MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > You wanted proof he was a racist....

You wanted proof he was a racist....


I think it's pretty clear now, don't you? "Do you condemn the nazis who support you?". He walks away silent. Saying nothing against white supremacist, speaks volumes about who you are.

reply

Notice how fast Trump tweeted a criticism of Kenneth Frazier, the CEO of Merck who resigned from the Trump's business council in protest against Trump's non-reaction to racism.

Trump's tweet against the African American CEO, "Now that Ken Frazier of Merck Pharma has resigned from President's Manufacturing Council, he will have more time to LOWER RIPOFF DRUG PRICES!"

But Trump had no tweet against David Duke, white supremacist and former leader of the KKK after Duke tweeted, "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."

reply

Actually, that would be considered as circumstantial evidence. It's a good thing you're not in the legal profession. You obviously wouldn't recognize proof if it slapped you in the face.

reply

We're not in a court of law. I have eyes, and ears and when someone doesnt answer the question "Do you hate nazis" it speaks volumes about who you are. Here, lets try it out.

Do you hate nazis? Do you think black people should be slaves again? Do you think mexicans are all criminals? Do you think women are nothing but fuck toys?

reply

So what ! His predecessor was often criticized for the same reaction. Did that make him guilty of reverse-racism? Some people like you thought so.

Yeah, I can just see a reporter in a press conference posing the query, " Do you think women are nothing but fuck toys ? "

reply

[deleted]

why is racism so bad?

reply

Why is masturbating with a cheese grater so bad?

reply

i don't think the two are related, could you elaborate?

reply

Yes, I could.

reply

it's nice to see you're able to conduct yourself without being vulgar or crass....albeit only a 3-word sentence.

reply

Sorry I didnt bite on your troll baiting. Better luck next time.

reply

you are angry and i hope you get the help you need,
and some day even think logically

reply

Yup, his mind is clouded with rage and hatred; can't think clearly.

reply

Yes, when someone asks why racism is bad, I should of course take them seriously and not as a massive troll. And in case you forgot, youre the one that hates black people.

reply

Oh, and you know this about me when in fact, you really don't know me at all ? 🙄

reply

I know you well enough from the things youve typed out here. A guy asks me whats so bad about white supremacy, and you jumped in with him to attack me. Now I get you dont like me, but if you really arent a racist it seems like an odd choice of buddy to side with.

Then theres everything else youve said, or not said. Youve been asked a good few times to make your stance on nazis known, but instead you side stepped the issue and used whataboutisms and name calling to get out of it. So what are we to think? Its not hard to say I hate racists, is it? I hate them. I think they are some of the worst kind of people on the planet. See wasnt hard at all. Is there some reason you refuse to condemn them?

reply

No, you don't ! You're jumping to all kinds of presumptuous conclusions in order to justify your personal hatred and it's camouflaged as societal outrage.

reply

See, you still didn't say it. In fact you ignored altogether. My personal hatred is for racists and bigots. Why do you have a problem with that?

reply

You're an absolute embarrassment to the faction you claim to represent. If I were a Democrat or liberal, I would turn my back on you in a heartbeat.

reply

Yeah, but youre not. Youre a racist thats too busy calling me names and trying out your 'whataboutism' arguments. And you have the cheek to say Im angry? Look at your posts. You couldnt be more triggered if someone stepped on you in a minefield.

All you had to do was say racists are bad. I dont really see why that a problem, or why its making you so angry. Is your hate for the criminal hilary that strong youll throw in with hate groups? Thats just sad.

reply

Oh, once again you're putting a know-it-all label on me and I'm the one calling you names? I didn't have my post deleted by a mod early in this thread.

I'm done with you, ok? I only played along temporarily because of the inactivity here and I'm bored.

Ta-ta.

reply

See, now you run away rather than say anything against racists. I fail to see how I'm judging you harshly. But you run along, I'm sure you have a klan meeting to get to. Oh I shouldn't have said that, you'll hit that report button again because you have no actual defence to your racism.

reply

The fun thing about "white supremacy" is that it's not even elevated to the position of racism, as they don't delineate between the various races which have white skin (other than the Jewish race, of course).

It's below racism, it's dumber than racism, it's empty-minded "colorism."

So funny =)

reply

i guess you need the time to get even more un-american. maybe mug some elder veterans.

reply

You and your rabid buddy would probably accuse Jesus of being racist and un-american.

reply

which one? actual christian jesus or republican jesus?

reply

What would you know of the actual Christian Jesus ?

reply

Probably more than you seeing as Jesus wasn't American, or right wing. If anything, Jesus was a socialist. That's right, wash that vinegar down. Jesus wasn't a selfish asshole who wanted to stop others from enjoying the same privileges he had. He didn't judge people based on skin colour, or status.

reply

i know that he is a mythical creature. i also know his supposed words, which interestingly are the exact same opposite of what supposed american christian are teaching and doing. ironically he supposedly stood against everything the republican party are doing and have been doing for at least 20 years, yet they use them as their mascot. so basically according to supposed christian values, modern republicans are actually descendents of the devil.

reply

Just like you presumed to know that I hate veterans. That makes such perfect sense since I'm from a military family and I have the flag from my father's funeral prominently and proudly displayed in my living room. 🙄 When he was active duty, a popular expression with the troops was, " You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground." I think you just proved the veracity of that with your inane post.

reply

"Just like you presumed to know that I hate veterans. That makes such perfect sense since I'm from a military family and I have the flag from my father's funeral prominently and proudly displayed in my living room."

and still you hate our vets. what made you this way? communism?

"When he was active duty, a popular expression with the troops was, " You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.""

actually i think he said: "my son is as smart as a hole in the ground", but i can relate why you have "molded" that over the years.

reply

It took you this long to respond with that weak, lame comeback?

Of course you can relate to "moldy" 😆

reply

hahaha. not everybody can be so easily triggered into sitting irate in front of his computer all day. thanks for the insight. typical for your kind. laying around all day, getting money for nothing and bitching about america.

reply

Where was the anger?

reply

i thought i heard you shouting

reply

You havent heard me say anything. Loud or quiet.

reply

shhhh

reply

No answer to the charge of racism, so just hit that report button. How pathetic.

reply

[deleted]

Hey, you and I know that, but holocaust deniers like DB will still defend the muppet.

reply

And now he's blaming the people that got hit by the car for being just as bad as the neo nazis. what a man he is.

reply

It's time for everyone to admit that Trump is a white supremacist. His father was in the KKK and likely raised Trump with the same bigoted views. Trump has a long history of bigotry and has appointed white supremacists' advisors like Bannon. Trump just retweeted from another white supremacist today and David Duke recognizes him as one of his own and is praising him. He has a white supremacist's agenda. Why are decent people in such denial? We could start by not using the PC term alt right instead of white supremacist.

reply

Do you have documented proof of that claim, that his father was in the KKK ?

I watched an interview on MSNBC ( notoriously far left and anti-Trump ) this morning where the invited pundit was a black pastor who staunchly came to his defense and really told it like it is. The host became obviously more annoyed as he expressed his opinions, did everything she could to stifle and suppress him, then eventually cut him off altogether.

reply

Are you talking about Darrell Scott? A member of trumps team! What else was he going to say? You thinkn because hes black he cant be an asshole?

reply

It's common knowledge that Fred C. Trump was arrested at a KKK rally on Memorial Day in 1927. Seven men were arrested including Trump's father. His arrest was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. The paper published his address at 175-24 Devonshire Road in Queens which is confirmed by the 1930 census as Trump's father's address. The article could be found in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle archives.

BTW, Trump wanted several young black men executed for a crime which it turned out someone else had committed. Trump never apologized. So I find your asking for "documented proof" comical.

Don't forget that both Trump and his father have a long history of housing discrimination and settled lawsuits with the Federal Government. Mel Gibson and Trump were both influenced by hateful fathers to bad results. Schwarzenegger's father was a Nazi, but was able to rise above that.

