Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Saelune:

Abomination:
I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

I do not defend the GOP, I disagree that the only reason why someone would vote for them is because they actively wish to persecute minorities. I'm not one to attribute malice to ignorance.

I criticize the Democrats because they somehow managed to lose to Trump and decided to nominate an oligarch as their presidential candidate when a far far more popular alternative was available.

Just because I hate the Republican party doesn't mean the Democrats can do no wrong. Just because I see the glaring flaws in the Democrats does not mean I am pro-Republican.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

I do not defend the GOP, I disagree that the only reason why someone would vote for them is because they actively wish to persecute minorities. I'm not one to attribute malice to ignorance.

I criticize the Democrats because they somehow managed to lose to Trump and decided to nominate an oligarch as their presidential candidate when a far far more popular alternative was available.

Just because I hate the Republican party doesn't mean the Democrats can do no wrong. Just because I see the glaring flaws in the Democrats does not mean I am pro-Republican.

You wont prove to me you don't defend Republicans by defending Republicans.

Saelune:

Abomination:

Saelune:
Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

I do not defend the GOP, I disagree that the only reason why someone would vote for them is because they actively wish to persecute minorities. I'm not one to attribute malice to ignorance.

I criticize the Democrats because they somehow managed to lose to Trump and decided to nominate an oligarch as their presidential candidate when a far far more popular alternative was available.

Just because I hate the Republican party doesn't mean the Democrats can do no wrong. Just because I see the glaring flaws in the Democrats does not mean I am pro-Republican.

You wont prove to me you don't defend Republicans by defending Republicans.

Of course I can't, because your personal definition of the word "defend" is warped.

Abomination:
I do not defend the GOP, I disagree that the only reason why someone would vote for them is because they actively wish to persecute minorities. I'm not one to attribute malice to ignorance.

Trump candidature ran in a platform of constant bigotry. The only ignorance that can attributed to Republican voters is willful ignorance.

CaitSeith:
Trump candidature ran in a platform of constant bigotry. The only ignorance that can attributed to Republican voters is willful ignorance.

No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

Just like with most things, civility can be good or bad depending on the context and the situation.

Abomination:

Saelune:

Abomination:
I do not defend the GOP, I disagree that the only reason why someone would vote for them is because they actively wish to persecute minorities. I'm not one to attribute malice to ignorance.

I criticize the Democrats because they somehow managed to lose to Trump and decided to nominate an oligarch as their presidential candidate when a far far more popular alternative was available.

Just because I hate the Republican party doesn't mean the Democrats can do no wrong. Just because I see the glaring flaws in the Democrats does not mean I am pro-Republican.

You wont prove to me you don't defend Republicans by defending Republicans.

Of course I can't, because your personal definition of the word "defend" is warped.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Trump candidature ran in a platform of constant bigotry. The only ignorance that can attributed to Republican voters is willful ignorance.

No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

This is how I know I am right and you are wrong, because you claim it was not about Bigotry when it was 100% about bigotry.

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Trump candidature ran in a platform of constant bigotry. The only ignorance that can attributed to Republican voters is willful ignorance.

No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

The guy started off with a promise to build a wall because Mexicans were sending their rapists and murderers, and talked about banning Muslims because of their danger to America. These by themselves were Trump's constant companions during his campaign, so I'm curious to watch you square this cirlce that his campaign didn't platform on constant bigotry.

Something Amyss:

Abomination:

CaitSeith:
Trump candidature ran in a platform of constant bigotry. The only ignorance that can attributed to Republican voters is willful ignorance.

No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

The guy started off with a promise to build a wall because Mexicans were sending their rapists and murderers, and talked about banning Muslims because of their danger to America. These by themselves were Trump's constant companions during his campaign, so I'm curious to watch you square this cirlce that his campaign didn't platform on constant bigotry.

Saelune:
it was 100% about bigotry.

It was not constant bigotry.

Bigotry was not the only aspect of his campaign.

Yes, it made up a significant proportion in certain areas, but in other locations he campaigned on different issues surrounding US jobs being moved overseas and tax breaks for middle class Americans. I mean, none of it was genuine, but he campaigned on it.

Not everything out of his mouth was about deporting Mexicans and killing Muslims. A significant amount was about the promise of restoring blue collared work to a position of prosperity.

runic knight:
Anyone who responds to his trap by walking right in would be considered helping his goal...

I don't think you're quite getting this (deliberately?).

You want to make a case that it's reprehensible for someone to fall into this guy's trap because they haven't stopped to examine the full content of his words. But at the same time you're completely excusing people for not knowing the wider content of this guy's background and intent. That second issue is also crucial for determining how we should respond to his words.

Just so we're absolutely clear here, you have a problem with the second. And thus here you are, essentially collaborating with a white nationalist to help him make his case. You simply don't have to do that, and - assuming you are not a white nationalist sympathiser yourelf - I strongly suggest you stop sooner rather than later.

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

The guy started off with a promise to build a wall because Mexicans were sending their rapists and murderers, and talked about banning Muslims because of their danger to America. These by themselves were Trump's constant companions during his campaign, so I'm curious to watch you square this cirlce that his campaign didn't platform on constant bigotry.

Saelune:
it was 100% about bigotry.

It was not constant bigotry.

Bigotry was not the only aspect of his campaign.

Yes, it made up a significant proportion in certain areas, but in other locations he campaigned on different issues surrounding US jobs being moved overseas and tax breaks for middle class Americans. I mean, none of it was genuine, but he campaigned on it.

Not everything out of his mouth was about deporting Mexicans and killing Muslims. A significant amount was about the promise of restoring blue collared work to a position of prosperity.

No, not everything out of his mouth was bashing Mexicans and Muslims. He also bashed women and blacks. And he was never about helping blue collar workers.

Donald Trump is a super bigoted swamp monster and corporate Russian shill. STOP DEFENDING HIM. Seriously, I am tired of having to point out to you, runic knight, Catnip and others that your constant defense of bigoted right-wingers only makes you a supporter of them.

Saying 'I am not a supporter of them but...' doesn't change that.

Saelune:
No, not everything out of his mouth was bashing Mexicans and Muslims. He also bashed women and blacks. And he was never about helping blue collar workers.

He was appealing to blue collar workers far more than any other demographic. He did not do so by only being bigoted.

Donald Trump is a super bigoted swamp monster and corporate Russian shill.

Yes, I agree.

STOP DEFENDING HIM. Seriously, I am tired of having to point out to you, runic knight, Catnip and others that your constant defense of bigoted right-wingers only makes you a supporter of them.

