@SleepingSilence If one of my family members were a Nazi or a KKK member or some such, you can bet your ass I would have nothing at all to do with them.

Ignoring the double post of single sentences. "Of such" seems rather vague from the person gleefully telling me they wish the fabric of american society should perish. I mean, you are making definitive statements. "I'll cut this people from my life, no if ands or buts! But yeah know, keeping my options of crimes pretty wide... You think you'd be a little less wishy-washy with your word choice, no?

Yes, I'm arguing semantics. But I can't help but think that everyone's right of Joe Biden is probably a Nazi.

splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist…
edition.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/r…
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016…

Or look at Richard Spencer's wikipedia page, where the claim is mentioned and cited: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic
mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-pover…

*gasp* Look bias! /S (Don't waste your time trying to defend it.)

Also, try maybe reading some Mussolini. And (pretty sure) that someone whose called America 'democratic' before, not sure if your snark is particularly warranted. ;D

(Edit: Wrong person using same site for bias, though you've also used "bias" like it means something/an attack before. So won't change it. :D)

Ignoring the double post of single sentences.

Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

"Of such" seems rather vague from the person gleefully telling me they wish the fabric of american society should perish.

Wait, is the fabric of American Society critically dependent on me socializing with Nazi's and KKK members? Because if so I have slightly underestimated my importance to this nation!

I mean, you are making definitive statements. "I'll cut this people from my life, no if ands or buts! But yeah know, keeping my options of crimes pretty wide... You think you'd be a little less wishy-washy with your word choice, no?

I'm fairly certain I specified Nazi's and KKK members. I don't have a complete list of detestable hate groups to hand unfortunately.

Yeah, I'm lost on where the conversation is now. Are we discussing National Pride or accepting Nazis?

I don't have a complete list of detestable hate groups to hand unfortunately.

Coulda fooled...... naw I play, I kid, I josh.

Let's try a more constructive, more positive avenue. EVERYBODY: Who do you disagree with and also think people shouldn't hate?

.

@Penny No and like I said. Depends what "Nazi" means to you. If it's anything like assuming all nationalists are Nazi's, then yes, it's a bit broader than it should be.

Also, as someone who has dealt with people throwing their conniption fits at me, for either mentioning and @ing them during continuous conversation or forgetting to do it once. And also has been bitched at for not adorning every conversation with 100% civility and grace. Instead of just being a sarcastic ass, like I'm currently am.

Can I merely just point out, it's mildly obnoxious that you keep spamming my inbox with two to three posts at a time. Despite never adding anything remotely substantive...

Just shift enter on your keyboard, and wait five seconds before posting again...will a cherry on top sway you? <.<

Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

I know we're just shooting the shit. But, I can't help but wonder how unintentional this all is. Like, this response I only assume refers to single sentences line. But after posting twice again, literally not being brief. Are you intentionally calling out your own posts witless? Am I just trying to hard to rationalize this? :I

---

Also, sorry for the folks in the bleachers. I literally have nothing worthwhile to add that I think will effect the direction of this conversation. And not a single jeer is allowed either (nor will it be taken remotely seriously) Since we've already gotten into shit posting on all fronts, on all sides.

EVERYBODY: Who do you disagree with and also think people shouldn't hate?

I'm pretty sure I disagree with everyone about at least one thing, and I don't think anyone should be hated.

Political, Religious and most of the time. Very same deal. Though while it sounds nice, some people deserve it. Like people that abuse animals. Though admittedly it's an unproductive action.

I'm really no sure what people find so hard to fathom about not associating with people who hold views you find reprehensible. If someone tortured puppies for fun, I would not have lunch with that person.

Now if someone believes that there horoscope accurately describes their future. I find that to be objectionable but Ill probably manage to avoid deleting their contact info instantly.

Snip

You can think whatever you want about the sources, it does not change the fact that they have called for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing among other things. You are free to look up information using your preferred sources, if you actually care to. Not surprised you still defend them, though. You've already displayed your ignorance in spectacular fashion with your comment about the nazi party a few pages back. I'm going to have a lot of trouble taking you seriously after that one.

EVERYBODY: Who do you disagree with and also think people shouldn't hate?

Conservatives, I guess. I disagree with them but that doesn't mean I hate them. Also religion. I have a lot of issues with it, but I don't hate the people who practice it.

<Snipped quote by mdk>
I'm pretty sure I disagree with everyone about at least one thing, and I don't think anyone should be hated.