That pastor Scott was caught in a lie on TV a while back so he has no credibility. Some pastor! Is he or his organization receiving any funding from the Trump organization? Usually when people lie like him, it's for money.

As for Virginia, the white supremacists showed up in military garb with guns, shields, helmets and bats. I literally had trouble distinguishing them from the police while I watched it live. You don't show up heavily armed for a peaceful demonstration. Don't compare hate groups with a history of lynchings and gassing Jews with those protesting against them.

reply

It's only considered to be common knowledge if it doesn't require research and your initial paragraph suggests that's exactly what you did, especially when you start mentioning newspaper archives.

All of the fact-checking sites must be absolutely hilarious to you then.

I'm sure you've been caught in a lie before so I guess you have 0 credibility as well and decades ahead of you with countless more lies.

And don't falsely accuse me of making a comparison I never made.

reply

Ah the sweet smell of more whataboutisms. You really are desperate. Pastor Scott is on trumps team. Like actually part of his team. What else did you think he would say? Hes a right wing nut bar thats been caught in a lie before, and thats your go to for proof trump isnt a racist piece of shit?

I cant believe you and others like you hate hilary so much that youll throw in with actual racists. Have you no shame?

reply

I just found this news story about Pastor Scott on youtube.

Pastor Darrell Scott sued for $563K in back rent for his mansion. He used church donations to pay $10,000 each month rent. Why am I not surprised this sleazebag would be supporting Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Vo9Zh6C1Y

reply

"Do you have documented proof of that claim, that his father was in the KKK ?"

You asked for documented proof which is the only reason I mentioned the newspaper by name. You have a short term memory problem. That doesn't take away from the fact that it is common knowledge that his racist father was arrested with 6 other Klan members and has discriminated against blacks and Hispanics in housing.

YOU are making a comparison when you're defending Trump.

Lies? Be specific.

reply

It took you two days to respond and you're clearly obfuscating. More research passed off as common knowledge?
What you allege is "defending" is actually playing the devil's advocate, bringing a measure of objectivity back into the argument.
You have a " my excrement doesn't stink in my ivory tower " problem.

reply

You're babbling incoherent nonsense. It's obvious you can't defend Trump. You can only try to denigrate those who find his bigotry objectionable.

The disbanded Trump business councils were a sham that never met because Trump never called anyone. Sounds like meeting with CEOs to help bring jobs to the rust belt would've interfered with Trump's golfing and tweeting.

reply

You're still desperately obfuscating. Followed up with the " woe is me " demagoguery card.

reply

Still not defending Trump. Sounds like you gave up on him, too. Cool! You're now a member of the club. Welcome.

reply

Silly! But if it helps you to sleep better, so be it.

reply

Good night.

reply

could you explain why you are against white supremacy

reply

I could.

reply

They are just as bad. Say what you want about neo-nazis, but they had a perfectly legal right to be there protesting. They paid for their permits, and did absolutely nothing wrong except practice their first amendment rights.

Antifa on the other hand, in typical lefty fashion, came antagonizing them with bats and physical violence. And this isn't the first time either. Between college campuses being set on fire in Berkeley, and Trump voters getting physically attacked and yanked out of their cars by force and beaten to bloody pulps by Clinton supporters, there is a blatantly obvious trend of liberals getting out of hand when it comes to conservatives just even so much as existing alongside them.

It's liberals that swung the first punch. That's what started all this. And I'm glad that conservatives, Nazi or not, are starting to get fed up and fight back. Any American that feels they have the right to attack anyone who doesn't agree with them, deserves to be put down like a rabid dog.

reply

So youre a nazi supporter. Good to know.

reply

No. America destroyed the Nazis during WWII. And for good reason. Nazism as as anti-American as you can get. But so is Communism. What I am however, is a huge free speech supporter. With utmost respect for the constitution and the law that backs it up. You're clearly not. You are just as anti-American and the Nazis.

reply

No youre a nazi supporter. Free speech doesnt mean you get to say what ever you want. You cant shout fire in a crowed room for example. You also cant advocate violence. In case you missed it, these people showed up in full roit gear with guns, knives batons and whatever else they could carry. They werent there to protest anything other than non whites in america.

Your fake outrage not with standing, free speech also doesnt mean you get to say what you want in a vacuum. You get to say your bit, but so does everyone else. If you march down the street praising the white master race, youre going to be called on it. Do you think its ok to advocate violence against a group of people just because they arent white? Thats not free speech. Its hate speech and its not protected.

Further to that, one of them drove a car into a group of people. Exactly just why do you find that to be acceptable because another group was protesting your protest? Free speech goes more than one way, and you have the balls to sit there behind your keyboard and type of a defence for murderers and racists? Youre a racist. You support racism and no amount of "free speech" flag waving is gonna change that.

reply

Wrong. Free speech ensures you get to saw WHATEVER you want WHENEVER you want. It doesn't matter how hateful you think it is, hate speech is not a criminal offense under the American judicial system. Shouting fire in a crowded room isn't free speech. There's no opinion that you are expressing when you cry wolf. That is not the same thing as what these protesters were doing in any stretch of the imagination. And if you can't see that, then you are willfully ignorant on what free speech actually means.

On the contrary, free speech as protected under the first amendment, protects these Nazis from saying what's on their mind. And they did it legally, and civilly, under the law. I absolutely agree that people like you have equal right to call them out on their opinions, so long as you too, do it civilly, and respectfully under the law. But that's not what happened. Because liberals don't know how to be civil or lawful anymore.

Furthermore, the car drove into antifa because antifa started physically assaulting the protestors. That's cause and effect, and it' exactly what Trump alluded to during his speech. You don't get to hit someone and not expect retaliation. But this physical violence only ever seems to stem from one side. There's a problem with modern liberals. Who have rejected their liberal principles and adopted fascism as the new face of their beliefs.

You have a PR problem.

reply

NONE of the white supremacists are being prosecuted for their protesting, so you have NO POINT. The only one being prosecuted is the hate-crime murderer with the weaponized car.

Other people are simply speaking out against the white supremacists, and that is free speech too. These nazis are not immune to criticism. No one is advocating that the government forcefully silence them. NO ONE.

You literally have no point to make. None.

=)

reply

Furthermore, the car drove into antifa because antifa started physically assaulting the protestors. That's cause and effect

Not only do you not know how to drive, but you're supporting both murder and attempted murder, AND a hate crime. You're trash.

=)

reply

Yeah, no one except antifa who decided to take it upon themselves to silence the protestors by force and physical violence. And then decided to physically tear down public property because they didn't agree with the statue like they took pointers from the taliban. Liberals are completely out of control.

reply

So vandalism is a bigger problem that race hatred and bigotry? Tells us again how you are not a pathetic racist apologist.

reply

Don't need to. You've already made up your mind about me. No matter how many times I try to explain myself, you will always default to racist/nazi/bigot/islamophobe/misogynist and the rest of the libby buzz words that got Donald Trump elected. I'm glad he's in the white house. For no other reason than to give the lot of you an aneurysm.

reply

Bullshit, thats a cop out by a bigot thats hiding behind fake noise to justify his bigotry. Vandalism is worse than racism. Those are your words. People protesting racists, are worse than racists. Tell me Im wrong, tell me thats not what youve been saying. Because I can scroll up the page and see that that is exactly what youve been saying.

