Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 11:38 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I didn't insult a 'class' of people. I imagine those people probably come from a variety of social ad economic classes, as it were. I called a group of people what they are using direct honest language. The same group most people that hold ideals that most people here claim to be against.

I don't know what's so hard to understand. I can talk about a subsection of people on the left without talking about all of the left, in the same way I can talk about a
a subsection of people on the right without talking about everyone on the right. If you can't understand that, it's because you are in the vein of the left mirror of Trump (Authoritarian), or because you are trying to be offended by being intellectually dishonest, or you can't understand something basic because tribalism and zealousness has parasitized your brain like a devout religious fanatic. I can think of no other reasonable explanation that doesn't include other insults for which there is no evidence, such as intellectual deficiencies or language barriers.

You don't have to think of another explanation because we have already told you why multiple times. You have ASSUMED that the rioters are on the political left but you only ASSUME that because it fits your narrative. So, why would people who, generally, identify themselves with the political left take offense to someone making a broad generalization with no evidence about violence perpetrated by the "illiberal left?" BecauseL 1) it is a bogus charge to begin with and 2) the language you use is clearly intended to offend.

Just own up to being a dick. You started this thread to be a jerk and regardless how many times it is pointed out where you are wrong or are making evidence-less generalizations, you double-down. Instead you start straw manning people like me (for instance, you never showed me where I claimed that the rioters were right-wingers or part of a "false flag" coup like you claimed I did).

Leftist scumbag Commie helpless insecure weak dishonest weak-minded cuntbag shithead. That's what an insult looks like, and that's what being a dick looks like.

As for 'my narrative', it is that of a classical liberal in the vein of John Stuart Mill or Thomas Paine. When the right are pieces of shit I call them out on it too. As a matter of fact, I reckon the rise of Trump was only possible because the too many people in the Democratic Party gave their cancers a 'pass'. I don't want Trump, and I don't want another Trump. In order to do that you have to cut out the cancer and win some reasonable people over. I count these violent rioters are and anti-free speech people among that cancer. It's obvious to me that the young people (mostly on the left) in a state that is also overwhelmingly on the left, that openly cheer at the violence are the same people committing the violence. A conspiracy theory is not needed, not likely, and there is no evidence to show that those are the people who did it. If you think it's a conspiracy, it's because you're unable to objectively criticize anyone who associates with your political party when they are most deserving of it. I'm sure you would say "Clinton shouldn't have done x or y" but you won't treat truly deplorable behavior with the abhorrence it deserves. You are part of the problem.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 11:52 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 11:32 AM)Emma Wrote:  Your definition of safe space is wrong.

safe space
noun
noun: safe space; plural noun: safe spaces
a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm.

Apply that definition to any group where like minds gather to support each other. Church, AA/NA, Support Groups, etc. Should the university be a safe space? Yes, in as much as your place of work should be a safe space. That is, not necessarily places safe from criticism, but definitely safe from harassment, discrimination, and harm.

By your definition of only physical harm- everywhere is a safe space. Nobody should be getting physically harmed. Also, read my statements more closely about Milo, you'll find that I also think he should have a safe space to talk. And it isn't university campuses.

I could agree to much of these, but with some important distinctions:

Discrimination is something that applies to businesses, government entities, NPOs. And it only applies to people's race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or ethnicity. However, just because you are Jewish, for example, does not mean you can violate a companies dress code of 'no hats' by wearing a Yamaka because you are Jewish, or the wearing of a Hijab, or any other such policy. As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb. Also, as an individual I can discriminate against whomever I wish. If I don't want to eat near a Catholic, you can't force me to. I can even call him or her names if I like, so long as I don't cross the threshold of actual legal harassment. Zombie-worshiping, magic cannibals. You have no legal protection to not be offended.





You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with.

"You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with."

No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech.

"As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb."

I don't think it is true that private companies and/or the military can make you dress a specific way if it violates your religious views.



Also, this notion of "why does it matter if someone is offended" line is starting to get really fucking old. People have started using it now as an excuse to be intentionally offensive and then play the victim card themselves.

Do I care if someone is offended by what I say? No. Being offended by something I say or do is not relevant to me, but WHY someone is offended is and SHOULD BE to other people too. But people use the "who cares if you are offended" to now mean that not only do they not care that someone is offended, they don't even care to learn WHY that person is offended.

