote:...
Himself and others asked bullshit questions alleging defending the rights of all meant you were a nazi sympathizer.
...
Possibly individual posts could have been read in this way (I'm not going to go back and check each and every one), but I'm fairly confident that the actual allegation was "claiming to defend the rights of all, but defending the rights of Nazis considerably more loudly than the rights of people of colour, makes you a Nazi sympathizer (EDIT: or at least more sympathetic to the Nazis than is reasonable)".
|
On August 28 2017 22:24 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:07 Danglars wrote:...
Himself and others asked bullshit questions alleging defending the rights of all meant you were a nazi sympathizer.
... Possibly individual posts could have been read in this way (I'm not going to go back and check each and every one), but I'm fairly confident that the actual allegation was "claiming to defend the rights of all, but defending the rights of Nazis considerably more loudly than the rights of people of colour, makes you a Nazi sympathizer (EDIT: or at least more sympathetic to the Nazis than is reasonable)".
Rather telling that you edited out of the quote my description of what happened beforehand. If you're fairly confidant of your interpretation, why snip out mine? A reasonable person might conclude you're not interested in seeing other's interpretations, but only asserting the primacy of your own.
|
On August 28 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:24 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 22:07 Danglars wrote:...
Himself and others asked bullshit questions alleging defending the rights of all meant you were a nazi sympathizer.
... Possibly individual posts could have been read in this way (I'm not going to go back and check each and every one), but I'm fairly confident that the actual allegation was "claiming to defend the rights of all, but defending the rights of Nazis considerably more loudly than the rights of people of colour, makes you a Nazi sympathizer (EDIT: or at least more sympathetic to the Nazis than is reasonable)". Rather telling that you edited out of the quote my description of what happened beforehand. If you're fairly confidant of your interpretation, why snip out mine? A reasonable person might conclude you're not interested in seeing other's interpretations, but only asserting the primacy of your own.
I didn't feel the need to discuss the rest of your post, and none of the rest of your post has any bearing on the fact that that sentence is misleading.
Taking cheap shots based on my decision to edit for clarity is not conducive to reasonable conversation.
|
On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one.
Unsurprisingly.
I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!".
I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here?
edit: as a footnote, i have nothing to gain by "defending" Danglars, we generally disagree on everything in politics.
|
On August 28 2017 22:40 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one. Unsurprisingly. I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!". I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here?
Can you source the statement that anybody called Danglars literally a Nazi?
|
On August 28 2017 22:41 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:40 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one. Unsurprisingly. I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!". I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here? Can you source the statement that anybody called Danglars literally a Nazi?
Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in?
Sidenote, no. I had to go through dozens of postings of Danglars yesterday to check if he actually answered the question that you guys are asking already. But, if it makes you feel better, i retract that: let's phrase it this way.
Instead of literally calling him a Nazi, lets say constantly implying that he is one. Now answer the rest of the posting please.
|
On August 28 2017 22:49 m4ini wrote:
Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in?
Moving my edit here. The reason I asked is that I think the statements being made changed somewhat less over time than what you implied.
Yes, whether that happened or not, a lot of this discussion has been shit-stirring for no good purpose IMO, and GreenHorizons (possibly et al.) did the majority of the stirring. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is unworthy of this thread. Nevertheless, the point that defending civil rights and free speech can be used as a smokescreen for defending Nazis much more vocally than people of colour is a valid one.
|
On August 28 2017 10:25 Plansix wrote:
I'm 99% sure you're not supported to do that.
That's some pretty significant news. That guy Felix Sater is a shady character...and involved with Russian organized crime, which Trump must have known.
|
Playing devil’s advocate 100% of the time can make people wonder if you are just the devil’s advocate.
|
On August 28 2017 22:51 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:49 m4ini wrote:
Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in?
Moving my edit here. The reason I asked is that I think the statements being made changed somewhat less over time than what you implied. Yes, whether that happened or not, a lot of this discussion has been shit-stirring for no good purpose IMO, and GreenHorizons (possibly et al.) did the majority of the stirring. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is unworthy of this thread. Nevertheless, the point that defending civil rights and free speech can be used as a smokescreen for defending Nazis much more vocally than people of colour is a valid one.
i think the context is pretty important though, in that while virtuously protecting free speech for all, GHs concern is that maybe not everyone went as far to defend black peoples' free speech. thus the (on its face) absurd choice.
this is pretty apparent in the year old posts decrying BLM as a mass of criminals in the wake of the baltimore riots. whereas these nazis 'only have a few bad eggs.' etc. (not actually quoting anyone here, it's just an idiom)
i mean long story short we're willing to afford nazis more latitude in protesting than we are black people. if a black protest went down with guns and as much 'non violence' (/s)we wouldn't sit here defending their rights as vigorously.
and i don't intend to be a hypocrite here, i ignorantly pondered whether the nazi protest deserved any civil rights. i'm not trying to pretend i'm on some kind of high ground here.
|
On August 28 2017 22:49 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 22:40 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one. Unsurprisingly. I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!". I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here? Can you source the statement that anybody called Danglars literally a Nazi? Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in? Sidenote, no. I had to go through dozens of postings of Danglars yesterday to check if he actually answered the question that you guys are asking already. But, if it makes you feel better, i retract that: let's phrase it this way. Instead of literally calling him a Nazi, lets say constantly implying that he is one. Now answer the rest of the posting please.