This isnt about free speech. Its a about basic freedom to be human! And not to be seen as less than because you arent white. The racists can scream all they want about the master race, but they dont get to do it in a vacuum. Free speech works both ways. You seem to be ignoring that to support your bias. I get you dont like liberals, but dont you think siding with white supremacists is going to far?

reply

Vandalism IS worse than racism you idiot! One is physical, the other is NOT! People have every right in America to be racist, so long as they don't physically attack people over their beliefs! Do I really have to explain this to you?! You do NOT however, have any right to start destroying tax-paid public property over a difference in beliefs. How is this not computing with you? This is the most basic of common sense.

reply

Holy shit! You actually think vandalism is worse than wanting and committing acts of racism. THEY HIT PEOPLE WITH A FUCKING CAR YOU MUPPET!!! You are a racist hiding behind shit you clearly have no fucking clue about.

reply

It IS worse you idiot. If I call you the n-word, are you saying that's worse than if I slash your tires?

reply

Vandalism IS worse than racism you idiot!

Vandalism is a monetary based crime, due to it being an occasionally expensive annoyance. It can be done for reasons good or bad, such as in protest, in defense of rights, etc.

Racism is inherently disgusting, but not a crime. If your ONLY barometer of good and evil is the legal system, then you have no moral fiber. Every disgusting belief is protected by the law, because the law is only applied to monetary and physical crime.

People need to be allowed to hold disgusting views, so that we can be reminded what is disgusting and what is not.

=)

reply

Reasons good or bad?!?! Are you fucking kidding me right now?! So you're actually DEFENDING IT?! Tha people can actually have their property, that they paid for, destroyed for GOOD REASONS?! I can't believe what I'm reading right now. I'm completely at a loss for words.

reply

Reasons good or bad?!?! Are you fucking kidding me right now?! So you're actually DEFENDING IT?!

I wasn't referring to anything specific. Vandalism can be done for positive reasons. Someone can vandalize government buildings to protest a fascist government and spread a message, for example. It's not "morally wrong" in such an example, it's a simple property crime. If someone puts up a billboard that says black people deserve to die, I would HOPE it would be vandalized. In fact, I would find it morally wrong if it WASN'T vandalized or destroyed. In that example, the silence would be complicity.

Let's get to something with a deeper moral quandary: Killing. That is far worse than vandalism, and far more destructive, yet killing can be done for a positive reason. Killing can be done in self defense, to save the lives of innocents, to end a war, etc.

Would you read that paragraph and then once again SHRIEK LIKE A LITTLE GIRL about me defending the taking of a life? No, of course not, because it would no longer suit your goal.

I doubt you'd even bother replying to this, frankly, considering how thoroughly I have proven my point.

reply

Vandalizing a government buildings to protest a fascist government, isn't protesting a fascist government, it's vandalism. The two are not interchangeable. Vandalism is one thing, protesting is another. You don't do one to do the other.

The problem with your argument comes with the fact that anyone, at any time, can defend their vandalism as an "act of protesting fascism". If someone is hanging a swastika on their own property, you're saying that anyone who dislikes that flag, has a right to walk on their property, in order to desecrate their flag? For no other reason than not liking it? Or in order to "spread a message"?

Where do you draw the line then? Any person can dowse a mosque in pig's blood to "send a message" or to protest a religion that glorifies the death of homosexuals and Jews. Is that ok too? if not why? And more importantly, who decides when it's ok to vandalize and when it's not?

As far as killing is concerned, you're wrong. No one ever makes the claim that killing is wrong, I mean how many animals are killed every year by hunters or farmers? No one bat's an eyelash. No one looks at someone killing in self defense and says they were wrong for doing it.

It's MURDER that is morally unambiguous. Cold blooded murder is as indefensible as rape is. And everyone agrees on it. There will never be a case where someone claims they killed in cold blood in protest of something because it's a ridiculous claim. That's why people who kill in self defense don't go to jail, and why people who kill in cold blood do. You've built your entire argument on a shoddy foundation.

I'm glad you think so highly of yourself as to pat yourself on the back for winning before any such confirmation of your win was made though. Nothing is more cringe inducing than seeing someone congratulate themselves. GG.

reply

If someone is hanging a swastika on their own property, you're saying that anyone who dislikes that flag, has a right to walk on their property, in order to desecrate their flag?

AHA! I knew you'd say that. I am good.

"Having a right" refers to the legal right to do that... Yet the entire point here IS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING CRIMES. It's still a crime to vandalize something disgusting! Seriously, that is literally the point we are discussing. So no, they do not have the right.

The legal side is not in debate, ONLY the moral side. Destroying a deliberate sign of hatred is not an immoral act, imo, and that is my argument. Of course, then we get to the point where we do have to agree that morals may differ from person to person, and it all gets even more confusing. But if you think hatred is moral, then we would be at odds with each other.

"It's MURDER that is morally unambiguous."

Well yeah, the word "murder" is carrying the moral side of the equation. It's the same physical act as killing. ALSO, murder is sometimes morally ambiguous. Certain criminals who go to prison are murdered for their crimes by other inmates, and many in society celebrate this, even though the criminal did not kill anyone and are not a threat to society while in prison.

On the counterpoint, non-murderous killing can still be a crime, like manslaughter for example, aka an unintended killing due to negligence.

I could throw out these examples all day long, but my point is that crimes and morality are not necessarily the same. The war on drugs is a great example of that, people smoking some weed in the privacy of their homes and yet supposedly committing a crime.

I do not consider it immoral to vandalize a hateful sign someone puts up in their yard, even though it would be a crime to do so. That's where this entire debate started and you literally CAN'T dispute that because that is my moral view of the situation.

If you disagree, then once again, we are at odds, morally.

=)

reply

i agree and i can't wait for the answer to your post, because you are basically explaining grey areas to someone that does not understand or would even except the concept of grey areas at all. it's gonna be hilarious.

reply

I did make the mistake of typing amoral instead of immoral, but fixed it. The great thing about my argument is that I only need single examples to prove my point, and there are plenty. The strongest examples are when the law is immoral, like jailing someone for smoking weed in their own home, or when purely immoral acts become "the greater good" in context, such as a father murdering the man who raped his daughter, or the popular view in society that certain disgusting criminals "should" be raped (or murdered) in prison.

Thanks for your interest!

reply

"The legal side is not in debate, ONLY the moral side. Destroying a deliberate sign of hatred is not an immoral act, imo, and that is my argument."

No, your argument is predicated on vandalism being used for both good and bad. I'm explaining to you why your argument is foolish and uneducated. The symbolism of destroying a symbol of hate, isn't immoral in and of itself. It's when that symbol belongs to someone who paid for it. That's when destroying it becomes immoral. Because as much as it is immoral to preach hatred, it's equally immoral to silence those that preach it.

"Well yeah, the word "murder" is carrying the moral side of the equation. It's the same physical act as killing. ALSO, murder is sometimes morally ambiguous. Certain criminals who go to prison are murdered for their crimes by other inmates, and many in society celebrate this, even though the criminal did not kill anyone and are not a threat to society while in prison."

Saying that killing in self defense and murder are the same because killing is involved, is like saying sex is the same as rape, because intercourse is involved. If you can't separate these two acts from one another, its not I that suffers from a moral identity crisis.

"I do not consider it immoral to vandalize a hateful sign someone puts up in their yard, even though it would be a crime to do so. That's where this entire debate started and you literally CAN'T dispute that because that is my moral view of the situation."

So then I ask again, is it moral to dowse a mosque in pig's blood? If someone did that, would you be on their side?

reply

delivered as promised. hillaaaarious. or as they say in his world: killaaaaarious.

reply

It also really miffs me to see him quoting me, and only responding to half of what he quoted, not to mention contradicting what's quoted by making an equivalency that is literally the opposite of what I'd said. PLUS he didn't even address the substance of what he quoted.

This really isn't going to be worth continuing, I can tell.

reply

"Because as much as it is immoral to preach hatred, it's equally immoral to silence those that preach it."

I wouldn't even put this "sign vandalism" by itself on a scale of morality, other than the symbolism. BUT, if I was to say "okay let's call it an immoral act," it would be another instance where the immorality becomes the greater good. Oh and the person isn't silenced just because a sign was destroyed. They can speak all they want. Hateful written messages VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC GROUNDS (right there the property rights are questioned) are intended to offend others far more than speech can accomplish, and destroying those messages is intended to offend the offender. Greater good is served.

