Who are the poor people that look bad because of the marchers at Charlottesville?
Who are the poor people that look bad because of the marchers at Charlottesville?
No?
ISIS maybe since they're genocidal slavers but Islam as a whole is a good religion.
Lets use ISIS and Islam as an example to highlight how violence makes a side look bad.
Who do you think gets more people to become Muslim?
Ahmadis: Dedicated to non-violence, charity and dialogue. They help millions and organize cross-religion debates and never kill people.
ISIS: Violent illiterate nutjobs that cut off people's heads and destroy ancient culture despite the fact that the original Caliphate was fine with all that stuff.
All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism. While not to the same degree, the same thing will happen.
No?
ISIS maybe since they're genocidal slavers but Islam as a whole is a good religion.
Lets use ISIS and Islam as an example to highlight how violence makes a side look bad.
Who do you think gets more people to become Muslim?
Ahmadis: Dedicated to non-violence, charity and dialogue. They help millions and organize cross-religion debates and never kill people.
ISIS: Violent illiterate nutjobs that cut off people's heads and destroy ancient culture despite the fact that the original Caliphate was fine with all that stuff.
All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism. While not to the same degree, the same thing will happen.
You're creating an equivalence between people who want to use violence against innocent people due to their appearance, religion, or identity and people who want to use violence to prevent those innocent people from being attacked.All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism.
No?
ISIS maybe since they're genocidal slavers but Islam as a whole is a good religion.
Lets use ISIS and Islam as an example to highlight how violence makes a side look bad.
Who do you think gets more people to become Muslim?
Ahmadis: Dedicated to non-violence, charity and dialogue. They help millions and organize cross-religion debates and never kill people.
ISIS: Violent illiterate nutjobs that cut off people's heads and destroy ancient culture despite the fact that the original Caliphate was fine with all that stuff.
All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism. While not to the same degree, the same thing will happen.
But by this logic the right should look bad because it has accepted right-wing extremism. *looks at current US political climate and does not see that reflected in electoral success*All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism.
But by this logic the right should look bad because it has accepted right-wing extremism. *looks at current US political climate and does not see that reflected in electoral success*
You know sometimes I think the warped view people get about the modern Nazi movement is that its some kind of cos-playing group or reenactors like the ones we have for the civil war that its a group of just really big fans thats its just for the luls, but its not, its why we get all these apologist for them in discussions either that or the person themselves are one, know some, or agrees with their views.
Antifa's not in the white house. The tea party and Trump are. There are tea partiers that are confederacy apologists, that think that Charlottesville was a false flag conspiracy by Soros, and other pretty abominable things. There is no equivalent in elected office on the left. And Antifa's nowhere near as bad as the other groups you're bringing up.It is looking bad. That's why the left shouldn't drag itself into the mud.
Of course with Trump...
Don't ask me to explain Trump because I dunno.
It is looking bad. That's why the left shouldn't drag itself into the mud.
Of course with Trump...
Don't ask me to explain Trump because I dunno.
looks like we found one of those mythical "very fine people"Because Black Lives Matter is a movement about protecting black minorities and uniting black people. Same as t_d is about protecting American values and uniting Trump supporters. Also, quick disclaimer. I'm neutral when it comes to politics. I don't like Trump, but I don't want him or his followers to be silenced like most here so blatantly wish, just like I don't want BLM to be silenced and abused. I compared them because to me they are fighting for their own people, against oppression, which I can admire. If I can join a Latino movement, that would be great lol
Except the difference is that they disavowed them before the event. Why are we going back to this? I already answered this
Thing is t_d weren't even meeting with Nazis(nor have they met with them) so it makes your argument moot. Let me give you another analogy. If I were a star wars fan, and I went to a convention named, oh I don't know "Unite Sci-Fi" or something, and Star Trek fans were at; would I be a Trek fan? I'm in the same building. Same event.