Your post talks about a context of toxicity that is objectively there and justifies Danglars' refusal to answer and transforms the rather benign question that GH is now asking him into a witch hunt. It is perfectly valid to ask you to source the existence of that context, especially if you're going to change your claim from factual to implied after a single post. It puts into question the objectivity of the criticism that you offered.
|
On August 28 2017 22:58 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:51 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 22:49 m4ini wrote:
Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in?
Moving my edit here. The reason I asked is that I think the statements being made changed somewhat less over time than what you implied. Yes, whether that happened or not, a lot of this discussion has been shit-stirring for no good purpose IMO, and GreenHorizons (possibly et al.) did the majority of the stirring. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is unworthy of this thread. Nevertheless, the point that defending civil rights and free speech can be used as a smokescreen for defending Nazis much more vocally than people of colour is a valid one. i think the context is pretty important though, in that while virtuously protecting free speech for all, GHs concern is that maybe not everyone went as far to defend black peoples' free speech. thus the (on its face) absurd choice. this is pretty apparent in the year old posts decrying BLM as a mass of criminals in the wake of the baltimore riots. whereas these nazis 'only have a few bad eggs.' etc. (not actually quoting anyone here, it's just an idiom) i mean long story short we're willing to afford nazis more latitude in protesting than we are black people. if a black protest went down with guns and as much 'non violence' (/s)we wouldn't sit here defending their rights as vigorously. and i don't intend to be a hypocrite here, i ignorantly pondered whether the nazi protest deserved any civil rights. i'm not trying to pretend i'm on some kind of high ground here.
Yes we would? There were literally people in this thread arguing that looting and burning down parts of the city, and generally instating mob justice was a legitimate form of protest in the wake of Fergusson (the major complaint from those posters was that the looting didn't target the white owned stores better).
|
On August 28 2017 22:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:49 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 22:41 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 22:40 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one. Unsurprisingly. I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!". I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here? Can you source the statement that anybody called Danglars literally a Nazi? Can you explain why this is the part you take offense in? Sidenote, no. I had to go through dozens of postings of Danglars yesterday to check if he actually answered the question that you guys are asking already. But, if it makes you feel better, i retract that: let's phrase it this way. Instead of literally calling him a Nazi, lets say constantly implying that he is one. Now answer the rest of the posting please. Your post talks about a context of toxicity that is objectively there and justifies Danglars' refusal to answer and transforms the rather benign question that GH is now asking him into a witch hunt. It is perfectly valid to ask you to source the existence of that context, especially if you're going to change your claim from factual to implied after a single post. It puts into question the objectivity of the criticism that you offered.
So the "well see, if you are against BLM, you must be for Nazis", the "well he might be a white supremacist" and the "well you defend X way louder than Y tho!!!" is not enough to warrant criticism in regards to toxicity?
How about we throw in the wifebeater statement of GH (which i actually missed), are we there yet, or can we agree that this turned into a witch hunt for no other reason than people disagreeing with Danglars views (and to be clear, he answered "the question" multiple times)?
|
On August 28 2017 22:40 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 21:39 Danglars wrote:On August 28 2017 13:40 m4ini wrote:
Actually that's untrue. That's not what you're asking at all.
I know for a fact that Danglars made it clear before that he doesn't sympathise with Nazis. That's not the question you're asking though. At least not on the last few pages. You're trying to force him to chose sides. If you wanted to know if he's a Nazi, ask:
Danglars, do you like Nazis? Are you a Nazi?
That's something that should be very easy to answer (again, it's not what you're asking). Danglars? I don't like Nazis. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the I'm not a Nazi and never have been one. Unsurprisingly. I do find it wondrous though, what is this "witch hunt" supposed to accomplish? We went from "he's literally a Nazi!" to "well maybe he's a white supremacist!" to now "well you defend the freedom of speech of Nazis louder than BLMs freedom of speech!". I can't be the only one objective enough to see how toxic "the left" (btw, not my left™) acts here? edit: as a footnote, i have nothing to gain by "defending" Danglars, we generally disagree on everything in politics.
This goes way further than a few pages to be honest. And asking or implying he is a white supremacist (or white nationalist if you prefer to call your diet coke a zero coke) is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion i do agree. His argument is pointless because he seems unable to understand why segments of the population might feel that genocide sympathizers shouldn't be treated as equal citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