What if a racist government covered their buildings in hate messages? The messages would be fought against, defaced and/or destroyed by anyone with a conscience.

"Saying that killing in self defense and murder are the same because killing is involved"

I didn't say they are the same, I said they're the same physical act.... Not to mention, that was beside my actual point where I went on to discuss murder itself, WHICH I NOTICE YOU AVOIDED.

"is like saying sex is the same as rape, because intercourse is involved"

Consent is not the same as non-consent. Both killing and murder are without consent (except assisted suicide obviously). AGAIN, YOU AVOID WHERE I WENT ON TO DISCUSS MURDER, EVEN THOUGH YOU QUOTED IT. You're avoiding the actual discussion. Not to mention, I even brought up rape, but you still didn't address that.

You can avoid discussing whatever you want, but if you quote it, you should address it.

"So then I ask again, is it moral to dowse a mosque in pig's blood?"

WTF, vandalism aside, that is an act of symbolic hate. It automatically falls into the "hatred=immoral" category.

This isn't going to go anywhere, you can't seem to stay consistent, not to mention you completely AVOIDED my actual discussion of murder just to make an invalid comparison to sex vs. rape.

Whatever. If you're not going to address the substance, it's no use even trying to talk to you.

=)

reply

"I wouldn't even put this "sign vandalism" on a scale of morality. BUT, if I was to say "okay let's call it immoral," it would be another instance where the immorality becomes the greater good. Oh and the person isn't silenced just because a sign was destroyed. They can speak all they want. Hateful written messages VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC GROUNDS (right there the property rights are questioned) are intended to offend others far more than speech can accomplish, and destroying those messages is intended to offend the offender. Greater good is served."

The argument that you JUST made in support of vandalism, is EXACTLY the same argument that these Charlottesville thugs are making. Just burn down every single flag and tear down every single statue that has a single semblance of history attached to oppression. While we're at it, let's burn down every single bookstore and library that provides copies of Mein Kampf or Tom Sawyer. This is complete madness. This is the whole reason why we created laws against it in the FIRST place.

"WTF, vandalism aside, that is an act of symbolic hate. It automatically falls into the "hatred=immoral" category."

Symbolic hate towards who though? THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE PROBLEM! This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about! Islam is a religion that teaches hate and division towards Jews, homosexuals, Christians, and anyone that isn't Muslim. The act of vandalizing a mosque, to the person vandalizing it, is seen as "moral vandalism" Which you have just spent your argument defending. And yet now you're calling it symbolic hate? You're contradicting yourself. You've dug yourself into a hole.

"This isn't going to go anywhere, you can't seem to stay consistent, not to mention you completely AVOIDED my actual discussion of murder just to make an invalid comparison to sex vs. rape.

Whatever. If you're not going to address the substance, it's no use even trying to talk to you."

I'm happy to continue, I just have character cap. Let's focus on one at a time

reply

"The argument that you JUST made in support of vandalism, is EXACTLY the same argument that these Charlottesville thugs are making."

YES, because they are acting on THEIR conscience and doing what they find to be "the greater good." I would PERSONALLY rather people stick with petitions and legal removal through the city, because I'm not a flag-burner or statue-toppler and I have little use for that kind of symbolism in the first place. I appreciate the U.S., but I'd never bother with putting up the U.S. flag.

"While we're at it, let's burn down every single bookstore and library that provides copies of Mein Kampf"

I bet good money these people would WANT to preserve books of real history, real written records. Destroying symbols is symbolic, it has nothing to do with written history.

"Symbolic hate towards who though?"

Toward the ones who utilize the mosque that would be covered in pig blood. How is that not clear? Why would you even have to ask?

"I'm happy to continue, I just have character cap. Let's focus on one at a time"

Sure, as long as we address actual substance. I'll try to keep my replies short.

The only request I would have is for you to actually respond to the murder and rape content that I discussed, which you quoted (and I'm only riding that because you quoted it). I would be happy to take a request from you, in exchange, if you have one.

=)

reply

"YES, because they are acting on THEIR conscience and doing what they find to be "the greater good." I would PERSONALLY rather people stick with petitions and legal removal through the city, because I'm not a flag-burner or statue-toppler and I have little use for that kind of symbolism in the first place. I appreciate the U.S., but I'd never bother with putting up the U.S. flag."

THEIR conscience means nothing in the context of property rights. You "preferring" they don't be violent isn't stopping them from being violent, but you still defend the act of violence if they deem it necessary. If everyone thought the way you did we would be living like we were during the old west.

"I bet good money these people would WANT to preserve books of real history, real written records. Destroying symbols is symbolic, it has nothing to do with written history."

Are you kidding me?! A book is as symbolic as it gets. The act of burning the Koran is punishable by death in the middle east. That has symbolism written all over it. I swear to god I feel like you're living in a different world than the rest of us. Nothing you're defending makes any sense.

"Toward the ones who utilize the mosque that would be covered in pig blood. How is that not clear? Why would you even have to ask?"

So then why is someone burning the Swastika not considered symbolic hate of the person that hangs it on their property?

"The only request I would have is for you to actually respond to the murder and rape content that I discussed, which you quoted (and I'm only riding that because you quoted it). I would be happy to take a request from you, in exchange, if you have one."

Quote the statement you want me to address. I'll worry about my request after. Infact from now on, if we can start numbering our paragraphs instead of quoting the ones we're addressing, it could help cut down on wasted characters.

reply

"but you still defend the act of violence if they deem it necessary."

I'm not defending anyone, I started all this by saying that vandalism, as an isolated physical act, has no immediate moral grounding. It can be used for positive or negative means, and that depends on the intent behind the act. That's all I've been saying.

As I said a while back, I had no specific examples in mind. I just don't like the concept of physical acts being given a moral grounding divorced from the intent behind the acts. That is why I pointed out that killing and murder are the same physical acts.

"Are you kidding me?! A book is as symbolic as it gets."

No. Books are knowledge, information. Destroying them could be symbolic, but destroying books is usually done with the intent to make the knowledge unavailable, just like banning books (which I am against).

"So then why is someone burning the Swastika not considered symbolic hate of the person that hangs it on their property?"

The hate is against the ideal that they espouse, not the person. If that person were to renounce their racism, then all would be well. This happens all the time, there are former KKK members who speak out against racism.

"if we can start numbering our paragraphs instead of quoting the ones we're addressing"

I personally prefer to only quote the exact statement I'm referring to, it cuts down as well. Numbered paragraphs seem inconvenient because we'd have to keep scrolling up and referring back.

I think we are doing pretty well with keeping these short, at the moment.

reply

"I'm not defending anyone, I started all this by saying that vandalism, as an isolated physical act, has no immediate moral grounding. It can be used for positive or negative means, and that depends on the intent behind the act. That's all I've been saying."

That's still wrong. There's never any justification for vandalism. There can't be. The moment you start cherry picking when its acceptable and when it's not, destroys the entire foundation of law and order, since, anyone can decide when it's positive or negative, there's no objective answer when it is and when it isn't.

"No. Books are knowledge, information. Destroying them could be symbolic, but destroying books is usually done with the intent to make the knowledge unavailable, just like banning books (which I am against)."

No, you are being willfully ignorant at this point. When someone burns the Koran, or the bible, it is being done SPECIFICALLY to symbolize the hatred of the religions they symbolize. Just like burning a flag is. Any attempt at making knowledge unknown would result in banning, as you said, not burning. Nothing tries to hide the existence of something, worse than PUBLICLY BURNING IT. Let's not play stupid. You're better than this.You know you're wrong.

"The hate is against the ideal that they espouse, not the person. If that person were to renounce their racism, then all would be well. This happens all the time, there are former KKK members who speak out against racism."

