|
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 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.
I got sniped. But oh well.
To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense.
|
On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out.
Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you think requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues.
|
On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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) 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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues.
I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis.
|
On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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) 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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you think requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues.
No clarification needed (as was said, it's clear). Just make the next example of injustice you post not be one fitting this white supremacy pattern.
|
Can't someone just take the shroud off the statue if they hate it?
I dunno it seems like alot of fuss over nothing to me.
You can't unkill the woman that got ran over though.
|
On September 19 2017 04:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
Can't someone just take the shroud off the statue if they hate it?
I dunno it seems like alot of fuss over nothing to me.
You can't unkill the woman that got ran over though.
But you don't understand. One of those things is a slippery slope.
|
On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis.
I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind.
|
We all did that and agree that you're posting with 10^3 times the rage about a statue compared to a leftist getting killed.
|
On September 19 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote: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.
You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for.
As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy.
The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
|
On September 19 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis. I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind.
I think you would find a lot less people getting annoyed with you if your condemnation of Nazis isn't always being drowned out by how vehemently you argue with people about how you shouldn't have to say that you condemn Nazis. Like, just fucking say it and move on. Everything's like pulling teeth with you.
On September 19 2017 04:34 Artisreal wrote:
We all did that and agree that you're posting with 10^3 times the rage about a statue compared to a leftist getting killed.
He's the one who started this statue bullshit, and kept it going for umpteen pages. It's clear what he thinks is important.
|
On September 19 2017 04:29 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
Can't someone just take the shroud off the statue if they hate it?
I dunno it seems like alot of fuss over nothing to me.
You can't unkill the woman that got ran over though. But you don't understand. One of those things is a slippery slope.
I get the slippery slope argument. The targets are becoming more and more tenuously linked with white supremacy. The link is still there maybe, but no more with the founding fathers than with anyone else of that age. Protesting against history is a bit daft if you ask me. It already happened and you can't change it. Protesting about how we are educated about history is a definitely a conversation worth having.
I also think shrouding the statue isn't a particularly good way to protest it. Still that's up to the protesters. What they are doing in shrouding it is a bit stupid but ultimately harmless compared to destroying it, for example.
Again, even taking into account the slippery slope argument, its a lot of fuss over pretty much nothing.
|
On September 19 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote: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. I got sniped. But oh well. To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense.
No, this is almost the exact opposite of what I have been saying.
|
On September 19 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 02:47 Logo wrote:On September 19 2017 02:43 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2017 02:37 Logo wrote:
A bit off topic, but I think I missed the part of this thread where everyone collectively, led by the staunch free speech supporters, got up in arms over a government official pressuring a private institution to cancel & silence speech by someone that would be critical of them.
Anyone have links to those posts? I don't recall such being covered; but without you naming the exact instance it's hard to be sure. I kind of figured it'd be big news to those who have shown so much passion for free speech here and wouldn't need more specific naming. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/15/chelsea-manning-fellowship-cia-head-cancels-harvard-speech-over-offer-to-traitorhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/15/chelsea-manning-harvard-kennedy-school
Chelsea Manning, the former US soldier who leaked hundreds of thousands of state secrets and served seven years in military prison, abruptly terminated a phone call with the dean of the Harvard Kennedy school in an expression of her dismay at his decision to revoke her visiting fellowship in the face of severe pressure from the CIA.
When Elmendorf reached Manning on the phone he sounded audibly nervous, the source said. He argued that Harvard had to “weigh” what each visiting fellow “brought to the table”.
I'm aware they withdrew conferring upon her a "visiting fellow" designation, not that she was disinvited to speak. The statement was tailored to that honorificShow nested quote +We invited Chelsea Manning to spend a day at the Kennedy School. Specifically, we invited her to meet with students and others who are interested in talking with her, and then to give remarks in the Forum where the audience would have ample opportunity—as with all of our speakers—to ask hard questions and challenge what she has said and done. On that basis, we also named Chelsea Manning a Visiting Fellow. We did not intend to honor her in any way or to endorse any of her words or deeds, as we do not honor or endorse any Fellow.
Seems like he's still open to inviting her to have the opportunity to speak and answer hard questions. Show nested quote +However, I now think that designating Chelsea Manning as a Visiting Fellow was a mistake, for which I accept responsibility. I still think that having her speak in the Forum and talk with students is consistent with our longstanding approach, which puts great emphasis on the value of hearing from a diverse collection of people. But I see more clearly now that many people view a Visiting Fellow title as an honorific, so we should weigh that consideration when offering invitations. Back to statues haha. He argues that the visiting fellow title was viewed by others as too much of an honorific. Show nested quote +She is still welcome to spend a day at the Kennedy School and speak at the school’s John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, the dean said. WaPo reports that the invitation to speak stands. Show nested quote +Earlier in the day, Mike Morell, former deputy director and acting director of the CIA, sent a resignation letter to Elmendorf. Morell told Elmendorf he was resigning immediately over the school's decision to invite Manning be a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School's Institute of Politics.
