EPTOn October 15 2026 09:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It'd be like me pointing out that you're connected to Nazis, which is true + Show Spoiler + but it wouldn't be to give you a compliment.
It'd be like me pointing out that you're connected to Nazis, which is true + Show Spoiler +
"Nazi" and "Razyda" both have a "z" as their third letter! boom, there's technically a connection!
You would be correct and just based on this forum you may see that people were accused of Nazi connection on even flimsier basis.
On October 15 2026 09:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That's literally the only way to sensibly read it, because there's no other reason why someone would try to connect something to the Nazis. It's clearly an attempt at bad-mouthing something.
That's literally the only way to sensibly read it, because there's no other reason why someone would try to connect something to the Nazis. It's clearly an attempt at bad-mouthing something.
So you saying that " there's no other reason why someone would try to connect something to the Nazis. It's clearly an attempt at bad-mouthing something"? Thats somewhat damning for some left wing people on this forum.
On October 15 2026 09:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Although, to be fair, Trump is America's Hitler, and Nazis sure seem to disproportionately be MAGA, so maybe Katie Zacharia thinks that Mifepristone is a good thing after all!
Although, to be fair, Trump is America's Hitler, and Nazis sure seem to disproportionately be MAGA, so maybe Katie Zacharia thinks that Mifepristone is a good thing after all!
Edit:
On October 15 2026 09:28 Billyboy wrote:
Calling people lunatics for posting a conspiracy theory from the 80s, is sensible.
Justifying it as just trolling for no other reason than it made someone mad, is not.
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2026 09:06 Razyda wrote:
I didnt made up reason. LightSpectra used obviously true statement (quoted it) as a proof of person being lunatic. So i went to read article in the link he posted to check if there is more to it. It turned out there isnt. Helpfully her actual post was there. I found the claim bizarre and decided to point it out. I dont even really know anything about her, just reacted because claiming that someone is lunatic, because said someone posted something factually true seems like a weird thing to do. I would say that people with critical thinking ability would be able to asses the post on what it says, rather than on who posted it?
Edit:
Yes it is. Difference between your example, and her post is, that in her case first paragraph is true. You may argue it is unnecessary, because it is obvious, but you cant deny that it is true. Also she did exactly what you did:
Part 1: There's no doubt some tenuous connection between Lightspectra and Zyklon B
Part 2: (for instance, he mentioned it on a Starcraft forum)
Do you think LightSpectra is a nazi supporter and we should treat him as such?
On October 15 2026 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
It provides context.
So you just made up a reason based on one persons reaction, but mostly because it fits your world view.
I always think it’s funny how Trump people just choose what’s a troll and what he means based on whether they agree or like it. People with critical thinking ability don’t operate in this way, they have logical consistency .
On October 15 2026 08:49 Razyda wrote:
Her personal antiabortion stance doesnt change what is actually posted? I came up with master troll seeing LighSpectra posting obviously true statement as proof of her being lunatic.
On October 15 2026 08:44 Billyboy wrote:
Her personal anti abortion stance, and where that piece of “information” comes from. How about, where did you come up with that it’s a master troll?
On October 15 2026 08:29 Razyda wrote:
Its exactly how words work.
Precisely? If it doesnt make them bad now, where does assumption that it somehow makes them bad came from?
You contradict yourself:
"She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen."
" It doesn’t make them bad now. "
No, it is more like fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers, and to prove it someone use the one they didnt.
On October 15 2026 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
That isn't how words work, though. I'll grant you that she might be a master troll. It's much much much more likely that she's just an idiot tho. A hot idiot who Trump wants to bang, but still an idiot.
On October 15 2026 07:45 Razyda wrote:
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
On October 15 2026 07:31 LightSpectra wrote:
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
On October 15 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote:
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
On October 15 2026 07:20 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
[quote]
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
[quote]
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
[quote]
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
That isn't how words work, though. I'll grant you that she might be a master troll. It's much much much more likely that she's just an idiot tho. A hot idiot who Trump wants to bang, but still an idiot.
Its exactly how words work.
On October 15 2026 08:04 Billyboy wrote:
That they are connected is my point and why I used them. It doesn’t make them bad now.
On October 15 2026 08:01 Razyda wrote:
Nah mate, you just made it in your head (except connected bit), and also Volkswagen is connected to Nazis, although way closer than pill.
Second paragraph kinda fails, Whether she lied or not about one thing, you can actually check whether what she posted in this particular post is a lie.
On October 15 2026 07:53 Billyboy wrote:
She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen.
The lawyer comment is related to why you shouldn’t trust what she says. Lying about something so easily verifiable is a pretty bad sign.
On October 15 2026 07:45 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
[quote]
[quote]
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen.