For instance, if someone gets offended because I corrected them on something, I don't particularly care. But I do care if they are offended because I incorrectly corrected them or if I embarrassed them in a specific setting. I can pick and choose how and when I express certain points so as to correct them without simultaneously embarrassing them in the latter case, for instance.

Do I care that Muslims were offended by Trump's muslim ban? No, the act of being offended isn't what I particularly care about. What I care about is WHY they were offended. They were offended for entirely justified reasons that were I in their shoes (Trump issues an atheist ban), I would be pissed off too.

So, why are some of us offended by your assumptions, your use of "illiberal left," and your straw manning of our arguments? Because your assumptions are baseless. Because you clearly picked terminology just to be a dick, and then have the audacity to defend it as if you were being "cordial" when you were anything but. Because the arguments we make, you intentionally misconstrue or ignore.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:13 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 12:08 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 11:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't have to think of another explanation because we have already told you why multiple times. You have ASSUMED that the rioters are on the political left but you only ASSUME that because it fits your narrative. So, why would people who, generally, identify themselves with the political left take offense to someone making a broad generalization with no evidence about violence perpetrated by the "illiberal left?" BecauseL 1) it is a bogus charge to begin with and 2) the language you use is clearly intended to offend.

Just own up to being a dick. You started this thread to be a jerk and regardless how many times it is pointed out where you are wrong or are making evidence-less generalizations, you double-down. Instead you start straw manning people like me (for instance, you never showed me where I claimed that the rioters were right-wingers or part of a "false flag" coup like you claimed I did).

Leftist scumbag Commie helpless insecure weak dishonest weak-minded cuntbag shithead. That's what an insult looks like, and that's what being a dick looks like.

As for 'my narrative', it is that of a classical liberal in the vein of John Stuart Mill or Thomas Paine. When the right are pieces of shit I call them out on it too. As a matter of fact, I reckon the rise of Trump was only possible because the too many people in the Democratic Party gave their cancers a 'pass'. I don't want Trump, and I don't want another Trump. In order to do that you have to cut out the cancer and win some reasonable people over. I count these violent rioters are and anti-free speech people among that cancer. It's obvious to me that the young people (mostly on the left) in a state that is also overwhelmingly on the left, that openly cheer at the violence are the same people committing the violence. A conspiracy theory is not needed, not likely, and there is no evidence to show that those are the people who did it. If you think it's a conspiracy, it's because you're unable to objectively criticize anyone who associates with your political party when they are most deserving of it. I'm sure you would say "Clinton shouldn't have done x or y" but you won't treat truly deplorable behavior with the abhorrence it deserves. You are part of the problem.

Do you actually read what people write in response to you? I ask this because this post is STILL full of bs straw men of things we have said in response to you. Are your panties in such a wad and so far up your ass that you can't even attempt to objectively read what is written by us?



I'll try and make this real simple and real clear for you with a specific request, show me where I said that this situation (the violent riot) was a conspiracy (Alex Jones style as you put it or "false flag" style or some sort of right-wingers).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Emma Wrote:Apply that definition to any group where like minds gather to support each other. Church, AA/NA, Support Groups, etc.
I didn't know that university campus is suppose to be a place where like minds gather to support each other. I thought that university is the place where NOT like minds gather together to get an education.
Emma Wrote:Also, read my statements more closely about Milo, you'll find that I also think he should have a safe space to talk. And it isn't university campuses.

Yes, I noticed you have said this. I also have read the article about what Milo said and did to this transgender person. It sounds horrible. I don't support this.
But as I understand correctly PC on campuses runs wild. So, naturally, some people will rebel against it by offending others. It seems to me that nobody wants to talk to each other and to listen to each other any more. Seems like WAR is the only solution.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
03-02-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 11:52 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I could agree to much of these, but with some important distinctions:

Discrimination is something that applies to businesses, government entities, NPOs. And it only applies to people's race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or ethnicity. However, just because you are Jewish, for example, does not mean you can violate a companies dress code of 'no hats' by wearing a Yamaka because you are Jewish, or the wearing of a Hijab, or any other such policy. As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb. Also, as an individual I can discriminate against whomever I wish. If I don't want to eat near a Catholic, you can't force me to. I can even call him or her names if I like, so long as I don't cross the threshold of actual legal harassment. Zombie-worshiping, magic cannibals. You have no legal protection to not be offended.