Right. That's why when someone douses a mosque in pig's blood, it's hate against the ideal Muslims espouse, not against the Muslims themselves. Otherwise it would be the Muslims themselves drenched in pig's blood, and not the mosque that symbolizes it. So why is it hate to vandalize a mosque, but not hate to vandalize a Swastika?

reply

"No, you are being willfully ignorant at this point. When someone burns the Koran, or the bible, it is being done SPECIFICALLY to symbolize the hatred of the religions they symbolize."

I literally said, and you QUOTED ME right there, that destroying books could be symbolic.

This is part of my post, which you quoted:
"Books are knowledge, information. Destroying them could be symbolic"

See that? That is my statement, and you supposedly read it, and then claimed that I didn't say it by needlessly reiterating it.

Your reading comprehension is too low, and your honesty is too low (due to the sex vs rape conversation) for me to continue.

We're done. =(

reply

I love how you left out the rest of what you said and swept it under the rug. That wasn't your full statement. Stop lying.:

No. Books are knowledge, information. Destroying them could be symbolic, but destroying books is usually done with the intent to make the knowledge unavailable , just like banning books (which I am against).

That's a blatant lie. NO ONE burns a book for the intent of making knowledge unknown. You know that damn well. But in sheer desperation, you will use any defense you can to try and hide it. You're a hypocrite. As is displayed for the world to see.

I'm glad you've conceded defeat though. A far cry from the earlier self-congratulatory garbage you were patting yourself on the back with.

reply

Oh and FYI, the Nazi book burning in the WWII era was both symbolic AND was done in concert with actual banning of books (making knowledge unavailable). It's what I had in mind when I referenced book burning.

That's all, I'm done here.

reply

Yeah. You're done. Been fun though.

reply

Hey sorry to make a second post, but I just want to point out one thing -- My point that consent differs from non-consent can actually be extended to the physical realm. Rape is physically different from consenting sex: The attacker utilizes a physically invasive strategy instead of being allowed (which is so different that kinky people sometimes replicate it during consenting sex); the victim will likely be physically restrained; the victim will likely cry, which is a physical response; the victim will possibly freeze with fear, a physical response; the actual chemical reactions inside the brains of the attacker and the victim will be different than consenting sex; physical pain and physical damage will usually accompany rape.

Thus, sex and rape are NOT the same physical acts. Killing and murder, however, ARE (again, other than assisted suicide).

reply

Are you completely unaware that during the act of rape, the female vagina will still moisten allowing for easier penetration of the penis? Are you unaware that during consensual sex, women have still been known to cry during it? Do you even know how the human anatomy even works? Are you really this desperate to prove your point that you have reduced your arguments to such semantics? Both sex, and rape, are entirely physically identical. An erect penis, is penetrating a wet vagina. That's called intercourse. Consensual or not. It's exactly the same. When I have nightmares during my sleep, that doesn't mean I'm sleeping any differently than when I'm dreaming. This is ridiculous.

reply

You know a hell of a lot about what happens to women during rape. Is there something you need to confess?

reply

LOL -- Yeah the vaginal moisture thing was news to me, and surprising. I've always heard about vaginal wall damage from rape, so I would have assumed that the lubrication wouldn't happen during the assault, and that absence caused the damage. I dunno.

reply

[deleted]

"He wants to strip it down to penetration thus making his point seem valid."

Exactly. It's a narrow-minded approach that ignores every other element of sex. I liked focusing on the chemical reactions in the brains, because that's where sex really happens, why it can be either pleasurable or traumatic.

"Honestly I have no clue what post he's trying to make."

Another reason I decided to opt out of the conversation.

"As for girls crying during sex, that sounds like personal experience on his part."

XD

reply

"Are you completely unaware that during the act of rape, the female vagina will still moisten allowing for easier penetration of the penis?"

Crying babies cause lactation, that doesn't dispute the other significant differences. Also, men get raped too.

"Are you unaware that during consensual sex, women have still been known to cry during it?"

It's rare, and the tears are for a different physiological reason, but again, it doesn't dispute the other significant differences.

"Are you really this desperate to prove your point that you have reduced your arguments to such semantics?"

OH MY GAWD!

I pointed out NUMEROUS physical differences, and even an example of them being so different that they can be replicated during consenting sex. I even left out one major difference: A woman is likely to fight back during rape!

These are NOT semantics. These are real-world, physical differences. Are you really going to ignore EVERY significant difference simply because of moisture???

"Both sex, and rape, are entirely physically identical."

Wow. That's literally a bald-faced lie. I should actually post this on the General Discussion board with a link to your post so that you can be shamed, but I'm not going to. This statement is offensive, dishonest, and COMPLETELY ignores every physical difference I pointed out (other than the crying, yes you managed to address ONE example out of many).

"When I have nightmares during my sleep, that doesn't mean I'm sleeping any differently than when I'm dreaming."

Actually, they are different. You're likely to sweat during a nightmare, to wake up suddenly, and it causes different chemical reactions in your body than normal restful sleep.

You just showed extreme dishonesty about the rape vs. sex scenarios, and with that said, I can't continue any further discussion. I refuse to engage with someone who will ignore OBJECTIVE physical differences between two acts in order to equate them.

Sex is MORE than just a penis entering a vagina. If you can't comprehend that, then I'm done.

reply

1. And?

2. The other differences are not significant. They are literally the most insignificant differences during the act of sex/rape you can list. Which is why you're using them. They're all you have.

3. No, they're semantics. This is what people do when they know they're losing an argument. They get very technical to the point of ignoring the focal point of the argument to try and sidestep the inconvenient truth they're being faced with. You know you can't call murder the same as killing for the same reason you can't call rape the same as sex.

4. So then why is rape and sex so different for you but killing and murder aren't?

5. Once again, you're listing the technicalities which separates one from the other, while completely ignoring the glaring similarities that make them the same. You're desperate. And it's pathetic.

reply

It's 2017, Nazis are not violent anymore, but yet Antifa are.
They are the biggest bunch of morons on the planet who are too stupid to see that they are a part of the problem. Fact.

reply

i guess murder does not count in 2017, right?

reply

Oh and a third post for you: That killer you're defending has a history of supporting nazism, loving Hitler, and he's an unhinged lunatic who has assaulted his own mother because he was told to stop playing video games. That's who you're sticking up for.

reply

You have a fake news problem. The car drove into the crowd for no reason at all. He was driving slowly and then put the foot down. He was trying to kill people because hes a dick.

Further to that, no inciting violence is not protect free speech. Look it up! Youre a racist, just admit and stop hiding behind semantics.

reply

I love how it seems every "conservative poster" I see on a message board or comment section has such a flimsy grasp of "free speech" that they equate it with "freedom from criticism."

reply

Thats what happens when your brother is your daddy. You dont learn so good. lol

reply

They weren't inciting violence you idiot, they had every legal right to protest where they were. It doesn't matter if you don't like what they were saying, they were protected under the first amendment.

And the maverick driver is in cuffs. What more do you want?

reply

It doesn't matter if you don't like what they were saying, they were protected under the first amendment.

AGAIN: NO ONE IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR PROTESTING, and NO ONE is trying to have any protesters prosecuted. FREE SPEECH IS SAFE.

=)

reply

Except it's NOT when the first amendment isn't being respected on both sides! If Nazis say hate speech, that's their right. If you call them nazis for saying it, that's your right. But once you start physically attacking them for saying it? Like antifa and BLM did during the protest, THEY ARE COMPLETELY INFRINGING ON THE FIRST AMMENDMENT! OF COURSE they aren't being persecuted for protesting you fucking moron, they had a LEGAL FUCKING PERMIT TO DO IT! That's been my ENTIRE FUCKING POINT THIS WHOLE TIME!

reply

So If I stood in front of you and said you had no right to live. Would you stand there and say nothing? Freedom to say what you want, isnt a freedom from the consequences of those words. You want to act like this is some nothing group, but clearly they were there to start trouble and goad others into a battle. You dont turn up armed to the teeth for a peaceful protest.