The lawyer comment is related to why you shouldn’t trust what she says. Lying about something so easily verifiable is a pretty bad sign.
Nah mate, you just made it in your head (except connected bit), and also Volkswagen is connected to Nazis, although way closer than pill.
Second paragraph kinda fails, Whether she lied or not about one thing, you can actually check whether what she posted in this particular post is a lie.
That they are connected is my point and why I used them. It doesn’t make them bad now.
Precisely? If it doesnt make them bad now, where does assumption that it somehow makes them bad came from?
You contradict yourself:
"She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen."
" It doesn’t make them bad now. "
On October 15 2026 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, just do the work to find out what is actually true instead of assuming.
It’s kind of like how fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers. It’s not really a problem, you just check every time before eating and if it turns out there is shit then just make your own burger.
Yeah, just do the work to find out what is actually true instead of assuming.
It’s kind of like how fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers. It’s not really a problem, you just check every time before eating and if it turns out there is shit then just make your own burger.
No, it is more like fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers, and to prove it someone use the one they didnt.
Her personal anti abortion stance, and where that piece of “information” comes from. How about, where did you come up with that it’s a master troll?
Her personal antiabortion stance doesnt change what is actually posted? I came up with master troll seeing LighSpectra posting obviously true statement as proof of her being lunatic.
It provides context.
So you just made up a reason based on one persons reaction, but mostly because it fits your world view.
I always think it’s funny how Trump people just choose what’s a troll and what he means based on whether they agree or like it. People with critical thinking ability don’t operate in this way, they have logical consistency .
I didnt made up reason. LightSpectra used obviously true statement (quoted it) as a proof of person being lunatic. So i went to read article in the link he posted to check if there is more to it. It turned out there isnt. Helpfully her actual post was there. I found the claim bizarre and decided to point it out. I dont even really know anything about her, just reacted because claiming that someone is lunatic, because said someone posted something factually true seems like a weird thing to do. I would say that people with critical thinking ability would be able to asses the post on what it says, rather than on who posted it?
Edit:
On October 15 2026 08:57 Acrofales wrote:
No, it isn't. There's no doubt some tenuous connection between Lightspectra and Zyklon B (for instance, he mentioned it on a Starcraft forum)! But that doesn't mean that "there's a connection" is true for any reasonable value of true. Words exist in the context of their utterance. And nobody is uttering that there's "a connection" between two things unless they think there's a connection substantial enough to mention between the two things.
As for her second paragraph, so bloody what? Here's two paragraphs for you:
Is my first post true just because it contains truth? Or is it baseless slander? I'll let you decide.
On October 15 2026 08:29 Razyda wrote:
Its exactly how words work.
Precisely? If it doesnt make them bad now, where does assumption that it somehow makes them bad came from?
You contradict yourself:
"She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen."
" It doesn’t make them bad now. "
No, it is more like fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers, and to prove it someone use the one they didnt.
On October 15 2026 08:12 Acrofales wrote:
That isn't how words work, though. I'll grant you that she might be a master troll. It's much much much more likely that she's just an idiot tho. A hot idiot who Trump wants to bang, but still an idiot.
On October 15 2026 07:45 Razyda wrote:
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
On October 15 2026 07:31 LightSpectra wrote:
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
On October 15 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote:
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
On October 15 2026 07:20 Razyda wrote:
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
On October 15 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:
Her public speaking was obviously terrible, but let's not let that be a distraction from the fact that she's a complete lunatic.
"She wrote, “Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-press-secretary-busted-peddling-bonkers-nazi-claim
Her public speaking was obviously terrible, but let's not let that be a distraction from the fact that she's a complete lunatic.
"She wrote, “Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-press-secretary-busted-peddling-bonkers-nazi-claim
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
On October 15 2026 05:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Claims like that will move your resumé to the top of the pile, once Trump and RFK Jr. hear about them.
On October 15 2026 02:20 LightSpectra wrote:
Her public speaking was obviously terrible, but let's not let that be a distraction from the fact that she's a complete lunatic.
"She wrote, “Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-press-secretary-busted-peddling-bonkers-nazi-claim
Her public speaking was obviously terrible, but let's not let that be a distraction from the fact that she's a complete lunatic.
"She wrote, “Mifepristone, formerly called RU-486, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-new-press-secretary-busted-peddling-bonkers-nazi-claim
Claims like that will move your resumé to the top of the pile, once Trump and RFK Jr. hear about them.
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
That isn't how words work, though. I'll grant you that she might be a master troll. It's much much much more likely that she's just an idiot tho. A hot idiot who Trump wants to bang, but still an idiot.
Its exactly how words work.
