I mean you even created a thread titled: "Communism is inevitable?" I just think you're ignorant about communism and the difference between communism, socialism, democratic socialism, and social democracies, and are constantly conflating the implementation of social programs meant for safety net measures to a rise of a totalitarian regime. You listen to incredibly obtuse commentators such as Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin who live and breath anti-leftist propaganda and pseudo-intellectualism, and proceed to regurgitate their talking points. You're more worried about a communist regime when there's a straight up authoritarian administration that has unsettling parallels to Nazi Germany. But whatever, that's a separate discussion. You do you.
Well the beauty of freedom of speech is that we're free to express our disgust to those individuals and we see as a society that people don't condone hate speech and will express their discontent to individuals who adhere to it. And we see that even today with people who use racial slurs or condone regressive ideologies are either shunned or shamed for it.
Even with people who hold such despicable viewpoints, there's always a chance for change and there are countless stories of people who have changed. There are videos of ex Neo-Nazis who talk about why they became Neo-Nazis and how they fed on hate and suppression tactics. The last way to change a person's mindset is to suppress their opinion. All that does is make them more angry and give more justification to continue expressing those viewpoints.
Here's something that I just don't understand, why are you always adversarial towards me? The reason I ask is because you took the effort to dig into my past thread posts and bring up a thread titled, "Communism is inevitable", as if it was a smoking gun to prove something, but if you actually read the contents of the thread, the discussion revolved around universal basic income being an inevitable result of a capitalist society, resulting in a form of stable communism? The thread was actually accepting the possibility of an offset communist/socialist society, but because you view me as an opponent meant to be trampled and defeated, you brought it up as a kink in my armor.
You bring up JBP and Dave Rubin, to make this a matter of dichotomous American politics when I've mention those two commentators along side Kyle Kulinski, Ben Shapiro, and David Pakman, as commentators I listen to, but you frame me as if I'm a product of anti-leftist propaganda. You reduce my views into a black-and-white, non-complex, unnuanced matter, within a matter of seconds and turn me into something I'm not. You ignore everything that stands contrary to what you try to paint me as (the fact that I listen to commentators on both and neither side of the aisle, the fact that I agree and disagree with all of them, and the fact that my concern for post-modernist demagogues, which I just stated was no longer existent, was moderate at best).
Why can't you put your shield and sword down and be mild-mannered about this, mate? Seriously? It feels like after two replies in to our discussion, shit gets ugly and we can never come to a compromise? I've tried extended an olive branch numerous times, I've pm'd you directly and have been completely open about my views, but you just don't reciprocate. Why? It's getting to the point where I believe we can never have a productive conversation.
Definitely. Banning it would set precedent for limiting the speech of any other group. The only task would be to associate the ideas of a targeted group with whatever it is that took down the Nazi's and construing their words. Maybe even something ridiculous is enough. Look at America and how it framed people who were against the Vietnam War as "unamerican" to throw them into cells. It's not too hard to believe.
Here's something that I just don't understand, why are you always adversarial towards me? The reason I ask is because you took the effort to dig into my past thread posts and bring up a thread titled, "Communism is inevitable", as if it was a smoking gun to prove something, but if you actually read the contents of the thread, the discussion revolved around universal basic income being an inevitable result of a capitalist society, resulting in a form of stable communism? The thread was actually accepting the possibility of an offset communist/socialist society, but because you view me as an opponent meant to be trampled and defeated, you brought it up as a kink in my armor.
You bring up JBP and Dave Rubin, to make this a matter of dichotomous American politics when I've mention those two commentators along side Kyle Kulinski, Ben Shapiro, and David Pakman, as commentators I listen to, but you frame me as if I'm a product of anti-leftist propaganda. You reduce my views into a black-and-white, non-complex, unnuanced matter, within a matter of seconds and turn me into something I'm not. You ignore everything that stands contrary to what you try to paint me as (the fact that I listen to commentators on both and neither side of the aisle, the fact that I agree and disagree with all of them, and the fact that my concern for post-modernist demagogues, which I just stated was no longer existent, was moderate at best).
Why can't you put your shield and sword down and be mild-mannered about this, mate? Seriously? It feels like after two replies in to our discussion, shit gets ugly and we can never come to a compromise? I've tried extended an olive branch numerous times, I've pm'd you directly and have been completely open about my views, but you just don't reciprocate. Why? It's getting to the point where I believe we can never have a productive conversation.