You can say I hate black people, but if you say it to a black guys face I dont see why you think you wont be getting punch in the mouth.

reply

You ABSOLUTELY have every right to say I have no right to live. You're wrong, and I may look at you like you're kind of a mental case, but you have ever right to say it. And I have no right to attack you for it. The moment you try to make a move on me, is the moment you breach your first amendment rights. And if you attack me, I have EVERY right to attack you back in self defense. That's ALSO protected under the constitution.

If I say I hate black people to a black person's face, I know, and they know, I have every right to say it. Do I know that I could get a punch to the face? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's legal, or justified. The onus is on black people to control their impulsive want to punch me in the face. I feel like I'm spoonfeeding you basic civil behavior here. Like teaching little children not to hurt eachother on the schoolyard. Is this for real? No wonder America is in such bad shape.

reply

Except it's NOT when the first amendment isn't being respected on both sides!

Free speech can ONLY be infringed by government and law enforcement, through prosecution. That is the only possible method, end of story.

If Nazis say hate speech, that's their right. If you call them nazis for saying it, that's your right. But once you start physically attacking them for saying it?

It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to claim that you know which "side" started the brawl. It's impossible to know in situations like this, not to mention it was probably started by a few people, or even one person, not an entire group of protestors all at once like some sci-fi hive mind. You're oversimplifying for your own gain.

EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN NO BRAWLS, and NO VIOLENCE, Trump would still be left with the need to denounce neo-nazis. We'd be in the same position as we are now.

=)

reply

No, antifa started the fight. They always do. Everywhere they show up, they commit assault, battery, arson, and vandalism. They're nothing more than a bunch of thugs. You seem to have no problem with violence being committed as long as it's the "right kind" of violence.

Just like how liberals have no problem calling how tyranny when it's Hitler. Of course Hitler was a bad guy right? No one seems to disagree. But suddenly their same criticisms of him go away when talking about Che Guevera and Fidel Castro. Suddenly they are revered as freedom fighters. Violence is only ok as long as it's your brand of violence. The definition of fascism.

reply

Forfairlane. not_a_virus.exe is right and you are wrong lol.
He is a realist who sees things how they actually are, you are a snowflake who thinks that people who use bad words should be silenced.
I'm sorry but you do not get to attack people physically just because you don't like their views.
Antifa are worse than Nazis today. Fact.
Trump was right to condemn both sides.
People who think otherwise have been brainwashed by the liberal media and are not living in the real world. Sorry.

reply

And everyone else has the right to say what they want to. What part of that are you not getting?

reply

They weren't SAYING what they want to, THEY WERE ATTACKING THEM FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!! How are you not getting this? If nazis said what they wanted, and antifa said what they wanted back, there would be no physical conflict. The physical conflict started when THEY THREW THE FIRST PUNCH! That's not them practicing free speech, that's them practicing violence. That is NOT PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT! On the contrary. The first amendment ensures their SAFETY without worry of physical harm. I'm not even American and I seem to know more about your constitution than you do.

reply

They didnt throw the first punch, muppet. They both started fighting with each other. The racists turned up in FULL riot gear. They had guns, batons knives etc. They werent there to have a peaceful protest to a racist symbol being brought down, they were there to incite violence. What part of that are you not getting???

reply

Then explain how the protest remained peaceful until antifa showed up? Where was the violence until antifa showed up? They showed up in riot gear because there is a history of antifa attacking them onsite whenever they practice their rights. Who's fault is that? Liberals have a recent history of starting violence against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Ionic that they call themselves anti-fascists.

reply

"Where was the violence"

in promoting genocide

"Who's fault is that?"

it's the fault of people that promote genocide

reply

"in promoting genocide"

Then why wasn't it considered violence when Black Lives Matter marched down the streets chanting "what do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want'em? NOW!" Or perhaps when they marched chanting "Pigs in a blanket! Fry'em like bacon!"

Why did both the general public AND police allow them to march chanting that kind of filth, or rather, "violence" without a single problem?

"it's the fault of people that promote genocide"

You're a clown.

reply

^More Whataboutism, surprise surprise.

Oh and, not to mention, fake news:
http://www.snopes.com/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-for-dead-cops-now-in-baton-rouge/

reply

The whataboutisms are the only thing that display the overwhelming and sickening hypocrisy of liberals. This alludes to what I said earlier about how liberals will attack Hitler for his view and actions, but will defend Fidel Castro and Che Guevera. Hate speech is only considered violence when its being spewed by conservatives. When it's being spewed by liberals then it's ok. Just like how Meryl Streep champions herself as some womens' liberation feminist guru and then turns around and signs a petition pardoning Roman Polanski for his rape of a minor. Just like how JK Rowling and George Clooney virtue signal about saving the poor refugees and then out of their multiple villas and mansions can't be bothered to take in one single innocent fleeing war in the middle east. It's nothing but talk from you lot. You love the sound of your own voice but when it comes time to act you run with your tail between your legs. Cowards.

reply

Dude, just the fuck up. No one wants to hear any more of your racist, bigoted whataboutisms. Its the only thing you have, and most of it is made up or has no baring on the situation. What does polanski being a sick fuck got to do with nazis? Nothing, its just you trying to change the subject. Thats all you racist pricks know how to do. The "look over there" defence doesnt work.

Youre a racist, and bigot. At least those nazi nuggets wear it. Your hiding like a little bitch behind whataboutisms. Pathetic.

reply

Of course it works. It works because you never defend it. Because you know you can't. You know damn well that you're no better than the Nazis that you shun. Just because you happen to wear a hammer and sickle instead of a Swastika, doesn't mean you're not a hateful, bigoted, racist Nazi.

reply

[deleted]

You call out the right for protests demanding racial purity. I call out the left for protests demanding the death of cops. And somehow, your willful ignorance to the stain on the left is me shifting the goalpost with "whatabouts".

So me showing you the exact same evils committed by your side, is me "deflecting". But you know what? At least cops, and conservatives allowed liberals the right to say those disgusting things without any hassle. Unlike the antifa thugs that came at the nazi protest with bats and violence.

The only thing worse than being a Nazi is being a liberal.

reply

Well, for one thing it's not side. See what I mean about you making shit up? You assume I condone one but not the other, or that I support the death of cops. Even though that's a fake a s fuck news story.

The point you see to clearly be missing is that nothing you say makes racism ok. Nothing you've said makes it ok to be bigot, or kill black people for being black, or to drive cars into a crowd. Nothing excuses it, and no amount of whatabout blah blah blah takes away from it. Do you understand you fucking Fox News donkey?

reply

But You're doing THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING YOU INBRED MUTANT! How are you this fucking retarded that you can't see how every criticism you have of me you can equally apply to yourself? When in the living fuck did I condone racism? When in the living fuck did I condone the driver smashing into pedestrians? When did I condone violence of ANY kind? I'm the ONLY one here that seems to be calling out actual violence you fucking moron. While you call me a racist for defending the nazis right to protest and spew their "hate speech", you simultaneously defend Antifa for starting all of this!

Let's get one thing straight, you don't have to like the hate propaganda those Nazis were shouting during their protest, I don't either. But they were WELL within their rights to do it. The protest was entirely peaceful, and they had a perm. As per their constitutional rights, they did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.

The problem occurred, as it always does, when radical liberals liberals decided to take it upon themselves to use violence to shut them down. THAT CAN NEVER BE OK! Left or right it doesn't fucking matter, they violated their right to protest.

It wasn't Trump supporters that yanked Clinton supporters out of their cars and beat them to a bloody pulp for their different opinion. It wasn't Trump supporters that set Berkely on fire for the speakers' different opinion. It wasn't conservatives in Toronto that pulled the fire alarm on UofT campus for the speakers' different opinion. It was liberals. It's always liberals. Liberals are the most hateful, intolerant, evil fascistic tyrants in the world right now. And everyone knows it.

