|
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 September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2017 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I'm quite heartened to finally see some concern from y'all on the Left regarding why it's bad to demonize everyone on one side of the aisle and lump them in with the true extremists. I look forward to y'all wholeheartedly defending people on the right when someone on the left next starts plastering everyone who supports Trump as a racist or white supremacist. I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances.
My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever.
You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on...
I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
On September 19 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2017 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I'm quite heartened to finally see some concern from y'all on the Left regarding why it's bad to demonize everyone on one side of the aisle and lump them in with the true extremists. I look forward to y'all wholeheartedly defending people on the right when someone on the left next starts plastering everyone who supports Trump as a racist or white supremacist. I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi 2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) or these white supremacist rallies as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. No, I did not say that Vox Day's use of the 14 words was not racist; I said that they weren't white supremacist. Y'all are so intellectually bankrupt with your wanton use of terms like "racist" and "white supremacist" that you can't even keep the meanings consistent anymore.
This is just sad.
Racism and white supremacy are overlapping concepts. One doesn't really come without the other in the US. IIRC they are inextricable from one another under conservatives idea of what still qualifies as "racism".
Though also iirc you broke from that conservative orthodoxy and suggested racism doesn't require a supremacy aspect, that simply discriminating against someone based on their race is racism, in which case the 14 words is most definitely racism.
EDIT: I realize you're actually arguing they aren't white supremacist...It's literally a slogan of open white supremacists, so k...
|
On September 19 2017 03:26 LegalLord wrote:
Every time she talks Trump becomes that much more tolerable a president by comparison.
I disagree; and see nothing in that interview's quoted part to justify such a complaint (there may justification in the full interview which I did not read).
|
On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2017 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I'm quite heartened to finally see some concern from y'all on the Left regarding why it's bad to demonize everyone on one side of the aisle and lump them in with the true extremists. I look forward to y'all wholeheartedly defending people on the right when someone on the left next starts plastering everyone who supports Trump as a racist or white supremacist. I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up. You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President? Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2017 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I'm quite heartened to finally see some concern from y'all on the Left regarding why it's bad to demonize everyone on one side of the aisle and lump them in with the true extremists. I look forward to y'all wholeheartedly defending people on the right when someone on the left next starts plastering everyone who supports Trump as a racist or white supremacist. I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi 2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) or these white supremacist rallies as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. No, I did not say that Vox Day's use of the 14 words was not racist; I said that they weren't white supremacist. Y'all are so intellectually bankrupt with your wanton use of terms like "racist" and "white supremacist" that you can't even keep the meanings consistent anymore. This is just sad. Racism and white supremacy are overlapping concepts. One doesn't really come without the other in the US. IIRC they are inextricable from one another under conservatives idea of what still qualifies as "racism". Though also iirc you broke from that conservative orthodoxy and suggested racism doesn't require a supremacy aspect, that simply discriminating against someone based on their race is racism, in which case the 14 words is most definitely racism.
I did say that the 14 words were racist.
And I don't understand why you think that racism necessarily must have a supremacy aspect to it unless you really feel like you need to feel better about shit like affirmative action.
|
On September 19 2017 03:26 LegalLord wrote:
Every time she talks Trump becomes that much more tolerable a president by comparison.
I wish I lived in a world that acknowledged this truth. It can be another jaw-on-floor week by Trump, I have to re-examine why he won the primary, and look at that horrible election once again. Then Clinton gives fresh reminder that she was the worse candidate in that race.
Even better, but she reminds people that Russia was about not accepting the results of the presidential election.
On September 19 2017 03:24 Nevuk wrote:Clinton did an interview with Terry Gross on npr's fresh air that had this exchange : Show nested quote +Democrats have said that they think there was Russian interference in the election, but that they're not challenging the results of the election. As more and more information comes out about the depth of Russia's interference in the election, do you think, at some point, that it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?
I don't know if there's any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions. In fact, I think part of the reason Trump behaves the way he behaves is that he is a walking example of projection. Whatever he's doing and whatever he thinks is happening he will accuse somebody else of. And there are examples during the campaign when he did just that, like when he called publicly on Russia to hack my personal emails.