Well I was proving a point. We've had discussions for a long time and in almost every discussion, you end up talking about how leftists are dangerous and how social safety nets will give rise to communism. And when you claim to hold leftist positions, I rarely ever see that in your posts. Most of your positions that you argue in favor of, are always right-wing. Whenever you cite a political commentator, it's always a right-wing persona. I've never once seen you cite anything other than right-wing to far-right individuals, but you continue to claim to be a centrist. Not only that, but I don't think you even understand the political spectrum. What's considered centrist in the U.S. is considered right-wing to the rest of the world. For instance, someone like Bernie Sanders is considered centrist in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere else. You're more concerned about the rise of communism, even though this country is right-leaning, based GOA statistics right-wing terrorism is the most prominent form of terrorism in the U.S., and we have an ultra-hard conservative administration that is currently in control of every branch of government, and the president is constantly advocating fascist ideology. Yet after all of that is said and done, you're more concerned with the rise of communism and leftist extremism....
You ask why I'm adversarial? Well, one, NB has become increasingly toxic over the years and my patience has waned. We've had plenty of civil discussions that ended up going nowhere. Secondly, you constantly criticized me for applying a moral compass to my political positions, but then you end up doing the same when it comes to your own opinions, such as punishing individuals for being fat on principle and using "strength" to send a message, even though historically that never works and will backfire given time. You argued how you don't want universal healthcare because you don't want to pay for another individuals well-being, even though a universal healthcare system benefits everyone including yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around "me" and how people need to fend for themselves without having others help them, and if they stumble then that's their fault and we should leave them helpless. It's just an incredibly naive point of view and antithetical to my own positions. Morality aside, you fail to see that having safety nets, investing into communities, and helping others will in fact make the entire nation prosper which is good for everyone including you.
Unlike other members like Fountain, I know you're not a dumb kid which is why it makes even more frustrating to see someone like you to not see the bigger picture of the positions you hold and how what you profess sounds good on paper, but ultimately doesn't work. One example being is the idea of "compromise." Yes, compromising is a compelling narrative and sounds like the bigger thing to do, but what you fail to grasp is that on some issues, compromise is not an option.
And from the time I've known you on here, it seems like your ability to be objective in certain positions is clouded by some personal frustrations and grudges. The ideology you currently hold were pretty much identical to my own back in highschool, so it's also frustrating to see someone continue to hold an immature outlook of the world.
Well I was proving a point. We've had discussions for a long time and in almost every discussion, you end up talking about how leftists are dangerous and how social safety nets will give rise to communism. And when you claim to hold leftist positions, I rarely ever see that in your posts. Most of your positions that you argue in favor of, are always right-wing. Whenever you cite a political commentator, it's always a right-wing persona. I've never once seen you cite anything other than right-wing to far-right individuals, but you continue to claim to be a centrist. Not only that, but I don't think you even understand the political spectrum. What's considered centrist in the U.S. is considered right-wing to the rest of the world. For instance, someone like Bernie Sanders is considered centrist in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere else.
Which is why the EU is laughed out of the room. It's a dysfunctional, bankrupt system that was doomed to imploding into civil war.
Do you idiots understand anything about structure and systems? The EU allows its member nations to print the Euro. Greece could print boundless amounts of Euros that are, for all intents and purposes, entirely fungible with German Euros. Greece and France, in particular, have been running up one HELL of a bill as they purchase boundless amounts of 'social security nets' for their citizens. This forces the European economy to inflate and creates numerous tensions within the EU as financially irresponsible nations, continuously running at the extremes of inflation rates, end up bleeding that inflation into their surrounding economies. Not to mention what it does to the Euro's value as a basket/reserve currency.
The whole of the EU was being led to slaughter down the path of fanciful good intentions. You are all bankrupt and financially insolvent. Your healthcare systems must be gutted and completely restructured. Your education systems are even more bloated than the U.S. - but they are all obscured behind "paid for by the government." Your economies were deceptively unified in a manner to pit your national interests against each other in the long run and war was quickly becoming the only solution to preserving the all-important ideal of a pan-national Europe.