I will say whatever the fuck I want, Saelune. I am not defending him or his actions but I am also not going to ignore what he said and how he said things that do not fit your warped narrative. We are discussing a presidential campaign, not a soft drink slogan. There is more nuance than one talking point.

Saying 'I am not a supporter of them but...' doesn't change that.

Commenting on how someone behaved in their entirety and disagreeing that they only did one specific thing all the time is not supporting anyone. One can point out other characteristics of an individual or even positive traits without needing to agree or even admire that individual.

Trump is the worst President the United States has had for as long as I have been alive and able to form opinions on it. He is inept, thin-skinned, prone to taking offence easily and most certainly experiencing some form of senility. The sooner he is out of office the better for the entire world.

Any who voted for him are fools, stand to gain from his appointment, and/or do so for party loyalty only - they may also be bigoted, but it is not a requirement, they could just be apathetic. He did not become elected by ONLY hating on minorities in his campaign promises.

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

The guy started off with a promise to build a wall because Mexicans were sending their rapists and murderers, and talked about banning Muslims because of their danger to America. These by themselves were Trump's constant companions during his campaign, so I'm curious to watch you square this cirlce that his campaign didn't platform on constant bigotry.

Saelune:
it was 100% about bigotry.

It was not constant bigotry.

Bigotry was not the only aspect of his campaign.

Yes, it made up a significant proportion in certain areas, but in other locations he campaigned on different issues surrounding US jobs being moved overseas and tax breaks for middle class Americans. I mean, none of it was genuine, but he campaigned on it.

Not everything out of his mouth was about deporting Mexicans and killing Muslims. A significant amount was about the promise of restoring blue collared work to a position of prosperity.

And to vote for that, they had to willingly ignore the bigotry that was most of his speeches and that made into headlines and news during the elections. Willing ignorance is the main point here.

Abomination:

Saelune:
No, not everything out of his mouth was bashing Mexicans and Muslims. He also bashed women and blacks. And he was never about helping blue collar workers.

He was appealing to blue collar workers far more than any other demographic. He did not do so by only being bigoted.

Donald Trump is a super bigoted swamp monster and corporate Russian shill.

Yes, I agree.

STOP DEFENDING HIM. Seriously, I am tired of having to point out to you, runic knight, Catnip and others that your constant defense of bigoted right-wingers only makes you a supporter of them.

I will say whatever the fuck I want, Saelune. I am not defending him or his actions but I am also not going to ignore what he said and how he said things that do not fit your warped narrative. We are discussing a presidential campaign, not a soft drink slogan. There is more nuance than one talking point.

Saying 'I am not a supporter of them but...' doesn't change that.

Commenting on how someone behaved in their entirety and disagreeing that they only did one specific thing all the time is not supporting anyone. One can point out other characteristics of an individual or even positive traits without needing to agree or even admire that individual.

Trump is the worst President the United States has had for as long as I have been alive and able to form opinions on it. He is inept, thin-skinned, prone to taking offence easily and most certainly experiencing some form of senility. The sooner he is out of office the better for the entire world.

Any who voted for him are fools, stand to gain from his appointment, and/or do so for party loyalty only - they may also be bigoted, but it is not a requirement, they could just be apathetic. He did not become elected by ONLY hating on minorities in his campaign promises.

He solely did it by being bigoted.
image

You are making excuses for people who have none. That is defending them. If you vote for someone who runs on bigotry because 'I dont care about the people he is bigoted against' then you are supporting the bigotry.

Its like if a bully took a kids lunch money and you decided to pocket some of the money the bully dropped. 'I didnt bully him, I just picked up some of the money from the floor'.

Fuck Fox, fuck you so much! You hypocritical Donald Trump shills!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-takes-time-off-for-self-care-laments-loss-of-yoga-sessions-due-to-politics

Guess motherfucking what! Donald Trump has golfed more in half a year than mother fucking Obama did in 8! Go fuck yourselves Fox. Hypocritical pieces of garbage!

Abomination:
Bigotry was not the only aspect of his campaign.

Just, you know, a constant one. So even the word lawyering doesn't really benefit you.

Saelune:
Stop defending White Nationalism.

I am not.

I am opposing your terrible arguments, horrible behavior, and frequent fallacies.

Opposing you is not the same as supporting your enemies. Stop lying to yourself and others in pretending anything I have said here is an endorsement or defense of white supremacy.

Lil devils x:

runic knight:
Because you want to pretend that anyone who voted politically opposed to you is the same as that person and will demonize them and excuse social, financial and even physical violence against them just to justify your hatred of their entire group.

When you give your vote to another person to represent you, you are giving up your own voice and power to them to speak and act for you. Yes, you are responsible for what they then do and say with that power you gave them as they would not have the power to wield without the people who gave that power to them. If every person understood the power of their vote and took responsibility for it, we would not have the atrocities committed as we do by those who have been given such power. If you give another your power, it is also your responsibility to prevent them from abusing it, failing to do so it is no different than if you carried out the atrocities yourself, because you caused it to happen by empowering them in the first place.

One cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility once one gives their power to another to wield, and claim they are not accountable for those actions that were only allowed to take place due to that power being given. They are indeed accountable so should take more care in who they give that power to knowing it is their responsibility to do something about it when it is abused.

"representation" is indeed the same as doing it yourself because you empowered them to speak and act for you so yes, they are one in the same at that point.

No, representation does not change the fact that people are responsible for their own actions and behaviors and not that of others. If you vote for someone saying "I will keep your jobs in this nation", you are voting based on the promise that person will act a certain way in office, but if that elected politician does not and instead decides to do the opposite, that does not make the voter responsible for that change in promised behavior. The same applies for behavior that is neither promised to commit or avoid, such as voting on bills on issues that never came up during the campaign.

At best, you have a case for people who voted knowingly for someone who said they were going to do something bad. Which would be almost fair for a judgement, except that even that is often a "lesser of two evils" style of choice for voters where what they did was put their own concerns prior to that of someone else (such as voting for someone who promised better economic opportunity for them, who also opposed some social rulings for others). In which, you are literally calling someone evil for not sacrificing for your interests, while ignoring that you demonstrate no willingness to do the same for them, despite the entitlement to their voting for your interests above their own.

But all that is nearly moot here, as what sae is doing is so far beyond justified for people voting opposed to them. The way I read your justification, it seems almost to imply such a simplified perspective it would be akin to that people are willingly voting for someone who promises to hang black people thus are accountable for supporting that behavior. The reality is people are voting for issues that affect them immediately, but in doing so oppose your interests socially or sensibility. Trump is a bigot for hating mexicans because he wants to make a wall and fuck with the trade agreements. Problem is even that is the issues of immigration, public safety, economic events, and national security. And if someone values national security over immigration, it will affect how they would vote there, even if they didn't exactly like the solutions promised, or the mindset behind them.

and it becomes a problem that for such an affront, the thread starter willingly excuse social, financial and even physical violence against people who voted opposed to them, when even such votes has ultimately had such minor impact compared to the doomsday hysteria claimed in the elections, and the escalation of force and violence that such behavior ultimately supports will own serve to cause more harm to everyone, the innocents caught in the crossfire, and their own "side" as the antics of insanity in the political climate drive people to support more conservative responses that carry the negative side-effects disliked in the first place.