The very fact that I will defend a Nazi's right to free speech and protest, is disregarded by you as me being a Nazi sympathizer, is proof. You have no problem accusing me of being something I'm not, but the moment I do the same to you, you take issue? This is why you liberals are a hypocritical cult of filth.

reply

[deleted]

You LITERALLY JUST CALLED ME A RACIST! Like, in the very same sentence that you asked me how you're doing what I'm doing, you literally JUST accused me of being a racist. No proof to back it up, No evidence to suggest I'm racist, just baseless accusations just being throwing out of your mouth like diarrhea. You're hopeless.

reply

[deleted]

if the shoe fits, wear it.

reply

"You call out the right for protests demanding racial purity."

"You LITERALLY JUST CALLED ME A RACIST!"

let this sink in.

reply

It did. Now what?

reply

nothing? well, i guess then there was nothing to let it sink into. hahahaha.

reply

hahahahaha

reply

not_a_virus.exe: whataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhataboutwhatabout

reply

"The whataboutisms are the only thing that display the overwhelming and sickening hypocrisy of liberals."

wow, so you admit that you have no arguments and have to derail the discussion? well, at least that's honest. first time? how does it feel?

"This alludes to what I said earlier about how liberals will attack Hitler for his view and actions, but will defend Fidel Castro and Che Guevera."

yeah, one will never occur without the other. xD

"Hate speech is only considered violence when its being spewed by conservatives."

weren't were talking about nazis? so all conservatives are nazis now? or can't you tell those apart?

"Just like how Meryl Streep champions herself as some womens' liberation feminist guru"

that is "hate speech"? example?

"and then turns around and signs a petition pardoning Roman Polanski for his rape of a minor."

while that is despicable, what does that have to do with the subject matter?

"Just like how JK Rowling and George Clooney virtue signal about saving the poor refugees and then out of their multiple villas and mansions can't be bothered to take in one single innocent fleeing war in the middle east."

by that logic you are not allowed to drive a car, because you did not build it.

"You love the sound of your own voice"

when i write it and you read it, how does your head knows what i sound like and even more interestingly, how do i eventually end up hearing it?

reply

"wow, so you admit that you have no arguments and have to derail the discussion? well, at least that's honest. first time? how does it feel?"

Wow, so you have to strawman me in order to try and make a point. Well, at least that's honest. First time? How does it feel?

"yeah, one will never occur without the other. xD"

I know xD

"weren't were talking about nazis? so all conservatives are nazis now? or can't you tell those apart?"

I can tell them apart just fine. It's liberals with the problem. As it always is.

"that is "hate speech"? example?"

No. It's "hypocrisy" example.

"while that is despicable, what does that have to do with the subject matter?"

By exemplifying liberal hypocrisy. Again.

"by that logic you are not allowed to drive a car, because you did not build it."

...what?! How did you get from my argument, to this? What mental gymnastics did you have to go through to equate one of these to the other?

"when i write it and you read it, how does your head knows what i sound like and even more interestingly, how do i eventually end up hearing it?"

Just keep listening.

reply

"Wow, so you have to strawman me"

you might want to look that up. "strawmen me" alone is hilarious.

"to try and make a point"

what point might that be?

"No. It's "hypocrisy" example. "

so you admit hat you are wrong?

"By exemplifying liberal hypocrisy. Again. "

well, let's hear your argumentation why that would be.

"...what?! How did you get from my argument, to this? What mental gymnastics did you have to go through to equate one of these to the other?"

you: if you don't personally let a refugee in, you are not allowed to be pro-refugees.

"Just keep listening."

so i should KEEP listening what's in your head? how? i am sure that it is actually pretty silent in there though.

reply

"you might want to look that up. "strawmen me" alone is hilarious."

You alone is hilarious.

"what point might that be?"

Exactly. Even you don't know. Couldn't have put it any better.

"so you admit hat you are wrong?"

No.

"well, let's hear your argumentation why that would be."

I did. Several times. It's still not enough. It's not my fault that you speak a different language than me.

"you: if you don't personally let a refugee in, you are not allowed to be pro-refugees. "

Right. I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with driving automobiles.

"so i should KEEP listening what's in your head? how? i am sure that it is actually pretty silent in there though."

Yes you should. Trust me. Just keep listening.

reply

you: "Wow, so you have to strawman me in order to try and make a point."
me: "what point might that be?"
you: "Exactly. Even you don't know."

hahaha. so you are talking about "my point", even though basically i have not said anything and when i ask you what point you are projecting onto that nothingness, you have no idea what you were projecting in the first place?

"Right. I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with driving automobiles."

let's see if you have the capacity. go team!

"Yes you should. Trust me. Just keep listening."

so, are you actually hearing voices or do you really not undesrtand the difference between reading and listening?



reply

not_a_virus. You are so right! And look, how when you start to make good points, the brain dead liberal just calls you a 'racist' and a 'bigot'
It is so predictable and so pathetic.

Fordfairlane you fucking suck as a person!
You are perfect example of an irrational, hypocritical liberal. Reading your argument was genuinely depressing.

"Just shut the fuck up you racist" Are you kidding me? WTF is wrong with you liberals? Every time the person you're arguing with starts to make good points you just start to call them 'racist'
People are getting sick of it TBH!
Just stop it! Either you argue against his point or you shut up and admit you are wrong!
Seriously so sick of brain dead liberals.

reply

"Then why wasn't it considered violence when Black Lives Matter marched down the streets chanting "what do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want'em? NOW!" Or perhaps when they marched chanting "Pigs in a blanket! Fry'em like bacon!""

it wasn't? where?

"Why did both the general public AND police allow them to march chanting that kind of filth, or rather, "violence" without a single problem?"

oh, so they announced that they would do that upfront? link?

"You're a clown."

sure, to a klan member everybody that is against genocide is a clown.

reply

"it wasn't? where? "

Everywhere. It was considered "free speech". Which it was. No one took issue with it or tried to stop them with physical violence. Just like how it's supposed to be.

"oh, so they announced that they would do that upfront? link?"

What are you talking about? So who announced that they would do what upfront?

"sure, to a klan member everybody that is against genocide is a clown."

No, just everybody that is against free speech.

reply

"Everywhere. It was considered "free speech". Which it was. No one took issue with it or tried to stop them with physical violence. Just like how it's supposed to be. "

so, let's see all those article claiming that "BLM related violence is free speech". take your time.

"What are you talking about? So who announced that they would do what upfront?"

you:

"Why did both the general public AND police allow them to march chanting that kind of filth, or rather, "violence" without a single problem?"

otherwise you can not speak of "allow". also, the general public and the police did not have a problem with the violence??? i would love to see proof of that.

"No, just everybody that is against free speech."

so, being against genocide is being against free speech? you are so cute.

reply

"so, let's see all those article claiming that "BLM related violence is free speech". take your time."

It's in the constitution.

"otherwise you can not speak of "allow". also, the general public and the police did not have a problem with the violence??? i would love to see proof of that."

What more proof do you need than to see them chanting their hatred without a single club trying to smash their skulls open? They were completely open and free to spew their hatred and no one did a single thing about it. Because that was their right. And everyone else knew it.

"so, being against genocide is being against free speech? you are so cute."

Sure. That's it.

reply

"It's in the constitution."

so, "BLM related violence is free speech" is in the constitution? wow, which amendment is that?

"What more proof do you need than to see them chanting their hatred without a single club trying to smash their skulls open? They were completely open and free to spew their hatred and no one did a single thing about it. Because that was their right. And everyone else knew it."

didn't we talk about "violence"? so now, when it suits you, chanting IS INDEED violence? hahaha, how convenient.

