Wow. You are literally blatantly lying. How dare you!?DarthCoercis said:
I believe they are claiming that I edited the original post in the topic that made them mad to be less offensive.Silvanus said:
You see this right here? This is a core issue with your responses I've noticed which is kind of perplexing. I phrase words a particular way, you try to ascertain why I used that particular phrasing, but immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm being malicious and go off of that without really trying to figure out what my actual intentions are. It makes these conversations sort of draining.Saelune said:
You're projecting.DarthCoercis said:
Did you just stop at the ... and ignore everything after?Saelune said:
I thought I clarified my position enough to demonstrate that wasn't the case. Guess not. But I honestly don't see the manipulation you're accusing me of.Saelune said:
You know exactly what you are doing. You have done it often, as have others who seek to defame me and defend Nazis as 'just a different opinion'. That is why I am pointing it out clearly and bluntly. I don't expect you to apologize, I just don't want others getting the wrong idea or to think I am oblivious.Shadowstar38 said:
shrugSaelune said:
Problem is, in Portland anyway, the cops are in the tank for the Proud Boys. As in "let the Proud Boys through the line to beat on antifa a bit then cover their retreat with riot shields and grenades" in the tank.Eacaraxe said:
And yet I don't really see much mention of Antifa from the gubment. Or the MSM. Or a whole lot of anyone. It's a free pass.Saelune said:
Because lynchings and various attacks on random passersby are paper cuts. Ever been lynched? Not fun.
Here's a Republican state representative discussing surveillance of, and violence towards, "Antifa": link [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-rightwing-messages-chat-records].Leg End said:
The point being, of course, that the actions of the Founding Fathers constitute a very effective use of political violence, and one which is now widely accepted, treated as necessary, and lauded as justified today.Drathnoxis said:
I mean Hitler was pretty much a proto early alt-right guy correct? And they did let Hitler talk and look where that got them.Eacaraxe said:
I've become aware that Free Speech doesn't lead to the Market Place of Idea or to good arguments winning the day. If that was the case, everything would have been cured by 1900. Free Speech does inoculate you from Logic and Reason, as you're just worried about what you have to say instead of someone else, so you just stop listening to good sense. Free Speech only works generationally with gradual increments being hard fought for a decades before progress is made. But can be easily outdone by Free Speech, leading down a different path.Fieldy409 said:
Free Speech worked well for a lot of people for over a century. The last decade has seen the rise of the Internet, which is arguably where bad ideas take root. The problem is not that people are allowed to speak their mind or even that most people aren't logical or reasonable enough, the problem is that the internet is a place where quacks of all kinds can peddle their horseshit and get easy ways to exploit the vulnerable. The "filter bubble"-effect is pretty real and the fact that the internet is so vast and often hard to navigate means that it is hard to get a nuanced take on any single issue.trunkage said:
Depending on how harsh you are it is either 1919, when Hitler joined the DAP and Anton Draxler put Hitler on his way down the rabbit hole, or in 1923 when he attempted the Beer Hall Putsch. By 1924, when he wrote Mein Kampf, he was arguably fully formed as the man who wouldn't hesitate to instigate a world war or genocide. Hitler and the NSDAP were always pretty open about just what they intended to do with the Jewish population and how they intended to save Germany by fighting the entire world.trunkage said:
