The Politics Megathread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
940
@readingsit
Hitler was a modern artist before it was cool. 😎

All of his surviving works are locked up for safety reasons, the few art critics who have seen them have said that he was an irredeemably atrocious artist.

His style was chaotically sloppy, his subject matter was just out of fashion and his colors were all muted and dull.

He chose to paint Gothic churches for his school works and used way too much grey. There was also supposedly a lot of anger in his brush strokes.
I’m not surprised that he was angry 24/7. He was gassed in WW1, it was a “miracle” that he survived the gas but it obviously fucked him up.

He was kicked out of art school due to being incredibly inflexible and, according to him, the professors who didn’t like him were Jewish.

Does he have Jewish ancestry? He’s Austrian so...probably.


Video was K I N O.

@okdudeswow
"both sides have crazies" yes but one doesn't believe in basic facts because of misinformation, and calls to violence.
Is this sarcasm? I can’t tell.

Do you truly believe one side is immune to whatever the other side is accused of? If you do....damn...I’m honestly speechless over this unabashed NPC behavior.
 
Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
484
@wowfucktron ; It's not the NPC's fault, they were programmed that way. 👀

But yes, if that's seriously the case here with them, then we's gonna needs to talks abouts hows we's gonnas handles our next conversations.

Might as well go around punching people and be like "I'm not doing anything wrong here, they all looked at me funny."
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
27
@wowfucktron

@Stupid_Goo

@readingsit
No, I don’t think one side is immune, I just know one side is proud of being plague rats, and making this whole shitty situation last longer.

The Nazi regime was based on racial purity, and the distinction that all other ideologies
were “tainted” by getting in the way of Aryan superiority. You can’t reduce that to mean “ohh it means everyone can be oppressed so everyone needs to be protected uwu”
The author himself wrote this about the concentration camps, which were undoubtably, mostly Jews. I mean come on.

Also I’m not advocating for violence, I pretty clearly stated I hate the idiots getting violent over being asked to wear a mask, and I hate the grifters that embolden them.

Also you can’t use a poem about how Nazis are bad to DEFEND Nazis. That misses the entire point.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
334
@okdudeswow
The Nazi regime was based on racial purity, and the distinction that all other ideologies

im aware, the poem does not go in into that because that isnt the point of the piece.

The author himself wrote this about the concentration camps

also aware, also not the point of the piece.

Also you can’t use a poem about how Nazis are bad to DEFEND Nazis. That misses the entire point

so says the guy missing the point of the piece. literally the first line of the poem says that the killing of nazis by nazis was bad

im done trying to read you to poem. you never address my points you only add information unrelated to the topic at hand and try to use those ancillary statements as points while restating your initial flawed assumption. im not going to slam my head into a wall any longer. if you cant see what right in front of your face i can only assume you dont want to
 
Most powerful member of the GFG
Staff
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 16, 2020
Messages
8,160
Wow, that internet law turned true again.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
334
@okdudeswow
the first part of the poem describes the 'Night of the Long Knives' look it up. im done explaining things im going to listen to mark twain's advise on arguments and move on
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
27
@readingslit
Yes they killed socialists, Nazis are fascists and the poem does not directly refer to the Nacht, but also doesn’t change the fact that Nazis aren’t socialists, they’re fascists
The English text translated omitted “communists” for “socialists” because well, Cold War.

Niemöller used “communists” in speeches
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,545
@okdudeswow

It's weird our conversation about censorship lead into a conversation about Nazis, but here we go:

Bud I tottaly[sic] understand the poem,
As time will go on, it will become clear that you definitely don't, but don't let me get ahead of myself.

I just think it's completely missing the point to use a poem about systemic opression[sic] of minorities, when defending a book that is well, racist

First, to get the semantics out of the way, the word you're looking for is SYSTEMATIC, not SYSTEMIC. "Systemic" means that what results is an unintended byproduct of a system, whereas "systematic" means that the result is intentional. The Nazis did not accidentally commit the Holocaust.

But more to the point, "racism" requires the belief that one group is superior to another based on race, which these books were not promoting in the slightest, nor were they demonizing or even negatively portraying the groups in question. Instead they were just expressed somewhat stereotypically, but that does not mean Seuss thought that he was superior to them.

Aside from Seuss's political cartoons written during war time, (which were definitely a product of their time and were written in a completely different context) none of Seuss's work promotes the idea that one culture is superior or inferior really, especially not in his latter years. If you look at the depictions, they can be said to be, at most, stereotypical, but he does not say that the people in question are superior or inferior to any other group, meaning it's more emblematic of Seuss's general style of exaggerating features or expressions

Given his works later in his career also dropped this aspect such as with this cartoon or "The Sneetches" being one of his more famous satires of racism and antisemitism.
o5s0jm535fby-768x689.jpg


So no, I do not agree that the books in question are "racist," because I believe racism requires one to endorse the idea that one group is superior or inferior to another, and not simply depicting something in a stereotypical manner.

Hell, Sneetches was even given out in Bosnia in 1998 after it suffered a genocide in order to curtail any bigotry and educate kids on the horrors of racism. If NATO decided that Seuss's work would be the best at teaching kids not to be racist, I am afraid I cannnot condemn the man.

