Boozeroony
Member
I bet this sounded a lot better in your head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
You'll note that Nazism didn't poof out of existence when WWII ended.
Even so, I fail to see why they fit the description.
I bet this sounded a lot better in your head.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
You'll note that Nazism didn't poof out of existence when WWII ended.
I used to be one myself. I know these type of people, self-deluded pompous thugs. Using their supposedly moral high ground to destroy anything that does not align with their beliefs. They claim to be super open-minded only to use violence and hate to people opposing their beliefs. It's nearly religious.
Ive shed this horrible mindset years ago after questioning some of their methods.
Even so, I fail to see why they fit the description.
But is it worse than punching Nazis?
Reading NeoGAF posts isn't cool?
Listen, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but arguing that Trump's EO is not a Muslim Ban is a reasonable position to take, I think it's wrong as the spirit of the EO is clear if not the result... but it's not exactly unthinkable that someone would argue differently.
Also he LITERALLY wore a Nazi Iron Cross:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrum...ember_that_time_milo_yiannopoulos_showed_off/
So what exactly is lacking? A fucking genocide?
I fail to see how any of that has any relevance whatsoever on this, the fact you felt the need to go out of the way to do all of that, it's not receipts, it's you trying to prove a non-existent point and cherry picking individual posts in the hope people dogpile me.
First of all, none of those examples are me defending hate speech, ridiculous that you think that is the case.
Both sides are capable of behaving the same, how is that hard to comprehend?
I fail to see what Hilary has to do with this, I would have voted for neither Trump or Hilary, plus my vote on brexit was based on desperation for my own personal health circumstances of my son and myself because of false promises made, you can call it a moment of stupidity and me being taken for a ride sure and possible ignorance but again, completely irrelevant,
I really fail to see how any of that says anything? And people responding to it saying "HOLY SHIT!!!!" "OH FUCKKK" must have not read anything and are simply just trying to add to the dogpile, I know your ultimate goal right now is to get me banned because I am not agreeing with violent riots.
If that's your goal then do you, I am not going to support violent protests, it's sad that you felt the need to go to all that trouble to make me look bad and nothing in there actually does.
Picking through someone's post history with the specific intention of public humiliation/undermining them leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Just debate the guy's argument.
Bigots, racists, antisemite would do.
The whole damn point is to show that Phil0sophy isn't arguing in good faith.
So what exactly is lacking? A fucking genocide?
The rioters = protesters mentality really makes the debate unreadable and plays right into the "violent protesters" narrative.
People who were protesting Milo were right to do so. The "sir down with him" mentality is somewhere between ignorant and dishonest. This is a guy who showed PowerPoint slides making fun of a trans student, identifying and misgendering her last year at the University of Wisconsin. You're not going to debate him on the merits of saying "him" and calling her a tranny.
The real debacle here is why would you tolerate someone who has a recent and documented history of harassing and bullying students at college appearances.
This is some spectacular performance art I guess:
So what's next? Burning crosses as a thought provoking post-modern deconstruction of religious symbols?
Yeah, that hasn't stopped him from being an anti-semite.
Self-hating Jews, Sympathisers and quislings exist in history.
And please don't make excuses for his behaviour. Performance art? Are you for real?
When Obama was president, before the Trump and alt riech shitshow took off, his absurdity was amusing. But with white supremacy increasingly becoming a problem he needs to shut the fuck up for a while and stop fueling the fire.
I encourage people to actually read through TestofTides bullshit "receipts". he includes some utter reasonable and banal posts that are complete non sequiturs to the subject being discussed. And this isnt the first time.
You're right. Accountability is too much to ask for.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
I fail to see how any of that has any relevance whatsoever on this, the fact you felt the need to go out of the way to do all of that, it's not receipts, it's you trying to prove a non-existent point and cherry picking individual posts in the hope people dogpile me.
First of all, none of those examples are me defending hate speech, ridiculous that you think that is the case.
Both sides are capable of behaving the same, how is that hard to comprehend?
I fail to see what Hilary has to do with this, I would have voted for neither Trump or Hilary,
plus my vote on brexit was based on desperation for my own personal health circumstances of my son and myself because of false promises made, you can call it a moment of stupidity and me being taken for a ride sure and possible ignorance but again, completely irrelevant,
I really fail to see how any of that says anything? And people responding to it saying "HOLY SHIT!!!!" "OH FUCKKK" must have not read anything and are simply just trying to add to the dogpile, I know your ultimate goal right now is to get me banned because I am not agreeing with violent riots.
If that's your goal then do you, I am not going to support violent protests, it's sad that you felt the need to go to all that trouble to make me look bad and nothing in there actually does.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
You're right. Attacking him rather than his argument is a much better way.