Also No, it isn't "white supremacy" to make a group consisting on justice for your race(or so t_d says it like that), or else BLM would be black supremacy. Do you think BLM is black supremacy? Because the arguments you're giving me seems to suggest so... I think you should google some definitions and get back to me.
edit: grammar and tired
It might be bad form to pile on to a user after they've been banned. But I'm certainly guilty of doing the same thing, especially on the old site.
Yeah, he has been banned. Let's lay off it.It might be bad form to pile on to a user after they've been banned. But I'm certainly guilty of doing the same thing, especially on the old site.
You know sometimes I think the warped view people get about the modern Nazi movement is that its some kind of cos-playing group or reenactors like the ones we have for the civil war that its a group of just really big fans thats its just for the luls, but its not, its why we get all these apologist for them in discussions either that or the person themselves are one, know some, or agrees with their views.
This is an absurd whataboutism.No?
ISIS maybe since they're genocidal slavers but Islam as a whole is a good religion.
Lets use ISIS and Islam as an example to highlight how violence makes a side look bad.
Who do you think gets more people to become Muslim?
Ahmadis: Dedicated to non-violence, charity and dialogue. They help millions and organize cross-religion debates and never kill people.
ISIS: Violent illiterate nutjobs that cut off people's heads and destroy ancient culture despite the fact that the original Caliphate was fine with all that stuff.
All of Islam looks bad because of ISIS and the same is going to happen if the left accepts left wing extremism. While not to the same degree, the same thing will happen.
Not just everyone. Every object could be a Nazi. Watch out! Even intangible ideas could be Nazis.
Not just everyone. Every object could be a Nazi. Watch out! Even intangible ideas could be Nazis.
Are you arguing in good faith? Because pretending that every single person you debate on this issue actually thinks deep down that everyone who tolerates Nazism for their own gain is a "Nazi," read, a Nazi who "deserves to die immediately," you need to accept more nuance into your discourse. We're all people. We're all trying to be empathetic. I've found the hard way that generalizations like this cut that empathy off at the pass.
But did he say the moderates that agreed with them were Nazis? Or was that your inference?The guy I quoted was basically saying moderates either are nazis, are friends with them, or agree with them.
But did he say the moderates that agreed with them were Nazis? Or was that your inference?
You could make an argument he was dog-whistling. But even then I don't think one faulty generalization justifies another.
The guy I quoted was basically saying moderates either are nazis, are friends with them, or agree with them. I think the accusation of accepting nuance failed there first.
That literally is not what they said... moderates are not mentioned anywhere in that post.
its why we get all these apologist for them in discussions either that or the person themselves are one, know some, or agrees with their views.
How are you interpreting a rebuke towards moderates from that statement?
why we get all these apologist for them in discussions either that or the person themselves are one, know some, or agrees with their views.
Years of seeing it used that way on the former forum. The phrase "moderate darling" was an insult till the very end and was used in conjunction with apologist.
You were and it would be smarter to go edit your post.I interpreted this post
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
I assumed saying a person "agrees with nazis" would make them a nazi according to most people in this thread.
I interpreted this post
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
So in your opinion where would you draw the line in this case? Genuine question.
So in your opinion where would you draw the line in this case? Genuine question.
I mean, you're not entirely wrong here. Just another way for those fence sitters and those who subscribe to the "both sides" argument to normalize and downplay White Supremacy and validate their own repugnant views.
I'm trolling now? What exactly are you here defending or arguing?I interpreted this post
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. For one thing, I wouldn't ever consider a Nazi apologist to be even remotely politically moderate.I interpreted this post
To include "moderates." Is that really so maddening to understand that I wasn't "trolling."
I would say they are one and the same. That's why I felt he was accusing all "apologist" of being nazis.
The turn this discussion has taken is confusing to me but this is my line of thinking as well.I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. For one thing, I wouldn't ever consider a Nazi apologist to be even remotely politically moderate.
Maybe that poster needs to read this thread:You interpreted it that way based on someone else's views on a different forum. Do you know the poster you quoted to have equated moderates with Nazi apologists?