Morell said he could not be part of an organization that "honors a convicted felon and leaker of classified information."
"Manning was found guilty of 17 serious crimes, including six counts of espionage, for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, an entity that CIA Director Mike Pompeo says operates like an adversarial foreign intelligence organization," said Morell, who was a non-resident senior fellow at Harvard. Chicago Tribune reports Morell's resignation as fellow.
So your argument is the government wasn't successful so it's not an issue? Whether or not Manning can still speak seems secondary to the CIA officials applying pressure to change the speech that Harvard permits and allows. Even so they *did* change the manner of speech and got Harvard to change its position.
It seems like a total sellout of ideals considering how engaged you and other have been over "the statues" and other issues of free speech.
|
On September 19 2017 04:34 Artisreal wrote:
We all did that and agree that you're posting with 10^3 times the rage about a statue compared to a leftist getting killed.
Rage? You must mean persistence in advocating my point of view against weak arguments to the contrary. It's a very different thing to ask someone to give up their side or move on faster on one topic compared to another.
It's also convoluted by the quantity of liberal posters arguing the contrary. Less people wanted to deprive lawful citizen neonazis of their free speech and assembly rights. More responded that the Jefferson protest was not ineffective or counterproductive. GH did his moral equivalence schtick, and nobody has paused yet to actually see the terms of my disavowals or adjectives across posts.
|
On September 19 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote: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. You need to think this through better. If racism necessarily requires a sentiment of racial superiority, then Vox Day's use of the 14 words isn't even racist. I doubt that that is the result that you're looking for. As for me, I still wouldn't be a racist under my expanded definition that requires mere discriminatory animus as opposed to actual white supremacy. The problem with your nitpicking of my definition is that you've lost sight of the larger argument. The big difference between us is that I reject any definition of "racism" that encompasses incidental disparate impact between races.
I suspect this thread pulls out a particular part of yourself rather than display the full human complexity that is xDaunt. As such, I wouldn't really bother to make an assessment prepared for peer review that would label you a racist as a person. However, I'm more than comfortable with the assessment that your posts indicate a pattern of racist arguments formulated in the white supremacy swamp that is the American political spectrum and adorned in it's stench.
Same for Danglars.
On September 19 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis. I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind.
We could poll it if you actually think that it leans that way. I don't, but would probably write it in a biased way.
|
On September 19 2017 04:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 19 2017 04:04 xDaunt wrote: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. I got sniped. But oh well. To answer his hang up, it's that you changed the definition so that the two are exclusive of each other. It fits the narrative being ponied about. When we were discussing race issues, we had very clear and cut lines in the sand. Then you started shifting the line and blurring it, so that the definition was changed and that it was removed entirely. Now, we're discussing two separate issues instead of one; the supposition that white supremacists are racists. You can be prejudice and not think your race is superior. But you cannot be racist and not a racial supremacist. It doesn't make sense. No, this is almost the exact opposite of what I have been saying.
To make sure I'm understanding, you are saying that you are a racial supremacist if you are racist? Or that you cannot be both racial and a racial supremacist, or that one can exist without the other? Not singling you out, just so we're clear.
|
On September 19 2017 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
Thank you for conceding that others alleged my ties to neonazis, irrespective of your own issues with my "problematic" posts.
[quote]
You've excited no reason for me to weigh in on whatever the hell you're insinuating about xDaunt this time around.
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis. I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind. I think you would find a lot less people getting annoyed with you if your condemnation of Nazis isn't always being drowned out by how vehemently you argue with people about how you shouldn't have to say that you condemn Nazis. Like, just fucking say it and move on. Everything's like pulling teeth with you.
I find the two sides of an argument on rights or movements much more interesting than proving to the latest thread shitlib that thinks I'm party to nazi ideology. They could always keep topics centered on who gets free speech rights and free assembly rights, and not who you can slander for defending them so vociferously.