Unlike other members like Fountain, I know you're not a dumb kid which is why it makes even more frustrating to see someone like you to not see the bigger picture of the positions you hold and how what you profess sounds good on paper, but ultimately doesn't work. And from the time I've known you on here, it seems like your ability to be objective in certain positions is clouded by some personal frustrations and grudges. The ideology you currently hold were pretty much identical to my own back in highschool, so it's also frustrating to see someone continue to hold an ideology that was very childish.
I'm not sure but I think to some degree they should cus that also means people can tell them they are wrong and they don't seclude themselves to private conversations only, but some people talk about making it criminal cus it's antagonizing people or something.
Ninja, I will still be here, so holler if you need me. Checks will be performed at 1600 GMT -6 daily with minimal interruption. Posts will not be made unless a direct request for participation is made (do something that leaves a notification, if you would).
I will be working on something. Salve Tarrae Magicae.
The past is known. The future is secured... time to move on the present.
False Light of Tsuki no me... you really should learn to read signals. I have already told you what I am, and what I am here to do. You should go sit in the corner and think about what you've done. I will ask your mother how you've behaved when I return.
There will be order in my house and I will have dinner ready when I return. Do not make me send you out to eat with the yard animals.
Well I was proving a point. We've had discussions for a long time and in almost every discussion, you end up talking about how leftists are dangerous and how social safety nets will give rise to communism. And when you claim to hold leftist positions, I rarely ever see that in your posts. Most of your positions that you argue in favor of, are always right-wing. Whenever you cite a political commentator, it's always a right-wing persona. I've never once seen you cite anything other than right-wing to far-right individuals, but you continue to claim to be a centrist.
First off, Social safety nets -> Communism sounds stupid as **** coming from anyone. I think you've legitimately mistaken me for someone else. If I said anything remotely close to such a claim, please post a link or screenshot. If you manage to, allow me to explain myself, but I feel assured that I won't have to anything of the sort. From my recollection, we've only had two or three discussions relatively closely relating to social safety nets or communism, one being Trumps budget proposal cutting down on meals on wheels funding, and the other two revolving around cultural marxism and post-modernism. I have never drawn the conclusion that " social safety nets will lead to communism", and only once have I ever discussed communism on this forum, which was the "Communism is inevitable" thread. Even within that thread, the topic was about universal basic income, and I admitted I was wrong to title the thread "Communism", as UBI could exist in a socialist society, or social-capitalist society.
You must be registered for see images
I've spent a good half hour digging through my past posts, and threads to see if there's evidence to support your claims, and unsurprisingly didn't. I could see how you could come to the conclusion that my political presence on this forum is primarily anti-communist, anti-social safety net, and right wing if you ignore the majority of my political posts. From my threads revolving around politics, I have threads discussing the 2016 election, attacking Hillary Clinton, reporting on viral news/videos surrounding the election involving BLM and antifa, attacking the left and the alt-right, a debate between Uygur and Shapiro, a video clip of former Pay-pal CEO talking about post-modernism, and 2-3 threads revolving around the Russian conspiracy theory/FISA memo.
Reviewing all my general forum posts, in terms of my "citations citations of Peterson [self identified classical liberal] are limited to a single thread/video, which was apolitical in nature and revolved around human behavior. I've linked a video to Milo Yiannopoulos [self identified conservative] shitting on the alt-right, I've linked to a video of Paul Joseph Watson [self identified conservative] shitting on Hillary Clinton, I've linked to a video of Matt Jarbo [self identified liberal] shitting on Hillary Clinton I've linked to an apolitical video of Maajid Nawaz (who is more of a sociopolitical figure than a political figure, but is liberal) discussing the reformation of Islam, I've linked to a video of Stefan Molyneux [self identified right wing libertarian] discussing racial nationalism, and I've referenced Sam Harris [self identified liberal] in an apolitical thread revolved around objective morality. I have yet to cite, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin (who literally says nothing citable), Kyle Kulinski, Pakman, etc.
I have defended Dave Rubin in our DM's, but only because you attempted to discredit him through a financial ad hominem. I don't care much for him personally, I more so watch his channel for the people he interviews. If it helps at all, I moderately agree with the general scheme of Ana Kasparian's view on Dave Rubin. And I still don't believe conservative funding of his show discredits him to being a "right-wing pawn". The guy's politically shallow and lacks substance, but claiming he's a "right-wing shill" is going a bit far.