Or to put it as bluntly as I can, a gross overreation to a standard change in political ruling party is resulting in increased horrible behavior toward voters justified solely by "they supported my opponent" mindset will only make more people support their opponent in response to threat and anger.

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys". If you start to use the same tactics, you become what you hate.

I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

This. This is why I argue with you regulars so damn much. The dem party is using the exact same bullshit as the 2000's republicans, down to the authoritarian dismissal of human rights, corporate influences, manipulating of businesses to affect opposition, and relying on a "with us or against us" mindset.

Saelune:

Abomination:
I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

You continue to mistake criticism of your side with support of the opposition. You need to stop that. They are not the same thing, and the more you keep trying to pretend otherwise, the more likely you will drive people critical of the dem party into either apathy to your pet issues, or outright into the opposition in hopes to stop your horrible tactics and arguments from ever gaining foothold.

Agema:

runic knight:
Anyone who responds to his trap by walking right in would be considered helping his goal...

I don't think you're quite getting this (deliberately?).

You want to make a case that it's reprehensible for someone to fall into this guy's trap because they haven't stopped to examine the full content of his words. But at the same time you're completely excusing people for not knowing the wider content of this guy's background and intent. That second issue is also crucial for determining how we should respond to his words.

Just so we're absolutely clear here, you have a problem with the second. And thus here you are, essentially collaborating with a white nationalist to help him make his case. You simply don't have to do that, and - assuming you are not a white nationalist sympathiser yourelf - I strongly suggest you stop sooner rather than later.

I am not saying they are reprehensible for falling into his trap. I think they are for calling anyone who opposes them politically a "nazi", amid other behavior.

No, I think they are a fool for falling into his trap based on their own assumptions of what his motivations are that make it a "trap" in the first place. Especially when they express awareness that it is one according to their own opinions on the man, yet still satisfy the conditions for the trap with such eagerness.

My "excuse" for the guy's wider intent is not one at all. Rather, it is part of the addressing the flaws with it as the after-the-fact addition to support the claim he is a white supremacist, after the initial claim based on his words alone was called out for being poorly made and badly supported.

The problem with the second issue is not the argument itself, I made no claim about how strongly or poorly it was at convincing me it was proof he was a white supremacist. The problem is in how it was added after-the-fact to an already broken argument, and how it does not matter when added to that broken argument as because they fell for the trap so eagerly, the validity of the supports there-in are worthless as they are all easily discarded thanks to the "use his own words" attempt.

Essentially, by falling for the trap, he can spin things so that all evidence can be dismissed toward the claim because of the untrustworthiness of the messenger in the first. Tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am not collaborating with anyone by pointing out the failures of reason, the terribleness of an argument, or the horribleness of someone's behavior that they try to justify afterwards by pointing at this man. Assuming so requires you inherently think that being critical or even opposing them is a support of their opposition. "With us or against us" is not an argument that works.

Telling me to stop being critical of the myriad of failings in argument, moral consistency, or even self-interest I see tends to have the opposite effect though. Generally speaking, I smile when someone tells me to sit down and shut up like that.

runic knight:

Saelune:
Stop defending White Nationalism.

I am not.

I am opposing your terrible arguments, horrible behavior, and frequent fallacies.

Opposing you is not the same as supporting your enemies. Stop lying to yourself and others in pretending anything I have said here is an endorsement or defense of white supremacy.

Lil devils x:

runic knight:
Because you want to pretend that anyone who voted politically opposed to you is the same as that person and will demonize them and excuse social, financial and even physical violence against them just to justify your hatred of their entire group.

When you give your vote to another person to represent you, you are giving up your own voice and power to them to speak and act for you. Yes, you are responsible for what they then do and say with that power you gave them as they would not have the power to wield without the people who gave that power to them. If every person understood the power of their vote and took responsibility for it, we would not have the atrocities committed as we do by those who have been given such power. If you give another your power, it is also your responsibility to prevent them from abusing it, failing to do so it is no different than if you carried out the atrocities yourself, because you caused it to happen by empowering them in the first place.

One cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility once one gives their power to another to wield, and claim they are not accountable for those actions that were only allowed to take place due to that power being given. They are indeed accountable so should take more care in who they give that power to knowing it is their responsibility to do something about it when it is abused.

"representation" is indeed the same as doing it yourself because you empowered them to speak and act for you so yes, they are one in the same at that point.

No, representation does not change the fact that people are responsible for their own actions and behaviors and not that of others. If you vote for someone saying "I will keep your jobs in this nation", you are voting based on the promise that person will act a certain way in office, but if that elected politician does not and instead decides to do the opposite, that does not make the voter responsible for that change in promised behavior. The same applies for behavior that is neither promised to commit or avoid, such as voting on bills on issues that never came up during the campaign.

At best, you have a case for people who voted knowingly for someone who said they were going to do something bad. Which would be almost fair for a judgement, except that even that is often a "lesser of two evils" style of choice for voters where what they did was put their own concerns prior to that of someone else (such as voting for someone who promised better economic opportunity for them, who also opposed some social rulings for others).

But all that is nearly moot here, as what they are doing is so far beyond justified for people voting opposed to them. The way I read your justification, it seems almost to imply such a simplified perspective it would be akin to that people are willingly voting for someone who promises to hang black people thus are accountable for supporting that behavior. The reality is people are voting for issues that affect them immediately, but in doing so oppose your interests socially or sensibility. The problem is that for such an affront, the thread starter willingly excuse social, financial and even physical violence against people who voted opposed to them, when even such votes has ultimately had such minor impact compared to the doomsday hysteria claimed in the elections, and the escalation of force and violence that such behavior ultimately supports will own serve to cause more harm to everyone, the innocents caught in the crossfire, and their own "side" as the antics of insanity in the political climate drive people to support more conservative responses that carry the negative side-effects disliked in the first place.

Or to put it as bluntly as I can, a gross overreation to a standard change in political ruling party is resulting in increased horrible behavior toward voters justified solely by "they supported my opponent" mindset will only make more people support their opponent in response to threat and anger.

Abomination:
The tactics used by the GOP is what makes them the "bad guys". If you start to use the same tactics, you become what you hate.