You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with.

"You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with."

No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech.

"As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb."

I don't think it is true that private companies and/or the military can make you dress a specific way if it violates your religious views.



Also, this notion of "why does it matter if someone is offended" line is starting to get really fucking old. People have started using it now as an excuse to be intentionally offensive and then play the victim card themselves.

Do I care if someone is offended by what I say? No. Being offended by something I say or do is not relevant to me, but WHY someone is offended is and SHOULD BE to other people too. But people use the "who cares if you are offended" to now mean that not only do they not care that someone is offended, they don't even care to learn WHY that person is offended.

For instance, if someone gets offended because I corrected them on something, I don't particularly care. But I do care if they are offended because I incorrectly corrected them or if I embarrassed them in a specific setting. I can pick and choose how and when I express certain points so as to correct them without simultaneously embarrassing them in the latter case, for instance.

Do I care that Muslims were offended by Trump's muslim ban? No, the act of being offended isn't what I particularly care about. What I care about is WHY they were offended. They were offended for entirely justified reasons that were I in their shoes (Trump issues an atheist ban), I would be pissed off too.

So, why are some of us offended by your assumptions, your use of "illiberal left," and your straw manning of our arguments? Because your assumptions are baseless. Because you clearly picked terminology just to be a dick, and then have the audacity to defend it as if you were being "cordial" when you were anything but. Because the arguments we make, you intentionally misconstrue or ignore.

Yeah, you're a dishonest fuckhead. As I've said multiple times, Milo is not "my guy" as much as you want him to be my guy. It would be convenient for you if he were, I guess, and that's good enough for you. And there was a lady here who said the violence was justified early on - she beat around the bush in saying it, but the implication was clear that Milo was equal to Hitler and we violence was justified because we didn't want him to rise to power and start deathcamps. I beleive it was the same delusional lady who thought the US fought in WWII to end hate speech and discrimination. That nutjob. Anyhow, yeah, you might "think" that the military can't tell people how to dress, but I know what the dress codes are as I have to abide them as well. I could recite sections of grooming and uniform standards to you off the top of my head that would clearly violate the religious practices of Muslims, Jews, Sihks, and many other religious groups. It isn't limited to the military either. Sihks are required by religion to carry a Kirpin (sword, or in modern times in the west, a dagger). TSA doesn't give a fuck. OSHA forbids Hasidic Jews from operating lathes with there long curly sideburn pubes out, and all sorts of bullshit. I know you don't like it, but the facts are the facts whether it fits your narrative or not.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
I've also realized another reason your "illiberal left" assumption bothers me. It is analogous to a couple of things theists do when discussing atheists. The first is an attempt to straw man atheists by trying to put atheists into a single incorrect category. You know the argument, the one where theists start making a series of baseless assumptions about what atheists apparently believe as a group even though the only shared opinion is a lack of a position. The second is that it is an attempt to categorize a group (the political left in this case) into a subdivision that doesn't exist. The "illiberal" left is an oxymoron and (as RocketSurgeon pointed out) nothing more than an attempt to make them sound absurd as a way of insulting them.

It is all awash with dishonest bullshit that is wrapped up in this sense of "holier than art thou" attitudes and a blatant attempt to rationalize what was always an attempt at insult by claiming to be "cordial" and "civil" because they didn't use words commonly associated with insult. That is about as convincing as saying that something is only racist if it is a specific expletive in an attempt to ignore implicit and/or institutional/systemic racism.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:23 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 12:22 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with."

No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech.

"As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb."

I don't think it is true that private companies and/or the military can make you dress a specific way if it violates your religious views.



Also, this notion of "why does it matter if someone is offended" line is starting to get really fucking old. People have started using it now as an excuse to be intentionally offensive and then play the victim card themselves.

Do I care if someone is offended by what I say? No. Being offended by something I say or do is not relevant to me, but WHY someone is offended is and SHOULD BE to other people too. But people use the "who cares if you are offended" to now mean that not only do they not care that someone is offended, they don't even care to learn WHY that person is offended.

For instance, if someone gets offended because I corrected them on something, I don't particularly care. But I do care if they are offended because I incorrectly corrected them or if I embarrassed them in a specific setting. I can pick and choose how and when I express certain points so as to correct them without simultaneously embarrassing them in the latter case, for instance.

