|
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 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.
Any honest disagreement about politics is welcome, and I thank you. You show an interest into debating what I say and actually believe instead of what malicious insinuations you can put out there that 3-7 people might also support. I didn't really think I needed to state and restate my disagreement with what these groups believe to defend their right to believe and speak it, but here we are.
Pretty toxic environment. Silence dissent with insinuation, anyone? It's looking kinda clear from where I'm sitting.
|
On August 28 2017 23:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:59 Nebuchad wrote: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)?
You might need to define "witch hunt" a bit more specifically.
I think the discussion was a waste of time in that it was clear from the outset most people involved were in it to fling mud at each other rather than a rational discussion anybody (within or outside the conversation) might learn something from.
However, that does not mean that all of the arguments made had no merit.
|
In an effort to change the topic, I found this article to be surprising. It is a weird regulation to roll back and I never heard any complaints about it.
|
Do we agree that GH is spot on with the obvious observation that violence against POCs is permanentely downplayed, at times as their own fault, while as soon as someone looks at a white guy's hate speech with a little scrutiny and actually translates it to commong tongue, it's an attack on free speech that's preposterous?
The thread's majority opinion is that violence is bad, no matter where from and that the monopoly of violence shall continue to rest by the state/nation. Individual opinions where violent resistance against unethical movements like KKK and so forth may start differ.
danglars and xD scream out loud against violence towards whites while colouring everyday discirmination as remnants of times past and unimportant.
This, to me, is clearly in violation to their outrage displayed in the wake of Charlottesville and some users' comments about the (un)importance of a white supremascist's / Nazi's intact facial bone structure.
Why we have to answer the question of "who's worse" Nazi or BLM, is unlcear to me. The standpoint of the likes as danglars and xD is rather straightforward, isn't it? "As long as I'm not concerned, I'm not gonna give a damn."
BLM poses a threat to the status quo of white priviledge, thus the avoidance of naming them better than Nazis.
|
On August 28 2017 23:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:59 Nebuchad wrote: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)?
"Well see if you are against blm you must be for nazis" isn't close to what's happening. And to my knowledge Danglars still hasn't answered the question, I'm not sure what you're refering to. We have a very different vision of what's happening here.
|
On August 28 2017 23:15 Godwrath 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? 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. 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.
It goes back to the beginning when political positions were made clear. I personally don't see a difference between white nationalist and supremacist (in fact i genuinely asked if there's a difference a page or two back). But if asking/implying is irrelevant, what the fuck are you arguing for multiple pages now? Do i need to quote "the question" (that btw got rephrased multiple times)?
And yes, i do understand why people think Nazis should have less rights (rightfully so), i was born in a country where that is a matter of fact. What you don't seem to understand is that, in a country with rules like the US has them, this is simply impossible. And if it were gonna change, Nazis weren't the only ones on the chopping block.
As it stands, you're asking if people should lose rights for "thought crime". Again: yes, being a Nazi is despicable. No, being a Nazi is not a crime. In fact, not even in germany, and we have fucking strict rules for Nazis. All you could argue is a moral standpoint, which i certainly would share, but that's it.
"Well see if you are against blm you must be for nazis" isn't close to what's happening. And to my knowledge Danglars still hasn't answered the question, I'm not sure what you're refering to. We have a very different vision of what's happening here.
Yeah, clearly. Read the last few pages. In regards to "not answered the question", it changed multiple times (i can quote at least three different iterations from my head, so again, read the last few pages). Btw, the "well if you're against BLM you must me for Nazis" is literally what's happening.
It's probably just Danglars being Danglars, but his commitment to refusing to say that nazis are worse than BLM makes it look like he disagrees about nazis being worse than BLM but doesn't want to admit to it. That keeps the possibility open that he's a racist. He could easily settle this by making the declaration that nazis are worse than BLM. He doesn't.
|
The explanation is very simple and a staple of the current Republican movement.