On October 15 2026 08:04 Billyboy wrote:
That they are connected is my point and why I used them. It doesn’t make them bad now.
On October 15 2026 08:01 Razyda wrote:
Nah mate, you just made it in your head (except connected bit), and also Volkswagen is connected to Nazis, although way closer than pill.
Second paragraph kinda fails, Whether she lied or not about one thing, you can actually check whether what she posted in this particular post is a lie.
On October 15 2026 07:53 Billyboy wrote:
She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen.
The lawyer comment is related to why you shouldn’t trust what she says. Lying about something so easily verifiable is a pretty bad sign.
On October 15 2026 07:45 Razyda wrote:
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
On October 15 2026 07:31 LightSpectra wrote:
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
I'll assume in good faith you meant the opposite of what you wrote again, since if I took what you wrote seriously I'd have to assume you're clinically stupid.
On October 15 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote:
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
On October 15 2026 07:20 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
[quote]
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
[quote]
Does stating facts makes one lunatic?
[quote]
If true claims do that then surely it is not an issue?
Honestly she seems like master troll throwing rage bait. It is somewhat funny that it works.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. And can you also explain how she’s a lawyer (her claim multiple times) without ever passing the bar.
Basic reading ability should be enough to understand that sentence is correct? More so if sentence would be “LightSpectra/American revolution, is connected to the manufacturer of the deadly gas Zyklon B, used in the World War II concentration camps.” it would still be correct.
Explain how it’s facts, in the context it’s used. - Her post is factual, simply as. if she just posted second paragraph you would likely agree. Reason i said she is master troll is because she put both paragraphs in one post and it made people think she said something outrageous, when she didnt. Thats why its funny, people calling her lunatic simply prove they cant read. I never made any claims regarding her being a lwayer so why should i explain that?
She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen.
The lawyer comment is related to why you shouldn’t trust what she says. Lying about something so easily verifiable is a pretty bad sign.
Nah mate, you just made it in your head (except connected bit), and also Volkswagen is connected to Nazis, although way closer than pill.
Second paragraph kinda fails, Whether she lied or not about one thing, you can actually check whether what she posted in this particular post is a lie.
That they are connected is my point and why I used them. It doesn’t make them bad now.
Precisely? If it doesnt make them bad now, where does assumption that it somehow makes them bad came from?
You contradict yourself:
"She used it within the context of saying the pill is somehow supporting or connected to the Nazis. Which would be the same as saying no one should have a Volkswagen."
" It doesn’t make them bad now. "
On October 15 2026 08:07 KwarK wrote:
Yeah, just do the work to find out what is actually true instead of assuming.
It’s kind of like how fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers. It’s not really a problem, you just check every time before eating and if it turns out there is shit then just make your own burger.
Yeah, just do the work to find out what is actually true instead of assuming.
It’s kind of like how fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers. It’s not really a problem, you just check every time before eating and if it turns out there is shit then just make your own burger.
No, it is more like fast food employees sometimes take a shit in the burgers, and to prove it someone use the one they didnt.
No, it isn't. There's no doubt some tenuous connection between Lightspectra and Zyklon B (for instance, he mentioned it on a Starcraft forum)! But that doesn't mean that "there's a connection" is true for any reasonable value of true. Words exist in the context of their utterance. And nobody is uttering that there's "a connection" between two things unless they think there's a connection substantial enough to mention between the two things.
As for her second paragraph, so bloody what? Here's two paragraphs for you:
Razyda is a serial baby rapist. He likes to sodomize children between the ages 3 and 5 in his murder basement.
For context, I must mention that Razyda is a frequent poster on TL.net, where he has written over 1000 posts. TL.net is an internet forum dedicated to the Starcraft RTS game and its sequel.
For context, I must mention that Razyda is a frequent poster on TL.net, where he has written over 1000 posts. TL.net is an internet forum dedicated to the Starcraft RTS game and its sequel.
Is my first post true just because it contains truth? Or is it baseless slander? I'll let you decide.
Yes it is. Difference between your example, and her post is, that in her case first paragraph is true. You may argue it is unnecessary, because it is obvious, but you cant deny that it is true. Also she did exactly what you did:
Part 1: There's no doubt some tenuous connection between Lightspectra and Zyklon B
Part 2: (for instance, he mentioned it on a Starcraft forum)
Do you think LightSpectra is a nazi supporter and we should treat him as such?
Calling people lunatics for posting a conspiracy theory from the 80s, is sensible.
Justifying it as just trolling for no other reason than it made someone mad, is not.
You still didnt learn to read did you?
She posted a fact, not a conspiracy theory. I also didnt justify it, I pointed out that it made someone mad for no reason whatsoever.