Going through the list of political commentators, philosophers, personas, pundits, etc. of which I follow, absorb their content, or find myself aligned with to some degree;
Left-leaning
Sam Harris - liberal
Jordan Peterson - classical liberal
Kyle Kulinski -social democrat
David Pakman - progresive
Maajid Nawaz - liberal
Sam Seder - progressive
StyxHexenhammer666 - classical liberal
Eric Weinstein - liberal
Murray Bookchin - liberal socialist
Destiny - liberal progressive
TJ Kirk - liberal
Bret Weinstein - progressive
Brittany Simon - progressive feminist
Tim Pool - liberal
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - classical liberal
Sargon of Akkad - liberalist
Noel Plum - liberal
AIU - liberal
Politically ambiguous
Morally Gray - true centrist
That Guy T - anarchocapitalist
Mouthy Buddha - constant flux
Ayn Rand - libertarian
Samuel Edward Konkin III - agorist
Colin Moriarty - libertarian
Dave Rubin - libertarian
Max Stirner - egoist
Minister Louis Farrakhan - black nationalist
Right-leaning
Larry Elder - conservative
The Golden One - traditional nationalist
Nicholas J. Fuentes - paleoconservative
Michael Oakeshott - conservative
Steven Crowder - conservative
Trey Gowdy - conservative
Black Pigeon Speaks - right leaning nationalist
Rand Paul - libertarian conservative
Ben Shapiro - conservative
Thomas Sowell - conservative
Naked Ape - conservative
Paul Joseph Watson - conservative
I have objectively cited more left leaning people, and agree with more left leaning people than I do right, but most of the people I agree with on the left seem to be of the right of you.
Not only that, but I don't think you even understand the political spectrum. What's considered centrist in the U.S. is considered right-wing to the rest of the world. For instance, someone like Bernie Sanders is considered centrist in the U.K. and pretty much everywhere else.
I understand the current political spectrum and now flawed and obsolete of a spectrum it is; flawed for a multitude of reasons, including the relativity of political labels to the region associated with them, like you said. I don't see how pointing out the difference in U.S politics and U.K. politics as if it shows a lack of understanding of politics on my part. Whenever I discuss American politics, I always refer to it as "American politics", and I have criticized you in the past (and literally in this very thread) for turning political matters into a American dichotomy. I don't think you have evidence to claim that I have a narrow view of politics. You may disagree, for sure, but a disagreement does not equate to a lack of understanding.
You're more concerned about the rise of communism, even though this country is right-leaning, based GOA statistics right-wing terrorism is the most prominent form of terrorism in the U.S., and we have an ultra-hard conservative administration that is currently in control of every branch of government, and the president is constantly advocating fascist ideology. Yet after all of that is said and done, you're more concerned with the rise of communism and leftist extremism....
I have stated it once in this thread, I have stated it twice in this thread, and now this will be the THIRD TIME I will have to repeat myself in this same thread to an accusation you refuse to lay down. My concerns for the rise of post-modernist/cultural Marxism have dissipated and are nearly non-existent. Now please, stop trying to make that claim.
You ask why I'm adversarial? Well, one, NB has become increasingly toxic over the years and my patience has waned. We've had plenty of civil discussions that ended up going nowhere. Secondly, you constantly criticized me for applying a moral compass to my political positions, but then you end up doing the same when it comes to your own opinions, such as punishing individuals for being fat on principle and using "strength" to send a message, even though historically that never works and will backfire given time. You argued how you don't want universal healthcare because you don't want to pay for another individuals well-being, even though a universal healthcare system benefits everyone including yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around "me" and how people need to fend for themselves without having others help them, and if they stumble then that's their fault and we should leave them helpless. It's just an incredibly naive point of view and antithetical to my own positions. Morality aside, you fail to see that having safety nets, investing into communities, and helping others will in fact make the entire nation prosper which is good for everyone including you.