I want the democrats to rise above it and attack Republican policy, rather than republican people.

This. This is why I argue with you regulars so damn much. The dem party is using the exact same bullshit as the 2000's republicans, down to the authoritarian dismissal of human rights, corporate influences, manipulating of businesses to affect opposition, and relying on a "with us or against us" mindset.

Saelune:

Abomination:
I don't know why people would think I am PRO-GOP.

Because all you do is defend them and criticize Democrats.

You continue to mistake criticism of your side with support of the opposition. You need to stop that. They are not the same thing, and the more you keep trying to pretend otherwise, the more likely you will drive people critical of the dem party into either apathy to your pet issues, or outright into the opposition in hopes to stop your horrible tactics and arguments from ever gaining foothold.

Anyone who supports a party of bigotry to spite me was always a bigot.

Saelune:
Anyone who supports a party of bigotry to spite me was always a bigot.

What if they do so because they don't want someone so willing to social, financial and even physical violence against them to get any sort of power where they could act upon such horrible justifications? Because a lot of people looking at the attitude you put forth see nothing but the shadow of fascism, actual fascism, in the mindset and actions there.

ObsidianJones:
I see what you're saying. But let me go to the part of the study that was specifically addressing the open-and-out racists and/or subconsciously biased towards minorities, and how they admit that influences their ruling.

...

Right. There is no section like that. There will never be a section like that because even with this racial divided America, no one can out right say that and still have their job. There is a segment of data that will never be reported, nor will we ever know how much of the population of judges sentenced due to absolute fairness and the letter of the law. Hell, the FBI can't even get straight numbers about Police Shootings each year, but we expect documents to show that minorities suffer specifically due to judges wanting to punish minorities more?

You say my data is incomplete and I'm using it as supporting my conclusion first before getting the facts. Again, I see it differently. As no one checks off "Bigoted" "Racist" "Misogynistic/Misandristic" "Classist" when they apply for Juidgeship, all we do have is their actions.

I mean, it would be one thing if they did. Then we could just cross reference the admittedly Biased Judges with the Normal judges and compare the numbers. But we can't do that. So all we have is a disproportionate slant and 'questions' as to why.

The problem is with this scenario, all we'll ever have is the Scientific Method. We observe the Situation (Black males getting longer time even doing the same crime). We Research the Problem, or gathering Data. You come up with a Hypothesis. And at this point, we're supposed to come up with the other steps, but we can not. Because the Data in this sample will always be corrupted because these Biased Judges won't admit the truth in this climate, nor can we conduct any experiments.

So, this is where we sit. With incomplete data (we see the numbers, but we'll never get the true 'why' of these numbers). The thing is, I get that it's unproven until people start telling the truth. And I know it's in their best interest never to do so. Do you understand that fact? Or are you given to just accepting your perception of how it plays out because it's the one that makes the most sense to you?

You make an appeal to conspiracy by claiming no one could say that. That is not a good argument to make when trying to convince someone. Not saying it can't be true, just that it doesn't do anything to convince someone who doesn't already agree when you go "they can't say they support me, or else".

You also sabotage your own conclusion by pointing that data collection is hard-pressed to get things straight when it comes to certain topics. You specifically complain about how you wont ever get the data to clearly show the conclusion you reached, but in doing so show that again, you are working backwards from that conclusion to find supports for it rather than the data itself (even if hard-pressed to get fully) pointing to the conclusion.

You are right that all we have to look at is the actions, since the motivations wont be posted. But you point to that as inherently flawed because it doesn't help support your conclusion clearly and is thus my mistake for not accepting it is what you support there. You think that I require the judges speak honestly on the matter of their motivations, and that never once crossed my mind as something you could get, let alone being needed.

You mention the scientific method, but you fail to understand how it works it seems if you think that we can't utilize it further than you did here. I told you how to before. You take the hypothesis, and you test for it in what ways you can. You also test competing hypothesis and see which is closer to justifying what the data shows. There was a reason I mentioned the competing conclusion after all.

In this case, you called up length of sentencing of black males. I already covered the sort of data you would need to start isolating the cause as race instead of some other correlation(comparisons to prior convictions or crime rates). There is also geographical location (if that court is just normally harsher or lighter compared to elsewhere), breakdowns of judges themselves (some judges are just harsher or lighter), and comparisons of economic station (affecting the strength of defense they can mount). I don't just mention these as flaws with the data for the sake of dismissing the data you know. I mention these because that is how you hone the data and zero in on truly solid evidence to demonstrate the conclusion. You are pointing at a trend you see and drawing your conclusion, where as to make the claim, you got to dig deeper than the surface pattern in order to see what the cause of that trend is.

Seriously, the last two days have been a deluge of how this planet is freaking dying and how we still have leaders (Trump) and people denying the severe weather, the rising water levels, and the disappearing ice caps. It has been a sad state of affairs for years now, but it's ramping up.

And because people still dismiss it at fake news, Trump feels empowered to continue to gut and ignore any efforts to turn the course. The Fake News power has a very real chance to destroy our way of life. Ignoring it, ironically, doesn't rob it of its power.

Why do you think I hate it so much that the media itself so openly and maliciously lies, misrepresent, demonizes, or manufactures shit instead of doing their job responsibility? It makes that sort of shit all the more potent when the person who is suppose to keep watch keeps being caught crying wolf falsely. When the watchdog barks at every little thing, people tune it out. "fake news" only became potent because Trump turned the label back around on those who used it first, and those fools kept proving him right in using it with every manufactured controversy, misrepresented story, or blatant lie about what he said or did.

Again, this goes to my original point. I'm not messing up the Data. The Data is corrupted at the source. Most Data is. The bits and pieces of Data that we get come from not being able to hide the obvious.

Like you, I would rather have clear, undeniable facts than anything else. But where we separate is that a lot of Minorities are on both sides of the ethnic/economic spectrum not due to their choices, but their luck in life. Most minorities were born in ghettos and were only concerned about keeping their family safe and eating.

Like in several posts back where I pointed out that Minorities still get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to educational and job opportunities, a financial boon will not come out of thin air. Some will make it out. My Granddad did. My Father did. I'm doing well for myself. But I do not hold up the entire race. Nor can the thousands of us for the millions who didn't make it due to outside forces and limited mobility out.

Why am I saying this? The only way to control for all factors is to feasibly have the same opportunities and see if they lead to similar outcomes. And that isn't the case in most situations.

I'd love to be able to control for data. That means we would have the ability to stamp out poverty and just let people be. Until we have that solution, though, we have to take the numbers we get.