"Sure. That's it."

at least you admit it.

reply

Antifia ARE just as bad as those Nazis. Trump was correct, snowflakes like you just cannot handle the truth.
Look, this is not WW2, these 'Nazis' are not killing Jews, the violence is mainly coming from the radical left. Deal with it!

reply

schroedingers antifa: "whiny snowflakes" and "violent thugs" at the same time. right? you people crack me up.

reply

Explain to me how you cannot be both a "whiny snowflake" and also be a "violent thug" ......
You've not thought that through, have you, buddy? lol

Anyway, Antifa are violent....If you deny that, there is something wrong with you.

reply

"You've not thought that through, have you, buddy? lol"

oh the irony.

"Anyway, Antifa are violent....If you deny that, there is something wrong with you. "

lol. antifa has only one definition: "against fascist". the clue is in the name btw. so, everybody that is against fascists is violent? and furthermore, so violence against fascists is bad? you understand that we fought a war against those fuckers, right?

you are exactly what's wrong with the left.

reply

First of all I asked you to explain how you cannot be a snowflake and a violent thug at the same time and you did not answer.....Speaks volumes lol
I am what's wrong with the left? LMAO Are you joking?
I fucking hate left wing morons. ANTIFA are what's wrong with the left!
Did you even realize they were left wing??
You couldn't figure out that I am not left wing by the fact that I hate antifa??
This isn't about left or right anyway, this is about antifa.
They think they are fighting against fascists but they are too brain dead to realize that what they are doing is in itself FASCIST!
No, not everyone who is against fascists are violent but Antifa ARE.
We ain't talking about anyone who is against fascism, we are talking about the GROUP antifa.

"you understand that we fought a war against those fuckers, right?"
And you understand this is not world war 2, right????
These so called 'Nazis' are not calling for the genocide of Jewish people.
They are not looking to invade Poland.
How many people have these Nazis killed in the past 10 years?
1......And it wasn't even a planned attack, antifa caused violence and one of them got killed.

You are so freaking naive if you actually think antifa are a peaceful movement who are helping to stop the violence.
Antifa physically attack anyone who THEY BELIEVE is racist....And they believe that anyone who supports or voted for Trump is racist because they are brain washed morons. They will physically attack people simply for wearing a Trump shirt or hat.
And yes violence against fascists is bad! Violence against anyone is bad, you freak! You cannot punch people just because YOU BELIEVE they are racist.

If you actually pay attention to non mainstream media news sources, maybe you are will get a better perspective of things.
The violence always begins with antifa......They think if they just scream 'racist' at someone it will justify them attacking them.
They literally attack anyone who disagrees with their views.
You need to open your eyes to the real world, kid.
Just because they call themselves "Anti-fascists" doesn't mean that is what they are.
They are hypocrites.
It was Churchill who said that "When the United States gets fascism, it will call it anti-fascism"
And he was right.

At the end of the day, these apparent 'Nazis' are just a bunch of redneck morons who have fucked up views but they are basically harmless.
Antifa act like white knights but they are worse since they are the ones who actually start the violence.





reply

you understand that "antifa" is not a group per se, right?

"These so called 'Nazis' are not calling for the genocide of Jewish people. "

actually yes they do.

"How many people have these Nazis killed in the past 10 years? "

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html

"You are so freaking naive if you actually think antifa are a peaceful movement who are helping to stop the violence. "

and where did i wrote that? xD

"And they believe that anyone who supports or voted for Trump is racist"

or a moron. which is factually accurate.

"you cannot punch people just because YOU BELIEVE they are racist."

yeaaah, because people wearing swastikas in the us are rarely racists, right?

"non mainstream media news sources"

you mean propaganda sites? yeah, those are on both sides of the spectrum. i prefer facts.

"It was Churchill who said that "When the United States gets fascism, it will call it anti-fascism""

and it was you to "forgot" to quote the rest that puts it in context.

reply

Ugh, I can see you are a difficult person to debate with since you don't give any answers or explanations, you just state I am wrong n give no evidence to back it up..
Antifa are a movement of vigilante morons who think they are doing what is morally right but are too unintelligent to see that they are a part of the problem.

"actually yes they do." Oh, I stand corrected.....No, they are not.
Show me video evidence where they call for the death of Jews...
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Antifa are scum who attack anyone with an opposing opinion.

Oh course there are bad apples of all kinds, I am not saying that there are NO violent Nazis out there! We are talking about the ones who Antifa physically attack, Charlottesvile for example...
The violence did not start until Antifa showed up. FACT.

"and where did i wrote that? xD"
So, you agree that Antifa are not peaceful? Which would make them violent then, right? WTF is your point?

"or a moron. which is factually accurate."
I don't care what you think of Trump supporters. I am not actually a supporter myself, I am just a guy with his head screwed on properly.
Regardless, you do not get to violently attack people because you think they are MORONS. You clearly missed the point, I feel like I'm arguing with a child here.
The point is, if you attack people for having views you dislike then you are worse than them NO MATTER WHAT THEIR VIEWS ARE!
If you start the violence, you are in the wrong.

"yeaaah, because people wearing swastikas in the us are rarely racists, right?"
Oh God, you've not listened to a fucking word I've said, have you? lol
Yeeeeeah, because Antifa only attack people who wear swastikas, right?
WRONG! Antifa will attack anyone who they think is a racist, swastika or not.
Once again, you missed the point.

"you mean propaganda sites? yeah, those are on both sides of the spectrum. i prefer facts."
LOL seriously? And where exactly do you get your 'facts' from?



reply

They are whiny snowflakes who cannot handle people having different views to them....And they are also violent thugs who attack people because of it
So, look how that worked out? Like I said, you didn't think it through....

I am actually quite shocked my your ignorance, you have clearly been following the mainstream media and because of this you are now a brain washed lemming.
If these Nazis were out beating up Jews or black people then I can totally understand people attacking them for it.
But they aren't....Again this ain't WW2....They are just people who have views that you don't like, YOU CANNOT ATTACK PEOPLE FOR THAT. It quite literally makes you worse than them.
The left are fucking mental. Deranged.
They are constantly trying to take the moral high ground, without realizing how illogical they are being. Hate groups like antifa and BLM do not need to be defended, they are a huge part of the problem. And if you can't see that then I'm sorry but you're just a fucking idiot.

reply

"They are whiny snowflakes who cannot handle people having different views to them....And they are also violent thugs who attack people because of it"

oh, like trump voters? yeah, totally identical.

"you have clearly been following the mainstream media"

and what might that be?

two questions in general:
1. are you stoned, when you write this? i mean "man", and "kid" and RANDOM CAPSLOCK
2. i noticed that you never bother to actually try to start an argument. why is that? have you really got no proof for nothing you write?

reply

"man" is a pretty common term of endearment...
"Kid" is what I call people who act like kids...
The caps lock is used to emphasis a word.....Happy with that?

I've not bothered to start an argument? lol WTF are you talking about?
What is this if it is not an argument?? I've made plenty of arguments and you have not argued against any of them.

"oh, like trump voters? yeah, totally identical."
LOL you are so fucking out of touch.
Instead of actually proving me wrong you just slate trump supporters for apparently being the same...So, you admit Antifa are also snowflakes and violent thugs too then? Like Trump supporters? lol
I'm not here to defend trump supporters, again we are talking about Antifa.
You keep trying to argue against my point by just saying "yeah, but trump supporters do that too" .....WTF does that matter?
I don't give a shit about them. Once again you haven completely ignored the point...
That point being that Antifa are scum and are a part of the problem.
Me saying this does not mean I am defending either Trump Supporters or white supremacists. Grow a fucking brain, will you?
There are no intelligent people who defend Antifa. What the fuck's wrong with you, KID?

"and what might that be?" Ummm. WTF do you mean, 'what might that be'??? What do you think that might be?


reply

NAZIS in the White House

reply

This thread is an interesting read,depressing but interesting.

reply

It's a good time to be an anarchist!

reply