Surely some people should be hated. Osama bin Laden wait he's dead, um.... people who wear socks with sandals. ISIS, MS13, Al Shabaab know what let's just stick with sock-sandal bastards. Like real talk, there's gotta come a point, right?

I disagree with just about everything​ the modern Left-wing has to say or their vision of the United States, especially the fringe elements of it as the social justice crusade or the democratic socialists, but at the same time I certainly do not hate them. I have a difficult time not hating Nazism or communism, let alone socialism, but I can respect their right to an opinion, even if they are guilty of atrocity and are willing to adhere to that; a bad opinion is still an opinion. Action is where the issue is.

I strongly dislike the spineless "conservatives" who are nothing more than career politicians and more than happy to play face for votes than for their beliefs, rather what beliefs they should have had given who they were elected to represent. Hate them? Absolutely not. Want them out of office so the real candidates can be in? Absolutely.

I dislike the "Alt-Right" memesters who steal from actual Alt-Right sources or subtly push fringe agendas or do outright, even if they only do it "For the lulz." or to be edgy. As far as I am concerned, that is just as potentially damaging as actually associating with them; we have seen the media cannot discern a green frog from a hate symbol as it is. Some might be clever, some funny, but at the end of the day, this is not a game.

Certainly not fond of Islam either, too many moderates turn a blind eye to the radicals, and the radicals I too am hard pressed not to legitimately hate; they are essentially inexcusable, but hatred isn't an answer. The religion itself is not the issue wither, it can be reformed and there are some Muslims who believe in reforming it, just not enough. It isn't "incompatible" with the Western world, but that requires compromise and integration, things a number of them are flat unwilling to do.

No friend of criminals either, no real sympathy or mercy for them as well. But hatred? I try to avoid hatred. Disdain and distaste, even abhorrence in the sense of laothing to contend with them? Acceptable.

I'm really no sure what people find so hard to fathom about not associating with people who hold views you find reprehensible.

Because the last time I tried having a straight/100% honest, civil conversation with you. You told me 100% straight, without a hint of humor in sight. "Suicide bombers are okay and shouldn't be stopped." (After pause, given the important clarification. That they can't -kill- anyone. (another reason why I know you weren't being sarcastic when arguing. So the following environmental and property damage. And the mental trauma and physical injuries of innocent life. Nah, just it's okay long as nobodies dead.)

So I haven't the faintest frick where your moral compass is, and what it is or isn't deeming to be indefensible. >.>

Edit: And the very same people who think "the tumblr genders are probably on the up and up." Think everyone is a Nazi, including the following...

twitter.com/Spainkiller/status/976096…

---

You can think whatever you want about the sources, it does not change the fact that they have called for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing among other things. You are free to look up information using your preferred sources, if you actually care to. Not surprised you still defend them, though. You've already displayed your ignorance in spectacular fashion with your comment about the nazi party a few pages back. I'm going to have a lot of trouble taking you seriously after that one.

Progressives really don't have senses of humor do they? I even put /S, if you couldn't parse the meaning of the obvious sarcasm. I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously...

No, I wasn't actually judging your sources. I'm again pointing out your hypocrisy that you always call out "bias" in sources when it means literally nothing. (Actually the site pointing to the bias, is itself bias in a way. Just look at a few of the sites on their list they claim "are least bias" shit like doctors without borders is on there...)

And again, I figured you were being snarky to match my own previous snark. But now you're genuinely trying to argue "your joke", and I pointed out people like Mussolini started Facism because he felt that was the only way true socialism would ever come to fruition.

Though, my original post wasn't trying to be a factual argument, it was a joke to show the vagueness of her loaded statement.

---

Conservatives, I guess.

I believe you. I guess.

---

Oh, and on the U.K.



And if you're out of the loop. Because of his girlfriend kept bragging about her cute dog. He made his girlfriend's small dog, do the least cute thing he could think of, and learn to lift one paw to the word "sieg heil" and made a video of it while giggling. This joke, which no one on earth cared about. Is now possibly putting a man behind bars... (save the cheering, defending or "it's a fringe, 'entire country'" comments on this one.)

.

And if you're out of the loop. Because of his girlfriend kept bragging about her cute dog. He made his girlfriend's small dog, do the least cute thing he could think of, and learn to lift one paw to the word "sieg heil" and made a video of it while giggling. This joke, which no one on earth cared about. Is now possibly putting a man behind bars... (save the cheering, defending or "it's a fringe, 'entire country'" comments on this one.)