He knew they were trying to do whatever they could to discredit me with emails, so there's obviously a trail there, but I don't know that in our system we have any means of doing that, but I just wanted to add to the point you made. There's no doubt they influenced the election: We now know more about how they did that.
Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, "The Russians influenced the election," I would've never stood for it. Even though it might've advantaged me, I would've said, "We've got to get to the bottom of this." I would've set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.
I want to get back to the question, would you completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?
No. I would not. I would say —
You're not going to rule it out.
No, I wouldn't rule it out.
So what are the means, like, this is totally unprecedented in every way —
What would be the means to challenge it, if you thought it should be challenged?
Basically I don't believe there are. There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, but I don't think they're on strong ground. But people are making those arguments. I just don't think we have a mechanism. You know, the Kenya election was just overturned and really what's interesting about that — and I hope somebody writes about it, Terry — the Kenyan election was also a project of Cambridge Analytica, the data company owned by the Mercer family that was instrumental in the Brexit vote.
There's now an investigation going on in the U.K., because of the use of data and the weaponization of information. They were involved in the Trump campaign after he got the nomination, and I think that part of what happened is Mercer said to Trump, We'll help you, but you have to take Bannon as your campaign chief. You've got to take Kellyanne Conway and these other people who are basically Mercer protégées.
And so we know that there was this connection. So what happened in Kenya, which I'm only beginning to delve into, is that the Supreme Court there said there are so many really unanswered and problematic questions, we're going to throw the election out and re-do it. We have no such provision in our country. And usually we don't need it.
Now, I do believe we should abolish the Electoral College, because I was sitting listening to a report on the French election and the French political analyst said, "You know in our country the person with the most votes wins, unlike in yours." And I think that's an anachronism. I've said that since 2000. Full transcript of the interview and audio at http://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive
I was told during the election that the great fear was Trump not accepting the results. Obama needs to get on the phone again on this illegitimacy business. Democrats don't want this hanging on them for midterms.
|
United States42004 Posts
xDaunt, do you think there is anyone with a 14 words tattoo who isn't a white supremacist?
|
On September 19 2017 03:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up. You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President? On September 19 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi 2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) or these white supremacist rallies as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. No, I did not say that Vox Day's use of the 14 words was not racist; I said that they weren't white supremacist. Y'all are so intellectually bankrupt with your wanton use of terms like "racist" and "white supremacist" that you can't even keep the meanings consistent anymore. This is just sad. Racism and white supremacy are overlapping concepts. One doesn't really come without the other in the US. IIRC they are inextricable from one another under conservatives idea of what still qualifies as "racism". Though also iirc you broke from that conservative orthodoxy and suggested racism doesn't require a supremacy aspect, that simply discriminating against someone based on their race is racism, in which case the 14 words is most definitely racism. I did say that the 14 words were racist. And I don't understand why you think that racism necessarily must have a supremacy aspect to it unless you really feel like you need to feel better about shit like affirmative action.
Because several people on the right here have said specifically that racism requires a superiority aspect.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
There was a long argument over that bold part specifically, where I was told several times that I can't change the definition of racism, but shockingly, none of them argued with you when you did it to suit your argument.
I expect shortly for the other conservatives to come tell you how you can't change the definition of racism and that you're just wrong.
Also this:
On September 24 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Could start with this one?
[quote]
Yep, I'll accept that as an instance of racism. Would you consider it a complete definition? No, I would not. What's wrong with it? It specifies a subset of actions that constitute materially racist discrimination. But let's cut to the chase. The definition is not broad enough to label me as a racist based upon what I've said. So go ahead and bring out the big guns. But it is. You just think that you're immune to the same racial biases that we all deal with in our own ways. So, in turn, you refuse to see how they influence your perspective and rhetoric. No, it's not even close. The single biggest problem with that definition for your position is that it includes a subjective criterion pertaining to the thought process of the alleged racist. This, in and of itself, prevents the conclusion that XDaunt is a racist given my very detailed explanations for what I said and why. And beyond that, none my statements were facially racially discriminatory anyway. So you're going to need to come up with a much broader definition of racist to nail me. While it's not my preferred definition, it's one you agreed with. Like I said, the problem seems to be you reading into that definition that you have to be self-aware of your belief, but you don't. I'm not reading anything into the definition. I'm literally reading what you said in the definition: "...based on the belief that one's own race is superior." I have never said anything remotely resembling a belief that my race is superior. And you telling me what I believe or don't believe does not make a very compelling argument. So like I said, you need a different definition of racism.
In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
|
"In fact, I think part of the reason Trump behaves the way he behaves is that he is a walking example of projection."
If I was driving and heard her say that, I would have died after driving off the road from laughing too hard.
|
On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:On September 19 2017 02:15 xDaunt wrote:
I'm quite heartened to finally see some concern from y'all on the Left regarding why it's bad to demonize everyone on one side of the aisle and lump them in with the true extremists. I look forward to y'all wholeheartedly defending people on the right when someone on the left next starts plastering everyone who supports Trump as a racist or white supremacist. I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever.
Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts.
You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on...
You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around.
I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis.
I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America.
|
On September 19 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 02:23 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I mean, it's case by case. I wasn't posting in the thread then, but I definitely argued against Mitt Romney being called white supremacist or misogynist. At risk of returning to an oft-despised topic, I think you consider "racist" to be a much more extreme accusation than some of us do. I'm probably at least somewhat racist, for instance. Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts. You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around. Show nested quote +I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis. I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America.
You refusing to simply say which you think is more dangerous says everything it needs to.
To your last point, I don't expect you to stick up for black people in America at all. I'm just also not going to let you pretend that it's about rights and justice when your posts indicate a clear pattern of it being about politics and (mostly subconscious) racial superiority.
|
On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2017 02:26 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Are y'all really going to pretend that you don't understand that the term "racist" has a stigma attached to it? Surely you understand why labeling someone a "white supremacist" has damaging consequences. If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around. I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis. I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America. You refusing to simply say which you think is more dangerous says everything it needs to.
Your choice to forget what I said about the Nazi rallies, and then ask me to make things clear says all it needs to about your level of engagement.
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
Thread standards. Conservatives are asked to disavow and repeatedly give their proportional looks on outrage or they're assumed nazi sympathizers. Maybe I'm not playing your games anymore, GH.
|
|
|
On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 02:29 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If you don't like the stigma, why not try not being so racist? That'd be my first thought. xDaunt have not tried being a racist though. He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't. There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around. I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis. I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America. You refusing to simply say which you think is more dangerous says everything it needs to. Your choice to forget what I said about the Nazi rallies, and then ask me to make things clear says all it needs to about your level of engagement. Show nested quote +
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
Thread standards. Conservatives are asked to disavow and repeatedly give their proportional looks on outrage or they're assumed nazi sympathizers. Maybe I'm not playing your games anymore, GH.
I know specifically you didn't use the same words or even something comparable. I know for a fact that you didn't say anything about it being a slippery slope toward more white supremacy, and so on.
I suppose I could dig up whatever responses you had and prove it to people who don't remember but I think many do. What's the point anyway?
Like I've said, you've made clear your position and it is what it is. It's one advocating white supremacy by way of "law and order". An oldie but a goodie.
|
On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument.
It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own.
Regardless, I'm not seeing that what I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
|
On September 19 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument. It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own. Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with.
In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now.
I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago.
But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
|
On September 19 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument. It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own. Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with. In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now. I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago. But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention.
You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right?
And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
|
On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 19 2017 03:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the chain you see that you had different requirements for what made something racist before you advanced this more recent argument. It looks to me like I'm using your definition of racism, not advancing one of my own. Regardless, I'm not seeing that I said then that is materially different from what I am saying now. If I have done anything, I have expanded my definition of racism, which you should be pleased with. In the chain you say that the "Websters" definition of racism is one you accept, until now. I do, but you asked why I would think otherwise, it's because you and others accepted/advocated a different definition of racism several months ago. But you changed the definition of racist so you could have a white person be racist without being a white supremacist, which is pretty ridiculous to anyone paying attention. You do understand that the definition of racism that I am advocating now is broader than the one that I advanced before and necessarily includes the previous definition, right? And why exactly are you objecting to the idea that someone can be a racist without being a racial supremacist? I really don't get what the hang up is.
See in order to make the argument that the 14 words weren't white supremacist, but were racist, you removed the supremacy clause of racism.
Unfortunately the supremacy clause was your argument for why we couldn't call you racist, now you've labeled yourself racist by your own definition in order to avoid acknowledging the white supremacy advocated in your posts.
|
On September 19 2017 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 02:34 RealityIsKing wrote:
[quote]
xDaunt have not tried being a racist though.
He is talking about people that makes load of cash out there that specifically mislabel people racists/sexists/whatnot while they aren't.
There is a huge industry based on that. There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around. I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis. I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America. You refusing to simply say which you think is more dangerous says everything it needs to. Your choice to forget what I said about the Nazi rallies, and then ask me to make things clear says all it needs to about your level of engagement.
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
Thread standards. Conservatives are asked to disavow and repeatedly give their proportional looks on outrage or they're assumed nazi sympathizers. Maybe I'm not playing your games anymore, GH. I know specifically you didn't use the same words or even something comparable. I know for a fact that you didn't say anything about it being a slippery slope toward more white supremacy, and so on. I suppose I could dig up whatever responses you had and prove it to people who don't remember but I think many do. What's the point anyway? Like I've said, you've made clear your position and it is what it is. It's one advocating white supremacy by way of "law and order". An oldie but a goodie.
"Specifically" and "I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies" are incompatible. You're the one accusing me of "advocating white supremacy" and saying I need to make clear for you the difference between Trump/neonazi rallies and protesters/shrouded statues, or I'm letting my stance be unclear.
I'm not going to do a parrot act every time a forum troll asks for yet another declaration of proportional outrage. Particularly not to somebody that won't quote and tell me what he thought was lacking the first time around that he needs cleared up for the second time around. That's why I quoted
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
We can just keep on doing this dance on the next controversial topic. You'll be just as confused to what I originally said about Topic B, and need my courtesy and assistance to somehow gather how I compare neonazi rallies to Jefferson protests. I think that activity is patently absurd.
|
|
|
On September 19 2017 01:49 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 01:19 Artisreal wrote:On September 19 2017 01:14 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 19 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2017 00:13 RealityIsKing wrote:
Well listen, people on this thread have already dug their heels into whatever position they want to believe.
You got Kwark, P6, zlefin who believes in white males oppression (which is historically accurate) vs LegalLord, Danglar, xDaunt who are like but that was past, the country should be mature enough to move pass that.
I personally think that the country should be divided into two via the libertarian route because it is now impossible for the two sides to see each other's point without getting violent. dividing into two seldom helps much long term; there's always differences between people and disputes over governance; many US states already have such issues within them. similar factions will form within the two new nations over time; it's better to try to change the dynamics to prevent the factionalism developing in such a fashion, and to try to find better ways to address the fundamental disputes. i'd also slightly dispute your initial characterization; some people (like myself) aren't really that dug in; and it's not so much a position they "want to believe" as a position that is correct and supported by the facts and evidence. Then be mature about it, don't go out and start name calling others who calls out the violent left. Your username makes those posts that have nothing to do with factual matters so much more hilarious. Like the"violent left" is somehow of a problem for the reality of people in this country. Or rather as if the perpetrators of said violence would discredit the actual left's goals in any form like some posters here try to argue is just tragicomic. BLM, antifa, and modern western feminism are all part of the violent left. BLM, instead of being civilized like SK protest went on to destroy community infrastructure. Antifa are anything but fascist that wants to silence freedom of speech, but they are mostly shit disturbers though. Remember #KillAllMen and #maleTears? And I thought feminism is about peace and unity? Nope. Listen there are problems with the private jail complex and zoning. The best possible way to counter that is to select leaders to run for office positions and change the policy through democratic voting, not through public destruction.
The only hastags I remember in that context is #killallthewhitemen + Show Spoiler +
|
On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:19 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:04 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 02:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
There is no "industry" on labeling someone a racist or whatever. There are just people who jump the gun and calls someone the first thing that pops into their heads. Bill Maher used the N-word and was taken to task by a lot of people. He still has a show. Trump is still president despite his shenanigans as a human being. And xDaunt/Danglars still post on TL despite taking forever to condemn Nazis.
If there is an industry based on this, I want no part of it because it doesn't seem to be thriving. It's not just suspected Nazi sympathizers, but it's a stopwatch counting until they condemn Nazis. Sure, they condemned Nazis. But it took forever for them to condemn them. And they're still allowed to post, egads!1. Accuse the opponent of being the worst ever fringe thing 2. Ignore incredulity that you'd actually suspect the person of supporting Nazi ideology. 3. ... 4. The tardiness counts as "taking forever to condemn Nazis." Pretty much the diagnosis of bad faith arguers. 1. No one think's your're a Nazi2. xDaunt was literally defending the 14 words as not racist, if not supporting, that's certainly defending (Neo)Nazi ideology 3. ... 4. Look at your posts about Jefferson being shrouded vs Nazis and sympathizers having armed rallies and shooting at people/running them over, it's clear which one you think is more dangerous. People look at how you characterize a shrouding as a slippery slope that's very dangerous, and then see how you label the massive violations of PoC's constitutional rights (up to and including murdering them) as a more marginal issue than statue shrouding. The jig is up. They think enough to measure the time between the accusation and the second disavowal. "I see you're defending the free speech rights of neonazis. You're under suspicion from now until when I catch your disavowal. First one doesn't count." xDaunt can speak for himself on the Vox Day/white supremacist/alt right nuances. My recognition (and I suspect most others) of your problematic posting is much deeper than a delayed (or missed) disavowal, so whatever. Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts. You simply not agreeing about the 14 words isn't helping, but moving on... You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around. I asked earlier and you might have missed it/ignored it but let's just clear things up.
You labeled the shrouding as very dangerous, I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies. Which do you find more dangerous and preparing a more dangerous slippery slope; White supremacist rallies that aren't condemned in the strongest language by our president as incongruent with American ideals (the message of the rally, not having a rally), or shroudings of founding fathers which are condemned by the President?
I thought we went over the stupidity of constantly paralleling "welp he wasn't this strong about Y TOPIC. OMG NAZI." Quote me my two inputs on the ideology of the neonazi/WS rallies and why they you think they were insufficient. Otherwise, I will continue to dismiss you as just another troll that resorts to "You need to condemn two unlike things in ways I agree are in accordance with my standards of proportional outrage or you think protesters and shrouded statues are worse than the Presidents statements on neonazis. I might be done with these sideways arguments on proportional outrage. You're always just on to the next assertion that I don't stick up enough for blacks in America. You refusing to simply say which you think is more dangerous says everything it needs to. Your choice to forget what I said about the Nazi rallies, and then ask me to make things clear says all it needs to about your level of engagement.
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
Thread standards. Conservatives are asked to disavow and repeatedly give their proportional looks on outrage or they're assumed nazi sympathizers. Maybe I'm not playing your games anymore, GH. I know specifically you didn't use the same words or even something comparable. I know for a fact that you didn't say anything about it being a slippery slope toward more white supremacy, and so on. I suppose I could dig up whatever responses you had and prove it to people who don't remember but I think many do. What's the point anyway? Like I've said, you've made clear your position and it is what it is. It's one advocating white supremacy by way of "law and order". An oldie but a goodie. "Specifically" and "I don't think you said the same of the Nazi rallies" are incompatible. You're the one accusing me of "advocating white supremacy" and saying I need to make clear for you the difference between Trump/neonazi rallies and protesters/shrouded statues, or I'm letting my stance be unclear. I'm not going to do a parrot act every time a forum troll asks for yet another declaration of proportional outrage. Particularly not to somebody that won't quote and tell me what he thought was lacking the first time around that he needs cleared up for the second time around. That's why I quoted Show nested quote +
... I don't recall what you said about the Nazi rallies
...
But you just sad something bad about shrouded statues
... Clear up for me that you think neonazis/WS are worse than shrouded statues or you're in cahoots with Hitler
We can just keep on doing this dance on the next controversial topic. You'll be just as confused to what I originally said about Topic B, and need my courtesy and assistance to somehow gather how I compare neonazi rallies to Jefferson protests. I think that activity is patently absurd.
I know you didn't make the same argument, you know you didn't, we all know you didn't. You did call the Nazi's mean names though.
I don't expect you demonstrate comparable outrage at or fear of slippery slopes from people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