Obama did it.
|
On August 28 2017 23:16 Danglars 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? edit: as a footnote, i have nothing to gain by "defending" Danglars, we generally disagree on everything in politics. Any honest disagreement about politics is welcome, and I thank you. You show an interest into debating what I say and actually believe instead of what malicious insinuations you can put out there that 3-7 people might also support. I didn't really think I needed to state and restate my disagreement with what these groups believe to defend their right to believe and speak it, but here we are. Pretty toxic environment. Silence dissent with insinuation, anyone? It's looking kinda clear from where I'm sitting.
Do you or do you not accept the following statement:
GreenHorizons' perception that you are more vocal in defending the rights of Nazis than those of people of colour is a factor in his assessment of your motivations for claiming that you are defending the rights of Nazis only out of a desire to protect everybody's consitutional rights on principle.
If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
|
If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
There lies the problem. I actually don't think that's possible, and i wouldn't exclude myself from that either.
I assume it's one of those "Obama did it, so get rid of it" moments. Of course, something objectively helpful being removed should not even be considered, regardless. It's a bit like germany would get rid of the Autobahn because it started under the Nazis. Or VW for that matter (and yes, there are those as well actually thinking that).
It's not a weird regulation to roll back, it's a retarded one.
|
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.
You remember wrong.
1) Danglars is not Trump, and actually condemned the one-sided violence (if I recall correctly). When the discussion moved on to more abstract matters surrounding the Charlotteville protests, he took the point of view that Antifa are also scum of the earth and weren't there to "peacefully" protests, just as the white supremacists weren't. They both came spoiling for a fight. But one side actually drove a car into a crowd, and that is just plain fucked up. (Danglars, feel free to object if I am not correctly representing your opinion on that)
2) People did argue that riots in Ferguson were both understandable and justified. Did Danglars argue that? No. But I don't see a contradiction in him condemning rioting in Ferguson and condemning violence in Charlotteville. So far, I see a guy who does not agree protesters should *ever* resort to violence, and that it is *never* justified. Moreover, I don't see a comparison in the degree of violence employed, nor do I think it is a very fruitful endeavour. I'm quite confident Danglars thinks murder is worse than rioting and looting, but if he feels like that, he can explain it himself. Further note: I definitely do not agree with the point of view that violence is never justified in protest. At some point, violence is justified in a form of cultural self-defense. I believe Ferguson rioters had reached that point, after systemic abuse by the local police.
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt.
|
On August 28 2017 23:32 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
There lies the problem. I actually don't think that's possible, and i wouldn't exclude myself from that either. ...
We can at least try.
|
edit: hmph, @acrofales
Well, you certainly speak better english than me. That's literally my thoughts, tried to put that down multiple times now and failed. Gonna refer to that one now.
We can at least try.
Of course, and we should. I'm just saying that it won't take long for the first banana to go brown, and from that point on everything would just spiral out of control again.
|
M4ini, the quote that you provided makes my point, not yours.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch?
Rather than:
- are you a witch?
- I don't like that you frame this as a refusal to answer.
|
On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 22:58 brian wrote: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. You remember wrong. 1) Danglars is not Trump, and actually condemned the one-sided violence (if I recall correctly). When the discussion moved on to more abstract matters surrounding the Charlotteville protests, he took the point of view that Antifa are also scum of the earth and weren't there to "peacefully" protests, just as the white supremacists weren't. They both came spoiling for a fight. But one side actually drove a car into a crowd, and that is just plain fucked up. (Danglars, feel free to object if I am not correctly representing your opinion on that) 2) People did argue that riots in Ferguson were both understandable and justified. Did Danglars argue that? No. But I don't see a contradiction in him condemning rioting in Ferguson and condemning violence in Charlotteville. So far, I see a guy who does not agree protesters should *ever* resort to violence, and that it is *never* justified. Moreover, I don't see a comparison in the degree of violence employed, nor do I think it is a very fruitful endeavour. I'm quite confident Danglars thinks murder is worse than rioting and looting, but if he feels like that, he can explain it himself. Further note: I definitely do not agree with the point of view that violence is never justified in protest. At some point, violence is justified in a form of cultural self-defense. I believe Ferguson rioters had reached that point, after systemic abuse by the local police. Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars. In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt.
i mean i think you pretty seriously misunderstood the nature of my post. specifically regarding the extent to which we'll defend the free speech of some more than others.