You aren't messing up the data, you are using it poorly. Largely because it is not very specific and thus doesn't support your conclusion in the way you want it to.
I think you greatly overestimate just what is required to start controlling for variable to help make the data more useful here. Covered that earlier in the reply.

I freely state that I'm using Minority and namely blacks because they fit almost perfectly in both sides of the spectrum, ethnic and economic status. But you have to again go to the fact that we'll never get controlled data because it will harm too many people and institutions to ever get that. This is something you have to understand.

The "wait and see for more concise data" idea is only well and good if you're afforded the ability to wait and see. Some of us are not. Some of us see people who look like them shot without any care or justice, people who look like them jailed as a felon for 'crimes' that are a 125 dollar ticket for others who do not look like them. Some of us see a rise of people with a cancerous ideology almost decriminalized have less of a focus of police oversight placed on them, but more when people who look like us get targeted by the FBI because we don't like being shot down like dogs. Data is wonderful. But it's not getting here soon enough. Nor will it ever get here because to get true numbers, we're asking people to potentially damage nor only their careers, but cast the entire justice system and its rulings under true suspicion for God Knows How many years.

Acting rashly can cause more problems than waiting though, which is a concern to be aware of. Beyond even that though, you need to convince people the conclusion is the right one, so the stronger the case for it, the more compelling it is. And unlike your assumption, getting better, more useful data is not some impossibility, nor does it require truthfulness in the motivations declared by judges.

Do you know what happened when Blacks told other people that we were being arrested for nothing, shot and killed for nothing? Disbelief. We were called liars. We were told that we just didn't want to go to jail for the crimes we did.

Now the internet is here. People are seeing videos. Hearing recordings that disprove police testimony. Do you know what Black people are still seeing?

"Well, what happened before the video?"

"That doesn't show the whole story"

"Shouldn't have run" (as if running is a death sentence)

We live in a world where a situation like Justine Damond is vilified vs Philando Castile is Justified. We live in a world where an officer's absolute fear supersedes the reality of the situation. Where a group of citizens who are supposed to be Philando's and Officer Yanez's "peers" look at his split second reaction and ignoring Philando stating that he wasn't reaching for his gun, then think to themselves "Yeah, that was reasonable"... we all have a problem.

More importantly, the problem is that Blacks feel the need to bring focus on this, to say that this is a big deal. Do you ever stop to think how much of a blow it has to the Black Community that we have to say in one voice that our continued existence matters? The fact that American Citizens aren't gathering as one that their fellow citizens are being gunned down with very little resistance or backlash?

A lot of people will stop framing it as a Black Thing when it seems like people won't get away with it when it happens to Black People. As it is, a lot of officers do get away with it when it happens to Blacks. There are a few convictions. Never will deny that. But when we still live in a world where people can look at what happened to Castile and somehow justify Yanez's fear for 'some unknown reason', there is still a division that Blacks do not place, but are forced to live with.

Oh and by the way, Black Activists marched for Justine.

It is not a black problem. It is a problem wider than one race, and it affects more than just one race (I even linked to show that it doesn't even affect that one race the most of all the races).

Every one of your complaints about it being denied, disbelieved, and about the police protecting their own is not exclusive to the black community.

Making it a black issue though divides the opposition to the lack of oversight.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed, why in the hell would you ever want to handicap yourself in getting it solved like this though? You say people will stop framing it as a black thing if people stopped getting away with it as if no other race can be shot with no consequences. That is untrue, and what you describe would be solving the problem for black people first before addressing it more widely, a foolish way to handle the problem at all.

I get you association to identity relating to the problem, I just think latching onto that is a great way to see it never gets fixed in the end.

I can't comment on the Athletes or the celebrity thing. I don't pay attention to sports or things other than Netflix, Video Games, or the news. And I don't remember reading about any Athletes or Celebrities skating on any charges. I know Cosby's sitting in Jail.

But the idea that these things don't hurt them for protesting seems untrue to you because you're defining the perimeters that offense or harm can be taken. Do we ignore the racial outbursts, stemming from being called "Baboons" to the "N-Word" over kneeling in protest? LeBron having a racial slur sprayed on his home? Adam Jones called racial slurs and having peanuts hurled at him. It's ok because they have money?

They are the ones who decide if they harmed or not. Not us.

Does that also apply to those called "house nigger" or uncle tom" for opposing the politics of those who supported the kneeling?

Or what about calling specific people "white bigot" or similar if they are white?

I mention financial specifically because that, at least, is measurable in a way. If you wish to use individual emotional distress in response to people being abusive to them as celebrities, then you open up ALL that entails, which has the side-effect of making it a very moot point as you quickly have to try to quantify things such as "is LeBron more hurt for being called a slur than someone else is for being called a cracker?"

You also have the problem of people being mad and wanting to lash out at celebrities being a normal thing in general regardless of race, therefore requiring someone be able to distinguish between the standard sort of hate, those using hate speech solely for the shock of it, those who are actually racist, and those who are just outright trolling for the sake of causing shit. You can't attribute it all to one of those and ignore the rest if you are pointing at it as evidence.

runic knight:

Saelune:
Anyone who supports a party of bigotry to spite me was always a bigot.

What if they do so because they don't want someone so willing to social, financial and even physical violence against them to get any sort of power where they could act upon such horrible justifications? Because a lot of people looking at the attitude you put forth see nothing but the shadow of fascism, actual fascism, in the mindset and actions there.

Ask yourself that. I think it is telling that you use this as an excuse to defend the right but do not let the left use this as an excuse.

Donald Trump is the fascist supporting physical violence against people.

Remember when a Democrat shot up a Synogogue of Jews? Me neither, it was a Right Winger.

Remember when a Democrat sent bomb to a bunch of right-wingers? Me neither, it was a right-winger sending them to a bunch of left wingers.

Remember when a black supremacists shot up a church of white people? Me neither, it was a white supremacist who shot up a black church...was also a right winger.

The right is the violent fascist bigots. The left is the hero here, the defenders of justice.

Stop defending white supremacy.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
Anyone who supports a party of bigotry to spite me was always a bigot.

What if they do so because they don't want someone so willing to social, financial and even physical violence against them to get any sort of power where they could act upon such horrible justifications? Because a lot of people looking at the attitude you put forth see nothing but the shadow of fascism, actual fascism, in the mindset and actions there.

Ask yourself that. I think it is telling that you use this as an excuse to defend the right but do not let the left use this as an excuse.

I have and do, but it seems even when asked directly, you are unable apply this internal justification you use to both sides yourself, and have to try to "no you" your way in avoiding it. Even here, when I ask you "what if they only support the party because they are scared of people like you excusing and justifying violence against them and theirs", the first thing out of your mouth is "But Trump!" as if that relates to the question at all. As if that justifies the horrible behavior and tactic. As if that means a damn thing to the people scared about the actions YOU and others like you willfully and gleefully encourage if not commit.

When asked "what if they are motivated by fear of your actions" your response should never be "but this other guy is doing this other thing" as if it somehow undoes your own actions and behaviors, or the actions and behaviors of those you willingly cheer on and encourage.

It doesn't, all it does is show that you don't care about being consistent in your actions, merely about hurting your enemies and feeling validated and justified in doing so. And you use the EXACT same reasoning those other people would, fear, to do so while dismissing their own in the same breath.

You are doing the equivalent of white supremacists saying "But all black people are violent criminals" to justify their behavior and arguments, and it is just as worthless when you say it as when they do.

You are saying you are scared of the actions of others, and that justifies your own actions of the same behavior against everyone else you want to directed it at.

Congratulations, you are doing the same justification as the nazi did for their violence and their tactics.

Now pay attention and actually read this for once.

I am not using this to defend one group while disregarding the other, I am pointing out that you are clearly not allowing the defenses YOU use to justify yourself to be used by anyone you think an acceptable target.I am, and have been, asking you why your justification is not seen as acceptable to you when used by those you disagree with politically.

It is not a defense of the right, it is a criticism of YOU and YOUR position, justification, and behavior.

As I say over and over, being critical of you is not a defense or support of your enemies.

[Quote]Donald Trump is the fascist supporting physical violence against people. [/quote]

Who and where?

Remember when a Democrat shot up a Synogogue of Jews? Me neither, it was a Right Winger.

Remember when a Democrat sent bomb to a bunch of right-wingers? Me neither, it was a right-winger sending them to a bunch of left wingers.

Remember when a black supremacists shot up a church of white people? Me neither, it was a white supremacist who shot up a black church...was also a right winger.

Was it because they were right-wing? Or was it one of a million traits about them like "they watched movies" or "They were right-handed"? Or maybe it was because "they ate food that day". The willful dishonesty in such cherry picking is on par with what I'd expect from a zealot justifying why the other sects are all evil monsters.

Because if you want to do this game of cherry-picking examples and going "see, this is ALL of them, we can. I can go point at the people who beat the autistic kid in chicago because he was white as "left-wingers" because of their anti-white bigotry is clearly accepted and embraced by it. Or I could point to the physical assaults in the streets by left-wingers at protests, or even at speakers. Hell, if I wanted to be really obvious with why this sort of thing is worthless as justification, I could point to communism itself, and the nazi as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

But those examples are themselves not justification for sweeping generalizations about the whole of nearly half the population of the western world. And they never were. At best, all you can use them for is to gauge how the majority respond to the extremists in their group and if their actions were condemned, or cheered and encouraged. And for all the evils of the right-wing, the left is just as willing to cheer violence and conflict when it is against those they dislike.

Only you, as you so flimsily try to project onto me, are unable to see that I am pointing this stuff out to show the lack of consistency even in your own position. You pretend and lie to yourself and others that it is a "defense" of the right wing when I criticize YOU.

The right is the violent fascist bigots. The left is the hero here, the defenders of justice.

You should save everyone the effort of trying to talk with you in any capacity and just post this in your replies alone.

Nothing else showcases, clearly and to the point, that you have no interest in engaging in good faith, in addressing criticism, or in being intellectually honest in any regard.

You are just zealously fighting your holy war, and anyone who you declare the enemy, clearly is monsters.

Stalin, Hitler... they would be so proud of you.

Stop defending white supremacy.

I'm not and never have.

Criticizing you is not a defense of what you claim to fight. Pretending otherwise is dishonest of you.

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

That is because they weren't it is just right wing propaganda (aka Nonsense they made up).

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

They just prey on people's ignorance and assume that they will not be intelligent enough to understand the difference.

Liek omagawd they used the word socialist they must be left wing! LMAO

Abomination:

Something Amyss:

Abomination:
No they didn't. It was not constant bigotry.

The guy started off with a promise to build a wall because Mexicans were sending their rapists and murderers, and talked about banning Muslims because of their danger to America. These by themselves were Trump's constant companions during his campaign, so I'm curious to watch you square this cirlce that his campaign didn't platform on constant bigotry.

Saelune:
it was 100% about bigotry.

It was not constant bigotry.

Bigotry was not the only aspect of his campaign.

Yes, it made up a significant proportion in certain areas, but in other locations he campaigned on different issues surrounding US jobs being moved overseas and tax breaks for middle class Americans. I mean, none of it was genuine, but he campaigned on it.

Not everything out of his mouth was about deporting Mexicans and killing Muslims. A significant amount was about the promise of restoring blue collared work to a position of prosperity.

You are overlooking the fact that the tax breaks were to help them because of "them foreigners" taking their jobs and the poor mooching off their hard work.. yea it does not exactly get better outside of the wall and muslim talk either.

Lil devils x:
Liek omagawd they used the word socialist they must be left wing! LMAO

I bet you say that Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really a democracy as well.

Abomination:

Saelune:
No, not everything out of his mouth was bashing Mexicans and Muslims. He also bashed women and blacks. And he was never about helping blue collar workers.

He was appealing to blue collar workers far more than any other demographic. He did not do so by only being bigoted.

No, he wasn't.

The people who voted for Trump were the same middle and upper-middle class suburban reactionaries who always vote for the Republican. The overall geographic locations where people broadly supported Trump skewed poor but Trump's voters were generally the wealthier members of those communities. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/29/places-that-backed-trump-skewed-poor-voters-who-backed-trump-skewed-wealthier/?utm_term=.262e0d30e394 Trump lost by double digits among working class voters and, broadly, those making less than $50,000 a year.

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

runic knight is doing it because he cannot argue in good faith.

runic knight:
Snip cause of messed up quoting

If you cannot rely on fatcs to argue your point, then maybe don't even try?

Thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
Liek omagawd they used the word socialist they must be left wing! LMAO

I bet you say that Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't really a democracy as well.

Unbelievable. Next they will tell me that the 50p packet of pork scratchings I bought at the pub isn't really "the world's #1 snack food".

That said, these are occasionally people who seriously believe in the idea of a "radical conservative", so perhaps its all a deeply philosophical interpretation of language that we just don't "get"; starring Jordan Peterson as this generation's Wittgenstein.

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

Heavy consolidation of state power? Promotion of federally backed systems to aid the poor and disillusioned as a way to gain favor among the populous? Promotion of censorship and control of language, arts, and criticisms by declaring those who make them that don't support the narrative are dangerous and thus not deserving the ability to make them? Heavy concentration on identity as part of a group and especially so in conjunction with justifying horrible behavior and tactics out of claims that everything bad going on is because you are part of said group? Promotion of violence against undesirable groups of acceptable targets? Promotion of heavily ideologically controlled media that pushed narratives instead of facts? Open disregard of established political systems and their rulings to instead promote their leadership or condemn their opposition in spite of the existing rule of law?

I'd say for the purpose of what I openly admitted was hyperbolic to show the worthlessness of the generalization committed, it has at least a defensible argument in comparing it to the modern western left (the "classic" left would be a far harder case, as the old platforms of promotion of individual liberties, helping promote equality, promoting civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, and promotion of skepticism rather than ideology were the antithesis of many core nazi values, but since the current western left has abandoned those values, or warped them in platform, I wouldn't consider the modern left part of that same distinction).

Saelune:

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

runic knight is doing it because he cannot argue in good faith.

No, the whole point was me saying "if I wanted to be entirely unfavorable, like you have been, I'd do this". Don't get too hung up on it as though it was anything more than an example for the sake of highlighting the flaws in their position, and stop trying to disparage my actual position if you aren't even going to put forth an argument explaining how it is such.

Just because I point out your gross dishonesty and constant disengenuousness, doesn't mean that parroting the words back at me as a "no you" reply is a good defense of them. Nor would it change anything about what is wrong in your arguments, your behavior, or your tactics even if you weren't openly lying about me as your response to those criticisms. You actually have to argue things out and support your claims, not just rely on slanderous accusations and zealous conviction. All you are doing is trying to make claims like someone would throw insults. And that is worthless, both to the discussion, and to persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

See what I did in that first paragraph, where I explain why you were wrong? Where I pointed out the context you intentionally disregard? Where I explained how your doing so made your accusation disingenuous, and dishonest of you to claim it since you had to have read the context it was made it and still chose to disregard it for the sake of your attempted insult? That sort of explanation and support of your claims is what you need to do. Otherwise, you look like a playground student going "nu uh, YOU are!" in response to careful explanation of what you have done wrong in your attempted argument or claim. And it is regarded as worthless for that same reason.

Saelune:

runic knight:
Snip cause of messed up quoting

If you cannot rely on fatcs to argue your point, then maybe don't even try?

I have. And have made well-defended arguments to support my point as well. Though there really isn't a lot of facts to rely on at this point when all I have to do is point at your terrible arguments and go "this is terrible and this is why". Your words are the facts used to support those arguments. You have clearly said them. And they are clearly terrible, both in being horrible unsupported and irrational, as I point out every reply since you never support anything, and in being terrible in the moral sense for what you attempt to do with them, as I demonstrate by using your own moral judgement by comparing you to the group you claim you fight to showcase how you are ACTING JUST LIKE THEM.

Perhaps you should try to actual hold arguments instead of continuing your attempts to parrot disparaging claims and use them like empty insults utterly devoid of support.

Or you could take my advice and just keep repeating your mantra of "The right is the violent fascist bigots. The left is the hero here, the defenders of justice." For all the worthlessness your empty, parroted accusations are to conversation. I'll still reply to them, tearing them apart, and calling you out for the dishonesty of them, and for your terrible behavior and tactics, so nothing would really change there.

Lil devils x:

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

That is because they weren't it is just right wing propaganda (aka Nonsense they made up).

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

They just prey on people's ignorance and assume that they will not be intelligent enough to understand the difference.

Liek omagawd they used the word socialist they must be left wing! LMAO

I never mentioned socialism, but nice of you to jump to an assumption in order to make accusations about me in what was openly admitted to be hyperbolic itself anyways to highlight a point.

Really showcases how intellectually dishonest you are being there in trying for that insult. Perhaps you should just join in on saelune's mantra there too if you aren't even going to pay attention to the context of the words for the sake of making your sweeping, disparaging claim about me.

Wait... why does that sound familiar?

That's right! What we talked about earlier about how saelune was removing context from that one guy solely to make their claim, and in doing so made a fool of themselves in openly supporting what they claim they fight against.

And tying back to to the topic at hand (I know, been a long divergent, but I had purpose), this all serves to show the value of being civil, by showing how abandoning it like you and sae have results in not only no gain, but a loss itself in ability to sway minds or to convince those watching. This entire runabout was serving as an example itself, with hope that maybe being within the example itself and having to admit that literally nothing is changing for all the incivility they were making. A disregard for civility itself has not only accomplished nothing, but it has harmed the conversation itself, and likely drove anyone watching into rejecting the uncivil outright, regardless if they had any merit underneath everything.

Sae has been horrible uncivil through this entire thread. What has it accomplished that is beneficial to the conversation?

Civility is important and should not be discarded so easily solely because you are upset that someone disagrees with you, or criticizes you or your friends. Being intellectually dishonest for the sole purpose of leveling insult and accusation toward others is not being civil. It is openly antagonistic to begin with, but it is also potentially harmful depending on how far those accusations go. You attempt to poison the well by claiming I am doing something I am not, based on examples I did not claim, in an argument I wasn't making, expressly to claim I am "preying upon ignorance". Sae, well, "The right is the violent fascist bigots." alone says all that needs to be said there about accusations they made.

But neither you, nor they nor anyone who does the same change anyone's mind like that. And unlike criticisms that are actually based on sound argument, this sort of thing is nothing but you saying "I hate this person", not for anything they may have actually said or done, but rather for what they represent in your own heads.

runic knight:

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

Heavy consolidation of state power?

In order to crack down on communists and racial undesirables, try to conquer the world...

runic knight:
Promotion of federally backed systems to aid the poor and disillusioned as a way to gain favor among the populous?

And maintain capitalism...

runic knight:
Promotion of censorship and control of language, arts, and criticisms by declaring those who make them that don't support the narrative are dangerous and thus not deserving the ability to make them?

In order to crack down on people who oppose capitalism or promote justice...

runic knight:
Heavy concentration on identity as part of a group and especially so in conjunction with justifying horrible behavior and tactics out of claims that everything bad going on is because you are part of said group?

Sounds like the American Right, alright.

runic knight:
Promotion of violence against undesirable groups of acceptable targets?

See above.

runic knight:
Promotion of heavily ideologically controlled media that pushed narratives instead of facts?

Democracy Now! vs. Fox News *thinking face*

runic knight:
Open disregard of established political systems and their rulings to instead promote their leadership or condemn their opposition in spite of the existing rule of law?