I think that kind of political correctness is counterproductive. In punishing someone over a joke (and I don't know all the details of the case, I'm taking your word for it), you are pissing people off, who then come to the conclusion that minorities are to blame. So, in trying to protect minorities, you end up hurting them because now you've got people who are pissed off that a multicultural society is leading to people getting jailed over jokes, when really it's not the multicultural society that is to blame for that - it's the law that makes it possible to throw someone in jail for a joke.

I think that kind of political correctness is counterproductive. In punishing someone over a joke (and I don't know all the details of the case, I'm taking your word for it), you are pissing people off, who then come to the conclusion that minorities are to blame. So, in trying to protect minorities, you end up hurting them because now you've got people who are pissed off that a multicultural society is leading to people getting jailed over jokes, when really it's not the multicultural society that is to blame for that - it's the law that makes it possible to throw someone in jail for a joke.

All political correctness is counterproductive. It's history is malicious and it never changed. But don't take my word for it. I mean this in a sincere/kindest possible way, look it up yourself. A young man is literally facing jail time over a dog's lifting his paw, and a judge considered his crime being "grossly offensive". (If the video in question hasn't been removed.) His video actually didn't get any negative feedback, or huge blow-back backlash from the internet that I'm aware of. But I agree the multicultural society isn't to blame. It's the political correct/hate speech culture doing what it always intended to do.

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

Surely some people should be hated. Osama bin Laden wait he's dead, um.... people who wear socks with sandals. ISIS, MS13, Al Shabaab know what let's just stick with sock-sandal bastards. Like real talk, there's gotta come a point, right?

Hey hey hey HEY!

Leave the damn shoebies alone.

environmental and property damage

Make sure you use a low carbon emission vest.

I don't 100 percent remember the context in which we discussed suicide bombing. I think it was part of the discussion of assisted suicide? Cant really scroll back that far on my phone.

I was actually arguing for medically assisted suicide after appropriate counseling. Killing yourself with a bomb would violate laws that regulate the possession of explosives.

All that aside how does it make it difficult for you to understand why I would rather not brunch with Nazis?

All that aside how does it make it difficult for you to understand why I would rather not brunch with Nazis?

Not OP but, my experiences elsewhere (and a little bit in here too if we're being honest) don't leave me with a lot of faith in the responsible use of labels like "Nazi." It's like.... shoot I used to know the word for this. There exists a term whose definition is "A concept used to prevent thinking." The Atlantic gave a pretty even-handed rundown, but they didn't remind me what the actual term is. Anyway. Years of this have made conservatives as wary of the "nazi" label as you probably are of words like "socialist" (when used as a negative anyway). So like, if we took the stereotypical screaming liberal and the stereotypical screaming conservative and filled the whole country with 'em in equal measures, and no one from either camp would so much as sit down with someone from the other, they'd all probably think themselves pretty virtuous (AT LEAST I AIN'T SITTIN WITH THE GODDAMN COMMIES) and also they'd eventually wipe each other out.

CaN't We AlL jUsT gEt AlOnG?? But seriously like.... at a certain point politics becomes dogma, and then you're really just marketing all the worst parts about religion. Something like "I wouldn't even EAT DINNER with them!" seems like a step in that direction, at a glance. Of course if it's a literal actual goddamn Nazi, who cares, just, ya know, stating the obvious I guess in hopes of a circlejerky thumbs-up vote.

I was actually arguing for medically assisted suicide after appropriate counseling. Killing yourself with a bomb would violate laws that regulate the possession of explosives.

All that aside how does it make it difficult for you to understand why I would rather not brunch with Nazis?

I'm like 99.99% percent certain counseling on your end was literally -never- brought up once. In fact your argument seemed to be to disregard outside ideas and thoughts on the matter entirely. So if you finally know how terrible tHAT sounded, kudos. And yes, the law about bomb possession, that's the sole reason it would be a sticky situation.

I've already explained several times. With posts that were obviously not read or even fully scanned over. Which is why I didn't want to go in the circles this is clearly heading in.

I doubt the credibility of the term "Nazi" when the radical left have called everyone Nazi's. Also, it isn't a stretch to think you water down terminology. When you A. Want to dismantle society. B. Think all tumblr genders are valid terms. C. Has repeatedly used loose wording, without any attempt at clarification. So why wouldn't I question your distinction of a Nazi label?