Did he make a character aspersion? He's highlighting a post history in relation to the topic at hand.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
When Obama was elected did we see violent riots and protests? I am genuinely asking as I am unaware.
If anything it proves that you have no interest in arguing in good faith.No it's me proving that you have a history of arguing in bad faith.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
No platforming is utterly childish. I detest the likes of Milo as much as any of you but you're really not doing the left any favours by shutting him down instead of debating him and taking him apart.
That's not disingenuous, it's fact, as it stands 82% of the Muslim population is still allowed entry into the US, if it's a Muslim ban then it isn't effective is it?
That's not semantics, that is fact.
Barely any of the posts relate to the topic at had and most are inaccurately characterized in his post. He's relying on people not actually reading the posts and taking his summaries at face value. The only poster in this thread clearly arguing in bad faith is TestofTideDid he make a character aspersion? He's highlighting a post history in relation to the topic at hand.
I would say the spirit of the EO is poorly thought out and badly implemented and I don't think it addresses the real issues and I would even go as far to say it was only implemented as fast as it was because the spirit behind it is wrong.
However I still argue it isn't a Muslim ban, that's not to say it won't be long term but as it currently stands I fail to see how anyone can call it that, even if Trump shouts it over a megaphone that doesn't make it anymore a reality than it is.
I don't want to get off topic but I just want to clarify that.
The one-line summaries perhaps?
Barely any of the posts relate to the topic at had and most are inaccurately characterized in his post. He's relying on people not actually reading the posts and taking his summaries at face value. The only poster in this thread clearly arguing in bad faith is TestofTide
I encourage people to actually read through TestofTides bullshit "receipts". he includes some utter reasonable and banal posts that are complete non sequiturs to the subject being discussed. And this isnt the first time.
Then, as I said, pick one or two posts related to the topic at hand. Post mining is frowned upon.
Dude was literally openly wearing a nazi symbol. Works on a literal daily basis with nazis. FFS I should be expecting this sort of "are they really nazis" bullshit after Richard Spencer's nazism was questioned whilst he was sporting a literal nazi haircut. Also, can somebody edit this to say, "not a nazi, but with nazis."You misread my post. But go on.
And YOU, stop it with the bothsides™ bullshit. The right literally and rarely has anything pertinent to say, so you'd save yourself a lot of time, energy, and braincells not reading whatever they have to say about any topic, look at what's happening, one side is actively against human rights, there's zero reason to give that shit a platform by considering their stances to be reasonable or informative in anyway shape or form.I am arguing in good faith, let me make this clear, Nazi's disgust me, I don't like Milo, I do not advocate his views, I do not support Donald Trump, I am a liberal, I read both sides to make informed decisions about current topics, I do not advocate violence unless it is in self-defense and I do not advocate rioting where innocent people can be hurt because of the actions of one bigot.
Is that clear enough or should I repeat that before I make every single point?
Just read the first 3 posts described as defending hate speech.Elaborate please.
If anything it proves that you have no interest in arguing in good faith.
Hey look! A receipt! You saying to shame and humiliate someone rather than discuss something!
Did I do it right? Should I have posted more memes with it?
I don't agree with Phil0sophy on a lot of things, but I'd rather discuss it then try and incite the thread to dogpile him based on sensationalist descriptions of past posts.
I am arguing in good faith, let me make this clear, Nazi's disgust me, I don't like Milo, I do not advocate his views, I do not support Donald Trump, I am a liberal, I read both sides to make informed decisions about current topics, I do not advocate violence unless it is in self-defense and I do not advocate rioting where innocent people can be hurt because of the actions of one bigot.
Is that clear enough or should I repeat that before I make every single point?
It is absolutely true that the waters are becoming murky, and that's what's so dangerous about it. The line where "Nazi" ends and "extreme right wing" begins is harder and harder to locate every day. Here's my take, and others are welcome to disagree:Okay someone has to update me. When did Milo become a Nazi?
It's not a Muslim ban, it's just a policy that happens to align with the stated goal of enforcing a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" targeting predominantly Muslim countries while not applying to Christians, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or, or, or...
Dude was literally openly wearing a nazi symbol. Works on a literal daily basis with nazis. FFS I should be expecting this sort of "are they really nazis" bullshit after Richard Spencer's nazism was questioned whilst he was sporting a literal nazi haircut. Also, can somebody edit this to say, "not a nazi, but with nazis."
because that's what breibart is.
First of all, words do not constitute as violence, words are words, violence is a physical act, words can indeed lead to violence, that's undebatable but words do not equal violence.
Elaborate please.