But here's the thing, you're adversarial towards me even in apolitical threads. I understand getting a little nasty or rude during a debate, it's happens -- I've done it, you've done it, we all have, but it's like you have a personal vendetta against me, this is why I ask. I mean, there are a few threads where I wasn't even discussing politics, and you came for my neck: here's an example
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Unlike other members like Fountain, I know you're not a dumb kid which is why it makes even more frustrating to see someone like you to not see the bigger picture of the positions you hold and how what you profess sounds good on paper, but ultimately doesn't work. One example being is the idea of "compromise." Yes, compromising is a compelling narrative and sounds like the bigger thing to do, but what you fail to grasp is that on some issues, compromise is not an option.
And from the time I've known you on here, it seems like your ability to be objective in certain positions is clouded by some personal frustrations and grudges. The ideology you currently hold were pretty much identical to my own back in highschool, so it's also frustrating to see someone continue to hold an immature outlook of the world.
That's the thing, I don't have an ideology. My political stances exist on a policy to policy basis. Though I may overlap with other political models, there isn't a political model I follow directly. I call myself a centrist for the sake of being incapable of aligning with a ideology to a degree where I can identity with most of their ideas. My ideas weren't based on frustration, or emotion, nor have they ever. They're based on reasoning, and principle, that if you want me to outline for a specific policy or stance, I have no problem doing. One thing I know for sure is that the ideas I borrow from don't exist anywhere near where you exist politically, and often stand contrary to where you exist politically, which is why we disagree on so much.
I want to keep this conversation going, either on this thread, or in pms, because I'm hearing things about the way you perceive me that I have yet to hear. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this, and come to a civil disagreement on a few things.
First off, Social safety nets -> Communism sounds stupid as **** coming from anyone. I think you've legitimately mistaken me for someone else. If I said anything remotely close to such a claim, please post a link or screenshot. If you manage to, allow me to explain myself, but I feel assured that I won't have to anything of the sort. From my recollection, we've only had two or three discussions relatively closely relating to social safety nets or communism, one being Trumps budget proposal cutting down on meals on wheels funding, and the other two revolving around cultural marxism and post-modernism. I have never drawn the conclusion that " social safety nets will lead to communism", and only once have I ever discussed communism on this forum, which was the "Communism is inevitable" thread. Even within that thread, the topic was about universal basic income, and I admitted I was wrong to title the thread "Communism", as UBI could exist in a socialist society, or social-capitalist society.
You must be registered for see images
I've spent a good half hour digging through my past posts, and threads to see if there's evidence to support your claims, and unsurprisingly didn't. I could see how you could come to the conclusion that my political presence on this forum is primarily anti-communist, anti-social safety net, and right wing if you ignore the majority of my political posts. From my threads revolving around politics, I have threads discussing the 2016 election, attacking Hillary Clinton, reporting on viral news/videos surrounding the election involving BLM and antifa, attacking the left and the alt-right, a debate between Uygur and Shapiro, a video clip of former Pay-pal CEO talking about post-modernism, and 2-3 threads revolving around the Russian conspiracy theory/FISA memo.
Reviewing all my general forum posts, in terms of my "citations citations of Peterson [self identified classical liberal] are limited to a single thread/video, which was apolitical in nature and revolved around human behavior. I've linked a video to Milo Yiannopoulos [self identified conservative] shitting on the alt-right, I've linked to a video of Paul Joseph Watson [self identified conservative] shitting on Hillary Clinton, I've linked to a video of Matt Jarbo [self identified liberal] shitting on Hillary Clinton I've linked to an apolitical video of Maajid Nawaz (who is more of a sociopolitical figure than a political figure, but is liberal) discussing the reformation of Islam, I've linked to a video of Stefan Molyneux [self identified right wing libertarian] discussing racial nationalism, and I've referenced Sam Harris [self identified liberal] in an apolitical thread revolved around objective morality. I have yet to cite, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin (who literally says nothing citable), Kyle Kulinski, Pakman, etc.
I have defended Dave Rubin in our DM's, but only because you attempted to discredit him through a financial ad hominem. I don't care much for him personally, I more so watch his channel for the people he interviews. If it helps at all, I moderately agree with the general scheme of Ana Kasparian's view on Dave Rubin. And I still don't believe conservative funding of his show discredits him to being a "right-wing pawn". The guy's politically shallow and lacks substance, but claiming he's a "right-wing shill" is going a bit far.