Do I care that Muslims were offended by Trump's muslim ban? No, the act of being offended isn't what I particularly care about. What I care about is WHY they were offended. They were offended for entirely justified reasons that were I in their shoes (Trump issues an atheist ban), I would be pissed off too.

So, why are some of us offended by your assumptions, your use of "illiberal left," and your straw manning of our arguments? Because your assumptions are baseless. Because you clearly picked terminology just to be a dick, and then have the audacity to defend it as if you were being "cordial" when you were anything but. Because the arguments we make, you intentionally misconstrue or ignore.

Yeah, you're a dishonest fuckhead. As I've said multiple times, Milo is not "my guy" as much as you want him to be my guy. It would be convenient for you if he were, I guess, and that's good enough for you. And there was a lady here who said the violence was justified early on - she beat around the bush in saying it, but the implication was clear that Milo was equal to Hitler and we violence was justified because we didn't want him to rise to power and start deathcamps. I beleive it was the same delusional lady who thought the US fought in WWII to end hate speech and discrimination. That nutjob. Anyhow, yeah, you might "think" that the military can't tell people how to dress, but I know what the dress codes are as I have to abide them as well. I could recite sections of grooming and uniform standards to you off the top of my head that would clearly violate the religious practices of Muslims, Jews, Sihks, and many other religious groups. It isn't limited to the military either. Sihks are required by religion to carry a Kirpin (sword, or in modern times in the west, a dagger). TSA doesn't give a fuck. OSHA forbids Hasidic Jews from operating lathes with there long curly sideburn pubes out, and all sorts of bullshit. I know you don't like it, but the facts are the facts whether it fits your narrative or not.

When did I claim Milo was "your guy?" When did I claim I wanted him to be "your guy?" Drinking Beverage

It should be very easy and simple to show me these things you claim. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
I agree that Milo is deliberately a troll and intentionally cruel to audience members, but I disagree that he should not be invited. I think the key would be to have a "counterpoint" speaker follow him, who can meticulously pick apart every point he makes, or else only agree to host him in a debate-type format.

But more importantly, I think it's incumbent upon the host universities to recognize who this man is, what he does (what tactics he employs as part of his propaganda effort), and to counter them.

1) Make sure your security is top-notch, and make sure Milo knows that while he will be given a chance to speak, the extra cost of security is going to come out of his speaking fee because of his history of provocation.

2) Make sure it is immediately apparent that the University will tolerate absolutely no disrespect of a guest speaker, regardless of the content of his speech (call it a lesson in university-level debate/discourse), and will immediately expel any student caught harassing the speaker or engaging in any violence of any sort.

3) Make it clear that the university police will turn over for prosecution any outsider or student who acts in a way that violates any of the rights or guarantees of safety offered to the speaker.

4) Enforce the fuck out of these declarations. Do not allow either side an opportunity to use violence to try to bolster or enforce their message, or to silence the opposition.

Milo is indeed an internet troll come to life. He has found a way to make derision and disrespect seem like intellectualism and "common sense" principled speech, rather than just being an ethnocentric, ignorant, disrespectful asshole. But unless these actually ARE false-flag attacks he is orchestrating to hype his own persecution rhetoric, then it's quite right that these universities cannot block him out without enforcing his narrative in the minds of the morons who follow him... and it's quite right that the idiots who attack him are just bolstering his claims, giving substance to the smoke-and-mirrors game of his rhetoric.

Students in a classroom should be safe to discuss anything, certainly, but that classroom should be also teaching them that some of the things they express in this world have consequences-- that's why you learn if your ideas are supportable and/or defensible, in college, so you don't say that shit at an office Christmas party and get your ass fired. But the university itself should also be sending the message to students that they're not always going to like the messages they hear, but that they need to hear the message first and then learn how to properly refute it.

Milo represents the absolute scum on the bottom of the shoe of human thought... but that makes him valuable as a "teaching moment", at the university level. For that reason, he should never be prohibited from speaking at the university's public-speech forums, as he does.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
03-02-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 12:22 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "You do have the right to not be physically assaulted, as you say, and that is the whole reason why I made this thread to begin with."

No one has said anyone has the right to physically assault someone else. What has been said is that being physically assaulted does not mean your free speech rights were violated. Your person was violated and other laws are broken, but not your constitutional right to free speech.

"As a matter of fact this is the case for most branches of the military is most instances, with the Army having the most exceptions to this rule of thumb."