1) you've gone a bit to the extreme here. at no point did i insinuate danglars was giving everyone a free pass. as a matter of fact intentionally left my post as vague as possible, i don't like singling people out, especially the conservatives. (in an attempt to be honest, unless they're xD.) further more, in addition to not calling people out, i didn't attempt to insinuate that we failed to acknowledge some nazis as worse than others. this is all completely irrelevant to what i did say.
2) again i think you're just 'seeing past me' here. at no point did i try to insinuate anyone thinks violence is ok. perhaps my few bad eggs idiom led to this misunderstanding. i didn't mean to say anyone thinks violence is excusable. but rather in this instance we are seeing past the violence and acknowledging there are 'good' people in the crowd and their right to free speech must be defended. i don't think BLM was afforded this same amount of latitude. this could be argued no doubt.
either you just grossly misunderstood my post or just set up a large text of straw mans to knock down. most importantly i am not saying we need a witch hunt for anything. and i explicitly said we don't need to choose.
|
On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's.
If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it.
It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt.
With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance.
EDIT: Which is, I must emphasise, not a particularly productive thing to do. Faithfully relitigating any significant fraction of the last 5000 pages of thread would be completely impossible.
|
On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. Show nested quote +It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance.
Which brings us back to your point.
If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
For the record, witch hunts generally go:
- are you a witch?
- no
- *beatdown* are you a witch?
lol, that literally is what's happening, are you blind?
Danglars made clear that he condemned Nazis, so no, he's not a witch/Nazi.
People then went on for pages trying to get him to say that again, even though he already made his position clear.
He then comes out yet again stating "nope, still not a Nazi", and look where we are. No step closer, people now want to pin "well but you do like Nazis better than BLM, don't you?" on him.
|
On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. Show nested quote +If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
Which part brings us back to that point? Or was it already addressed by my edit?
|
@m4ini Erhm i haven't been discussing it. And neither i am excusing others who may had been doing so. About the rest, my english is crap and i am not in the mood. TLDR, law should reflect society's morals, and law is not immutable. And yes, i do feel nazis should not be blessed with the privileges of a free society. You can get others into the basket if their morals are around the same level of despicability.
|
On August 28 2017 23:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2017 23:43 m4ini wrote:On August 28 2017 23:42 Aquanim wrote:On August 28 2017 23:34 Acrofales wrote:
...
Over the last 3 pages, this discussion spiraled completely out of control in trying to condemn Danglars for choosing Nazis' civil rights over BLM's. If you're referring to the discussion I'm trying to have, this is an incorrect characterisation of it. It is a false dichotomy, because at no point did Danglars give the impression he felt more strongly about Nazis' rights than BLM's, and instead he maintains the point of view that ALL citizens have the same rights to protest, and taking civil rights away from ANYBODY is an atrocity. Now my own point of view is a few pages back (when I made my first fruitless attempt to steer the thread towards a more fruitful discussion), and a long story short: I disagree with Danglars.
In fact, I don't think I agree with Danglars on anything, ever. But we don't need a witch hunt. With respect to the bolded, I believe GreenHorizons' argument along these lines was based more on a history of year(s?) interacting with Danglars than what was said in this instance. Which brings us back to your point. If we are going to have a not toxic environment it is important to acknowledge what everybody says and actually believes instead of whatever malicious insinuations that can be put out there about what they meant.
Which part brings us back to that point? Or was it already addressed by my edit?
It was, don't worry.
@m4ini Erhm i haven't been discussing it. And neither i am excusing others who may had been doing so. About the rest, my english is crap and i am not in the mood. TLDR, law should reflect society's morals, and law is not immutable. And yes, i do feel nazis should not be blessed with the privileges of a free society. You can get others into the basket if their morals are around the same level of despicability.
What are you referring to?
|
On August 28 2017 23:27 Gorsameth wrote:The explanation is very simple and a staple of the current Republican movement. Obama did it.
It seems like a no brainer to keep in place, but I guess undoing everything Obama did enough of a reason for some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