Going through the list of political commentators, philosophers, personas, pundits, etc. of which I follow, absorb their content, or find myself aligned with to some degree;
Left-leaning
Sam Harris - liberal
Jordan Peterson - classical liberal
Kyle Kulinski -social democrat
David Pakman - progresive
Maajid Nawaz - liberal
Sam Seder - progressive
StyxHexenhammer666 - classical liberal
Eric Weinstein - liberal
Murray Bookchin - liberal socialist
Destiny - liberal progressive
TJ Kirk - liberal
Bret Weinstein - progressive
Brittany Simon - progressive feminist
Tim Pool - liberal
Ayaan Hirsi Ali - classical liberal
Sargon of Akkad - liberalist
Noel Plum - liberal
AIU - liberal
Politically ambiguous
Morally Gray - true centrist
That Guy T - anarchocapitalist
Mouthy Buddha - constant flux
Ayn Rand - libertarian
Samuel Edward Konkin III - agorist
Colin Moriarty - libertarian
Dave Rubin - libertarian
Max Stirner - egoist
Minister Louis Farrakhan - black nationalist
Right-leaning
Larry Elder - conservative
The Golden One - traditional nationalist
Nicholas J. Fuentes - paleoconservative
Michael Oakeshott - conservative
Steven Crowder - conservative
Trey Gowdy - conservative
Black Pigeon Speaks - right leaning nationalist
Rand Paul - libertarian conservative
Ben Shapiro - conservative
Thomas Sowell - conservative
Naked Ape - conservative
Paul Joseph Watson - conservative
I have objectively cited more left leaning people, and agree with more left leaning people than I do right, but most of the people I agree with on the left seem to be of the right of you.
I understand the current political spectrum and now flawed and obsolete of a spectrum it is; flawed for a multitude of reasons, including the relativity of political labels to the region associated with them, like you said. I don't see how pointing out the difference in U.S politics and U.K. politics as if it shows a lack of understanding of politics on my part. Whenever I discuss American politics, I always refer to it as "American politics", and I have criticized you in the past (and literally in this very thread) for turning political matters into a American dichotomy. I don't think you have evidence to claim that I have a narrow view of politics. You may disagree, for sure, but a disagreement does not equate to a lack of understanding.
I have stated it once in this thread, I have stated it twice in this thread, and now this will be the THIRD TIME I will have to repeat myself in this same thread to an accusation you refuse to lay down. My concerns for the rise of post-modernist/cultural Marxism have dissipated and are nearly non-existent. Now please, stop trying to make that claim.
But here's the thing, you're adversarial towards me even in apolitical threads. I understand getting a little nasty or rude during a debate, it's happens -- I've done it, you've done it, we all have, but it's like you have a personal vendetta against me, this is why I ask. I mean, there are a few threads where I wasn't even discussing politics, and you came for my neck: here's an example
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
That's the thing, I don't have an ideology. My political stances exist on a policy to policy basis. Though I may overlap with other political models, there isn't a political model I follow directly. I call myself a centrist for the sake of being incapable of aligning with a ideology to a degree where I can identity with most of their ideas. My ideas weren't based on frustration, or emotion, nor have they ever. They're based on reasoning, and principle, that if you want me to outline for a specific policy or stance, I have no problem doing. One thing I know for sure is that the ideas I borrow from don't exist anywhere near where you exist politically, and often stand contrary to where you exist politically, which is why we disagree on so much.
I want to keep this conversation going, either on this thread, or in pms, because I'm hearing things about the way you perceive me that I have yet to hear. Maybe we can get to the bottom of this, and come to a civil disagreement on a few things.
Alright, well I see your point. Maybe I was being too harsh and have said things that are uncalled for. NB has become increasingly toxic over the years and sometimes I guess I can conflate people who hold irrational ideology with people who may have one or two irrational viewpoints.
The thing is, we did argue about somethings which I consider to be objectively wrong on your part. The most notable one of course is financially punishing fat people for being fat. You also claimed to have been anti-war when we PM'd each other, yet not long ago you argued heavily in favor of a preemptive attack on North Korea. We've also argued about Islam where you believe the faith itself is the underlying reason for the terrorism and not the foreign and socio-economic history of that region which gave rise to extremism. Then you defended Trump and how he's not a racist. And just the principle of social safety nets and programs such as universal healthcare, where the fundamental argument was really people need to pick themselves off by their bootstraps and not mooch off of others.