And you mean "say it again and move on." Because it's been said repeatedly. Say, it's been a few posts since Antifa, and I don't seem to recall you forcefully condemning the violence, so could you place them in an ordered list with Trump-Charlottesville, statue protestors, Muslim terrorism, BLM protests, and the Obama presidency? I wouldn't want to think your recent silence on the issue shows endorsement of their violence. I will be keeping track of how long it takes you to disavow, and may renew this request next time you argue forcefully for something--just to make sure you aren't calling that topic worse in degree than a Molotov-throwing mob.
|
On September 19 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On September 19 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis. I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind. I think you would find a lot less people getting annoyed with you if your condemnation of Nazis isn't always being drowned out by how vehemently you argue with people about how you shouldn't have to say that you condemn Nazis. Like, just fucking say it and move on. Everything's like pulling teeth with you. I find the two sides of an argument on rights or movements much more interesting than proving to the latest thread shitlib that thinks I'm party to nazi ideology. They could always keep topics centered on who gets free speech rights and free assembly rights, and not who you can slander for defending them so vociferously. And you mean "say it again and move on." Because it's been said repeatedly. Say, it's been a few posts since Antifa, and I don't seem to recall you forcefully condemning the violence, so could you place them in an ordered list with Trump-Charlottesville, statue protestors, Muslim terrorism, BLM protests, and the Obama presidency? I wouldn't want to think your recent silence on the issue shows endorsement of their violence. I will be keeping track of how long it takes you to disavow, and may renew this request next time you argue forcefully for something--just to make sure you aren't calling that topic worse in degree than a Molotov-throwing mob.
Differences abound, but I could tell you easily that from the bottom up it would be Statue protesters, then BLM. I'd need to know more specifically what you're talking about with the other three or four, but I can say that by sheer destruction of lives globally Obama's presidency is worse than Trump's. Though time on the job is certainly a factor.
That's just it, what you'll argue against doing for pages on end isn't really hard or a put out. Every time you do it, it gets more obvious to more people. That's why if you want it to stop I told you how, or you can keep doing it and I'll keep pointing it out and your positions will become more and more transparent.
|
On September 19 2017 04:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2017 04:34 NewSunshine wrote:On September 19 2017 04:32 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:17 kollin wrote:On September 19 2017 04:16 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 04:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2017 03:50 Danglars wrote:On September 19 2017 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. 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 people advocating for genocide and killing people as you do with shrouded statues, just don't expect me not to call it out. Well, when you specifically want to drill down to what you mean that requires clarification, quote me what you found insufficient the first time around. I'll just presume most of the thread can guess my feelings on genocide marchers and shrouded statues. I think most of the thread is in agreement that your condemnation of the people shrouding statues (a condemnation that was based in an alternate reality) is much stronger than your condemnation of Nazis. I think there's a minority of the thread that wishes this were the case. The good news is this conversation is being recorded. You can read ten pages of the thread on the Charlottesville rally and my participation of it, and compare with the same on how I treat statue protestors. And make up your own mind. I think you would find a lot less people getting annoyed with you if your condemnation of Nazis isn't always being drowned out by how vehemently you argue with people about how you shouldn't have to say that you condemn Nazis. Like, just fucking say it and move on. Everything's like pulling teeth with you. I find the two sides of an argument on rights or movements much more interesting than proving to the latest thread shitlib that thinks I'm party to nazi ideology. They could always keep topics centered on who gets free speech rights and free assembly rights, and not who you can slander for defending them so vociferously. And you mean "say it again and move on." Because it's been said repeatedly. Say, it's been a few posts since Antifa, and I don't seem to recall you forcefully condemning the violence, so could you place them in an ordered list with Trump-Charlottesville, statue protestors, Muslim terrorism, BLM protests, and the Obama presidency? I wouldn't want to think your recent silence on the issue shows endorsement of their violence. I will be keeping track of how long it takes you to disavow, and may renew this request next time you argue forcefully for something--just to make sure you aren't calling that topic worse in degree than a Molotov-throwing mob.
If I recall, when these things happen, we debate the effectiveness and political statements trying to be made, while at the same time condemning them. But some of us posters don't get around to condemning them, instead, we take roundabout ways of doing it. If you just say it, then the thread can move on. It's that simple.
|
Relevant to earlier discussion.
As President Donald Trump and other world leaders gather at the United Nations this week, a lot of important questions hang in the air, but none more important than this one: What does North Korea want?
That is, what is North Korea’s real goal in its relentless, reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as missiles that can carry them as far as the United States? The answer will determine whether it’s even possible to push the country off the nuclear path at this point, or whether a strategy of regime change or containment of a nuclear-armed country are the most realistic options—or, most ominously, whether armed conflict is likely.
The international community is, of course, casting about for ways to deter North Korea, and U.S. officials say there will be conversations this week about imposing more severe economic sanctions than the ones already implemented in a pair of U.N. Security Council resolutions this year. Chinese and Russian companies doing business with North Korea are likely targets.
www.wsj.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
