Why don't you answer the question? What part of what I said do you disagree with?
But yes I do think you're a sock that's what I keep saying. However I don't think you're a sock because your stated position is otherwise intellectually unassailable. I mean you are talking about good faith and bad faith but you can't answer a simple direct question?
And just to be clear the last time I agreed with you was the Weinstein Lawyer hoojah.
C'mon cracker, answer the question.
Alright, I guess I can be the bigger person.
The reason I refused to answer the question was because I knew you weren't being honest with me. You were asking because, out of context, it looked like a statement we agreed on. However, in context, your statement reflected a difference in opinion about violence and ideology, something I made clear in my original reply to this. You were trying to strip this context away to make it look like I was making shit up.
Whether this disagreement was substantive is subjective, and also irrelevant, since you claimed you'd never argued with me and didn't give a qualifier until later. So you lied whether this disagreement was substantive or not. Now fess up.
I'd like to point out this all fits with the profile of someone trying to put his actions and opinions within a "new acceptable". He quite openly referenced a Kiwifarms trans conspiracy theory, didn't see anything wrong with it for the longest time, and only retracted when it was brought to the forum's attention much later.
No, Skybison was the one who brought it up. Twice. And I made it clear that I was skeptical of the theory from the beginning.
He made reference to the 4Chan NPC meme...https://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=8169.msg323798#msg323798 and defending Ben Shapiro and others who are part of the "alt-lite" who basically function to funnel people to the alt-right. It does not matter if people like Sargon or Shapiro have a supposedly antagonistic relationship with the alt-right - they're doing their part to send people to the alt-right by desensitizing them to alt-right ideas.
First, way to ignore the context. This is what I said:
It's easy to dismiss people you disagree with by lumping them in with some box of undesirables, but it's also profoundly lazy and dishonest. And more important, it doesn't refute them. I could call you an SJW NPC until the day I died, but what would that accomplish?
I was explicitly
rejecting calling people NPCs. The statement proves nothing except an awareness of the NPC meme. Since you made
a thread calling Jacob an "ugly cuck", this is a pretty big case of throwing stones from a glass house.
And there are plenty of people who follow Shapiro, Sargon or both without going alt-right. Saying they "function to funnel people to the alt-right" is a gross exaggeration at best. You remind me of the assholes who say supporting a minimum wage increase is a gateway to communism.
He covered for the people who disliked The Last Jedi by insisting we find if there's a legitimate reason to dislike it, when what was being discussed was the alt-right using that as their latest cause de jure.
Why is not liking a movie a problem? Why does the alt-right disliking it mean it's not kosher to dislike it? Or do you really think the movie was entitled to positive reception?
He repeatedly brings up the drag kid as if that's a creeping issue becoming more widespread and a couple times insinuates the religious right would have a point if they talked about that - thus shifting the discussion (again).
Oh, you mean this?
Thank you for understanding what I was saying.
I was saying this boy’s abuse is born out of and a continuation of the “sexual revolution" and, more specifically, its child the “homosexual rights" movement. This child’s abuse is achieving all of the political and social aims of those movement and will be defended along the same lines as those other movements.
Seems like even when authoritarian trad douches complain about things worth complaining about, they just can't resist getting cracks in at their favorite punching bags.
Yeah, pretty different from what you were saying I said.
He makes a few token left-seeming posts, but by and large his posts are directed to either covering for or defending bad actors.
He stepped in for Sandmann and that school of Trump Supporters - alleging this portrayal only existed due to journalist bias. Or as his intellectual cohorts would call it "FAKE NEWS!!!11!!"
So not liking teenagers getting death threats is wrong now? Is that what you're saying? Should I be OK with David Hogg getting death threats from conspiracy theorists?
What do you have against them, anyway? It's been long proven that
the initial reporting about what happened was untrue. So why the hateboner for these kids?
With just about every component of your little rant debunked, I can safely say your judgment is severely flawed. Even ignoring the fact that your opinions on morality hold about as much weight as a deaf person's opinions on music, you've completely misinterpreted what I've said multiple times. Why don't you go do something more productive? Like try and prove it's
totally possible to divide by zero?
By the way, mods, where you at? I wanna talk to you openly.
Show Posts