It's positions like that where I found you incredibly ignorant and a lot of those viewpoints are held by right-wing commentators such as Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, etc. and the fact that you can't see how erroneous and sophist they are in what they preach is depressing for an individual like yourself.
Yeah, we agree on some issues, but usually those are not the big issues. Most of our disagreements come into play when it involves benefiting other people, defending people from discrimination, or the causalities of war. And those are things I'm passionate about. And when you criticized me for having my moral compass influence my political stance, it really gave me a bad impression of you.
I can't promise that I won't get passionate again, but I'll keep in mind that maybe I was overly critical and will try to keep our discussions civil.
In my opinion, freedom of speech should not be revoked from anyone unless someone is inciting violence. However, one problem with this is that the point at which someone can be considered to be inciting violence is subjective. If a Nazi says, "Jews are terrible! We must do something about them," some people might interpret that as inciting violence while others might not. If the Nazi leaves it at, "Jews are terrible," it's not inciting violence and should be allowed. Punishing such a simple comment would be dangerously fascist.
In my opinion, freedom of speech should not be revoked from anyone unless someone is inciting violence. However, one problem with this is that the point at which someone can be considered to be inciting violence is subjective. If a Nazi says, "Jews are terrible! We must do something about them," some people might interpret that as inciting violence while others might not. If the Nazi leaves it at, "Jews are terrible," it's not inciting violence and should be allowed. Punishing such a simple comment would be dangerously fascist.
Such an idiot, first of all you have to realise that Jews as a collective are generally sycophantic and use their host nations as their host. This is obvious as the USA is an obvious Zionist state and its media and academia is operated by and ran by Jews. More evidence lies in the Federal Reserve but if you really are interested you should research it yourself. Plus as a group they have gotten kicked out of over 100 countries due to their materialist agenda and the infiltration of the propagation of information that any nation possesses. For your last point punishing people for their beliefs is not inherently fascist ie stalin and any authoritarian regime.
If nazies don't have freedom of speech in your country then your country does not have freedom of speech.
No one needs freedom of speech for speech everyone agree with...
People should have the right to be able to voice their thoughts no matter what they are, how else can we change people opinion if they aren't allowed to talk about them?
Do you really think that by getting people fired from their job because "the guy believed" "insert something random here" would make him change his mind on the subject, or double down on it and get really passioned about it, because "they just took my job, fu** those people" ?
If nazies don't have freedom of speech in your country then your country does not have freedom of speech.
No one needs freedom of speech for speech everyone agree with...
People should have the right to be able to voice their thoughts no matter what they are, how else can we change people opinion if they aren't allowed to talk about them?
Do you really think that by getting people fired from their job because "the guy believed" "insert something random here" would make him change his mind on the subject, or double down on it and get really passioned about it, because "they just took my job, fu** those people" ?
The firing is because who wants a confirmed racist running the cash register or in charge of saving lives? But the major bet is that it's just bad publicity to let someone remain if they've hit the headlines for racism.
Such an idiot, first of all you have to realise that Jews as a collective are generally sycophantic and use their host nations as their host. This is obvious as the USA is an obvious Zionist state and its media and academia is operated by and ran by Jews. More evidence lies in the Federal Reserve but if you really are interested you should research it yourself. Plus as a group they have gotten kicked out of over 100 countries due to their materialist agenda and the infiltration of the propagation of information that any nation possesses. For your last point punishing people for their beliefs is not inherently fascist ie stalin and any authoritarian regime.
So you concede you have no argument, its ok lots of people dont like the truth so they cower when confronted with anything that goes against their preconceived notions formed by emotions.
So you concede you have no argument, its ok lots of people dont like the truth so they cower when confronted with anything that goes against their preconceived notions formed by emotions.
They just simply dont agree. No ones cowering, people are just choosing not to waste their time arguing about something when theres no common ground or agreeable answer.
They just simply dont agree. No ones cowering, people are just choosing not to waste their time arguing about something when theres no common ground or agreeable answer.
No he is cowering, he didnt say hes right he said he wont argue with me because i used one little insult which is just an emotional reaction to things antithetical to his conditioning. There is also such as thing called objectivity and in this case proving my argument wrong should be easily attained, but he obviously wont since its a fact.