I don't think it is true that private companies and/or the military can make you dress a specific way if it violates your religious views.



Also, this notion of "why does it matter if someone is offended" line is starting to get really fucking old. People have started using it now as an excuse to be intentionally offensive and then play the victim card themselves.

Do I care if someone is offended by what I say? No. Being offended by something I say or do is not relevant to me, but WHY someone is offended is and SHOULD BE to other people too. But people use the "who cares if you are offended" to now mean that not only do they not care that someone is offended, they don't even care to learn WHY that person is offended.

For instance, if someone gets offended because I corrected them on something, I don't particularly care. But I do care if they are offended because I incorrectly corrected them or if I embarrassed them in a specific setting. I can pick and choose how and when I express certain points so as to correct them without simultaneously embarrassing them in the latter case, for instance.

Do I care that Muslims were offended by Trump's muslim ban? No, the act of being offended isn't what I particularly care about. What I care about is WHY they were offended. They were offended for entirely justified reasons that were I in their shoes (Trump issues an atheist ban), I would be pissed off too.

So, why are some of us offended by your assumptions, your use of "illiberal left," and your straw manning of our arguments? Because your assumptions are baseless. Because you clearly picked terminology just to be a dick, and then have the audacity to defend it as if you were being "cordial" when you were anything but. Because the arguments we make, you intentionally misconstrue or ignore.

Yeah, you're a dishonest fuckhead. As I've said multiple times, Milo is not "my guy" as much as you want him to be my guy. It would be convenient for you if he were, I guess, and that's good enough for you. And there was a lady here who said the violence was justified early on - she beat around the bush in saying it, but the implication was clear that Milo was equal to Hitler and we violence was justified because we didn't want him to rise to power and start deathcamps. I beleive it was the same delusional lady who thought the US fought in WWII to end hate speech and discrimination. That nutjob. Anyhow, yeah, you might "think" that the military can't tell people how to dress, but I know what the dress codes are as I have to abide them as well. I could recite sections of grooming and uniform standards to you off the top of my head that would clearly violate the religious practices of Muslims, Jews, Sihks, and many other religious groups. It isn't limited to the military either. Sihks are required by religion to carry a Kirpin (sword, or in modern times in the west, a dagger). TSA doesn't give a fuck. OSHA forbids Hasidic Jews from operating lathes with there long curly sideburn pubes out, and all sorts of bullshit. I know you don't like it, but the facts are the facts whether it fits your narrative or not.

Yep, clearly you are an omniscient being who can't possibly be wrong about anything because you have something memorized Drinking Beverage
[Image: asp-sikhco-1134edit_custom-187ced998128d...00-c85.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(03-02-2017 12:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 12:08 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Leftist scumbag Commie helpless insecure weak dishonest weak-minded cuntbag shithead. That's what an insult looks like, and that's what being a dick looks like.

As for 'my narrative', it is that of a classical liberal in the vein of John Stuart Mill or Thomas Paine. When the right are pieces of shit I call them out on it too. As a matter of fact, I reckon the rise of Trump was only possible because the too many people in the Democratic Party gave their cancers a 'pass'. I don't want Trump, and I don't want another Trump. In order to do that you have to cut out the cancer and win some reasonable people over. I count these violent rioters are and anti-free speech people among that cancer. It's obvious to me that the young people (mostly on the left) in a state that is also overwhelmingly on the left, that openly cheer at the violence are the same people committing the violence. A conspiracy theory is not needed, not likely, and there is no evidence to show that those are the people who did it. If you think it's a conspiracy, it's because you're unable to objectively criticize anyone who associates with your political party when they are most deserving of it. I'm sure you would say "Clinton shouldn't have done x or y" but you won't treat truly deplorable behavior with the abhorrence it deserves. You are part of the problem.

Do you actually read what people write in response to you? I ask this because this post is STILL full of bs straw men of things we have said in response to you. Are your panties in such a wad and so far up your ass that you can't even attempt to objectively read what is written by us?



I'll try and make this real simple and real clear for you with a specific request, show me where I said that this situation (the violent riot) was a conspiracy (Alex Jones style as you put it or "false flag" style or some sort of right-wingers).

You, and others, have claimed the offenders were (variously) right wing, conservative, and even alt-right. I am the one who describes such delusional thinking as a false flag conspiracy theory, because that's exactly what it is.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: