You said "the grassroots left". If you didn't mean to actually describe that extremely broad group, then... don't refer to them.
If you say "x group is y", then people from within x group are going to object. You can't moan that you didn't mean them. You referred to the group that includes them.
Again, this is the "not all X" argument.
I gave an example that specifically said "not all X," and you've been spending time claim that it/I have been saying "all X."
Almost as if the original sentiments in the article and your follow-up statement weren't limited to "specific examples" at all!
What's even your actual point here? If you want a "not all X" line, you have it. The article, like countless articles, cites examples, provides an argument, and you've been feigning personal umbrage.
I'll make this as simple as possible - is there anti-semitism on the far left and/or grassroots left or not?
I'm focused on the actual claim, yes, rather than the article it chose to link to which doesn't substantiate that claim.
Similarly, if an article said "water is toxic", and then linked to another source saying that certain ponds and lakes are toxic, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say the first article's claim is bollocks, and it would be a misplaced and foolish defence to say, "but look at the link! The link says other stuff instead!"
Except that's not how arguments work.
If I write that the sun will make Earth lifeless in 500 million years (which is false), and in that statement link to an article that states that the sun will make Earth lifeless in 1 billion years (which is true), it's asinine to focus on the original figure. Maybe it was a mistype, maybe it was poorly phrased, you're just wasting everyone's time rather than engaging with the actual argument. It's a waste of everyone's time.
Absolute bollocks. All I ask is that an article purporting to be non-partisan shouldn't exclusively focus on one side and ignore the other.
The hypocrisy here is astounding.
On one hand, you're outraged that one article says anything negative about the left. On the other, you state that another article focuses entirely on one side and ignores the other, when entire paragraphs have been dedicated to the other. Paragraphs I might add have been copy-pasted into this thread, and yet you're still claiming that they don't exist.
This is absolutely insane. This isn't even a question of where you stand on an issue, this is text staring you directly in the face, on-screen, and you literally saying that it does not exist.
"Wow, just wow", you says in response to a scenario you invented, which doesn't represent my logic at all. Conjure up imaginary enemy positions and they will indeed seem silly.
The actual equivalent would be if you wrote an article on the breakup of Yugoslavia, and called it a non-partisan take, and then the entire article was devoted to how bad one state was and paid no attention to the other.
Again, entire paragraphs were paid to the other state. One of the most cited lines in the article is dedicated to "the other state."
YOU. ARE. LYING.
This is a baldfaced lie and an attempt to poison the well.
Sil, you've been lying this entire time, why should I hold myself to a different standard?
And no, you did equivocate. People are welcome to look up the thread and see for themselves.
You didn't say "found in these areas". You, and the article you cited, talked about the grassroots left as a group.
Yes? The grassroots left is a group. The grassroots right is a group. Any description of people on the political spectrum is, broadly speaking, a group.
And the article's already got the "Not all X" you seem to crave.