While being funded by capitalists and cracking down on actual revolutionaries, reformers, and so on.

runic knight:
I'd say for the purpose of what I openly admitted was hyperbolic to show the worthlessness of the generalization committed, it has at least a defensible argument in comparing it to the modern western left

It really doesn't, not least because your perception of the "modern Western left" is a straw man mostly invented by the right. This utilization of market forces and speech is a FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF MY FREE SPEECH, WAAAAAAAAAA

runic knight:

Chimpzy:

runic knight:
the nazis as examples of extreme left-wing ideologies that murdered countless millions, which they were.

Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

Heavy consolidation of state power? Promotion of federally backed systems to aid the poor and disillusioned as a way to gain favor among the populous? Promotion of censorship and control of language, arts, and criticisms by declaring those who make them that don't support the narrative are dangerous and thus not deserving the ability to make them? Heavy concentration on identity as part of a group and especially so in conjunction with justifying horrible behavior and tactics out of claims that everything bad going on is because you are part of said group? Promotion of violence against undesirable groups of acceptable targets? Promotion of heavily ideologically controlled media that pushed narratives instead of facts? Open disregard of established political systems and their rulings to instead promote their leadership or condemn their opposition in spite of the existing rule of law?

I'd say for the purpose of what I openly admitted was hyperbolic to show the worthlessness of the generalization committed, it has at least a defensible argument in comparing it to the modern western left (the "classic" left would be a far harder case, as the old platforms of promotion of individual liberties, helping promote equality, promoting civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, and promotion of skepticism rather than ideology were the antithesis of many core nazi values, but since the current western left has abandoned those values, or warped them in platform, I wouldn't consider the modern left part of that same distinction).

Saelune:

Chimpzy:
Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

runic knight is doing it because he cannot argue in good faith.

No, the whole point was me saying "if I wanted to be entirely unfavorable, like you have been, I'd do this". Don't get too hung up on it as though it was anything more than an example for the sake of highlighting the flaws in their position, and stop trying to disparage my actual position if you aren't even going to put forth an argument explaining how it is such.

Just because I point out your gross dishonesty and constant disengenuousness, doesn't mean that parroting the words back at me as a "no you" reply is a good defense of them. Nor would it change anything about what is wrong in your arguments, your behavior, or your tactics even if you weren't openly lying about me as your response to those criticisms. You actually have to argue things out and support your claims, not just rely on slanderous accusations and zealous conviction. All you are doing is trying to make claims like someone would throw insults. And that is worthless, both to the discussion, and to persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

See what I did in that first paragraph, where I explain why you were wrong? Where I pointed out the context you intentionally disregard? Where I explained how your doing so made your accusation disingenuous, and dishonest of you to claim it since you had to have read the context it was made it and still chose to disregard it for the sake of your attempted insult? That sort of explanation and support of your claims is what you need to do. Otherwise, you look like a playground student going "nu uh, YOU are!" in response to careful explanation of what you have done wrong in your attempted argument or claim. And it is regarded as worthless for that same reason.

Saelune:

runic knight:
Snip cause of messed up quoting

If you cannot rely on fatcs to argue your point, then maybe don't even try?

I have. And have made well-defended arguments to support my point as well. Though there really isn't a lot of facts to rely on at this point when all I have to do is point at your terrible arguments and go "this is terrible and this is why". Your words are the facts used to support those arguments. You have clearly said them. And they are clearly terrible, both in being horrible unsupported and irrational, as I point out every reply since you never support anything, and in being terrible in the moral sense for what you attempt to do with them, as I demonstrate by using your own moral judgement by comparing you to the group you claim you fight to showcase how you are ACTING JUST LIKE THEM.

Perhaps you should try to actual hold arguments instead of continuing your attempts to parrot disparaging claims and use them like empty insults utterly devoid of support.

Or you could take my advice and just keep repeating your mantra of "The right is the violent fascist bigots. The left is the hero here, the defenders of justice." For all the worthlessness your empty, parroted accusations are to conversation. I'll still reply to them, tearing them apart, and calling you out for the dishonesty of them, and for your terrible behavior and tactics, so nothing would really change there.

Lil devils x:

Chimpzy:
Gotta say, haven't seen Nazism labeled an extreme left-wing ideology very often.

That is because they weren't it is just right wing propaganda (aka Nonsense they made up).

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

They just prey on people's ignorance and assume that they will not be intelligent enough to understand the difference.

Liek omagawd they used the word socialist they must be left wing! LMAO

I never mentioned socialism, but nice of you to jump to an assumption in order to make accusations about me in what was openly admitted to be hyperbolic itself anyways to highlight a point.

Really showcases how intellectually dishonest you are being there in trying for that insult. Perhaps you should just join in on saelune's mantra there too if you aren't even going to pay attention to the context of the words for the sake of making your sweeping, disparaging claim about me.

Wait... why does that sound familiar?

That's right! What we talked about earlier about how saelune was removing context from that one guy solely to make their claim, and in doing so made a fool of themselves in openly supporting what they claim they fight against.

And tying back to to the topic at hand (I know, been a long divergent, but I had purpose), this all serves to show the value of being civil, by showing how abandoning it like you and sae have results in not only no gain, but a loss itself in ability to sway minds or to convince those watching. This entire runabout was serving as an example itself, with hope that maybe being within the example itself and having to admit that literally nothing is changing for all the incivility they were making. A disregard for civility itself has not only accomplished nothing, but it has harmed the conversation itself, and likely drove anyone watching into rejecting the uncivil outright, regardless if they had any merit underneath everything.

Sae has been horrible uncivil through this entire thread. What has it accomplished that is beneficial to the conversation?

Civility is important and should not be discarded so easily solely because you are upset that someone disagrees with you, or criticizes you or your friends. Being intellectually dishonest for the sole purpose of leveling insult and accusation toward others is not being civil. It is openly antagonistic to begin with, but it is also potentially harmful depending on how far those accusations go. You attempt to poison the well by claiming I am doing something I am not, based on examples I did not claim, in an argument I wasn't making, expressly to claim I am "preying upon ignorance". Sae, well, "The right is the violent fascist bigots." alone says all that needs to be said there about accusations they made.

But neither you, nor they nor anyone who does the same change anyone's mind like that. And unlike criticisms that are actually based on sound argument, this sort of thing is nothing but you saying "I hate this person", not for anything they may have actually said or done, but rather for what they represent in your own heads.

If you are going to make a call for civility, you should yourself be civil. Making personal attacks doesn't help your case.

Saelune:

Remember when a Democrat shot up a Synogogue of Jews? Me neither, it was a Right Winger.

I remember when one shot up a nightclub of queers.

Leg End:

Saelune:

Remember when a Democrat shot up a Synogogue of Jews? Me neither, it was a Right Winger.

I remember when one shot up a nightclub of queers.

Citation needed. If you mean Pulse, he was a right-wing extremist.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here