>inb4 "Racism is power + prejudice," therefore he is actually a racist

A youtuber called PSA Sitch actually did a deep dive into the academic origins of this, and it seems to be entirely bullshit and not based on any sociological studies or research, but was made by politically motivated individuals to spread their messages. It has no real backing in terms of empirical studies, and is essentially pseudoscience in its most literal sense. You can watch his two videos here and here.

When I talk about good faith

If this is how you talk to someone in good faith where you consistently misrepresent them and skirt around the cruxes of their arguments, I am afraid to see what a conversation in bad faith would be like.

I would recommend that you slow down, digest the posts you are responding to and consider the argument, and then do not make a rushed counterargument. Also, please spell check yourself.

I'm saying the people acting may THINK they're doing the right thing by delisting something that seems to promote stereotypes.

Yes, they may THINK they are doing so, but that does not mean they are ACTUALLY doing so, which leads us back to square one because I am saying what they are doing is much more morally wrong than simply depicting stereotypes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, my friend, and so we must be cautious of using our sense of morals and our emotional reactions to things to guide us, lest we end up hunting witch.

Would you pull out that poem again when someone censors Mein Kampf or the Turner Diaries?

Yes, because not only is knowing what Hitler believed or white supremacists believed means that people can use your emotional reaction to these stories to spew off nonsense. In fact, it's more important to understand what the beliefs of people who did great evil were, because then we can not only know their thought processes, but avoid it in the future.

Also, remember the first line of the poem, "first they came for the socialists." Meaning that first they went after a target everyone agreed were morally repugnant, and so they did not question going after their rights solely because of their political ideas. By then the horrors of the Holodomor and the human rights violations by the Soviets were well known, as well as the anarchist violence which occurred in places like the United States with the assassination of William McKinley. So, it seemed like it was moral to the people at the time to remove the socialists from society as "antisocial elements."


bud the poem is about the HOLOCAUST
trying to say it isn't about them is absurd

That's a surface level interpretation of the poem. In my time meeting Holocaust survivors and volunteering at Holocaust museums, the most common reason why the memory of the Holocaust is kept alive is not out of a vindictive hatred of the Germans for what they did, or to dwell on the past for it's own sake, but so nothing of it's caliber can happen again and to recognize the signs of ideology, collectivism, and of discrimination that lead to policies of extermination.

The idea is that first line can be used for ANY group that is seen to be villainous, warranted or not, as an excuse to slowly begin taking the rights away from more and more people, and no one speaks out out of both fear of the consequences of defending these people, and because they will result in the same effect, leading to the inevitable conclusion that once they come for you, no one is left to speak out against it. The poem's major device is literally parallelism, which is meant not just to show unity between the people being discriminated against, but that common echoes may repeat in our own history.

That first line doesn't have to be socialists. It can be anyone of any group.

I like how you completely ignored the whole Nazi textbook example even though that was most relevant to that famous poem.
It really is only tangentially related, and debating about textbooks isn't the main crux of the argument being had

I'm trying to keep us on the point.

What do you think the closest thing to a "textbook" children have?

Textbooks. I had school textbooks in first grade and upwards. Even then, this does not refute the argument that textbooks are meant to merely convey information impartially, whereas storybooks are meant to teach lessons in terms of morality and have themes and ideas expressed in their books, meaning that they are pieces of art and are not meant to be continuously updated and taught as fact in the same way an AP book would be.

Textbooks aren't meant to be literature. You keep conflating it, when it's a bad analogy.

You can defend the status quo all you want,

Excuse me BUT WHAT THE FUCK?

I am NOT defending the status quo. For starters, I believe very little if anything should be censored if it is meant to be consumed by consenting adults aside from Child Pornography, because it is inherently exploitative by nature of those who cannot consent. Censorship is always used to preserve either a status quo narrative, an orthodoxy, or to maintain power and control by a select few.

I, however, believe that we SHOULD offend people and that we SHOULD challenge ourselves and our worldviews in order to make sure we do not get too set in our ways, but rather that we should consistently re-evaluate ourselves, our morals, and our principles to see if they are worth keep or preserving.

Art is uniquely able to capture the human experience and challenge ideas in a memetic way, as well as exploring ideas that may be offensive or controversial, and it is for that reason we must be ever vigilant for people who want to censor it or to change the art of the past to suite modern ideals, because that destructive tendency in man only ends in ruin and the lost of both culture and information for future generations.

By your logic, you could justify ISIS blowing up Assyrian and Babylonian statues and history because they do not represent the country's modern values. I believe they should be preserved because of their cultural significance and because of their worth as an artistic medium. Now you have to defend by what principles you have that they should not be destroyed.

The status quo right now seems to be censorship left and right. Try to paint me however I like but I know my principles, and where I stand. This is yet another example of you misunderstanding me, and trying to paint me in with socially conservative people just because I don't like the way certain things are going.

but it doesn't change that the current state of the education system is poor.

Where the fuck did this come from? When did we talk about the education system at all?

It's like a constant gish-gallop to hit all the talking points in order to ignore the point about censorship because it's uncomfortable.

Had to kick another anti-masker out of the store yesterday, and he started yelling racist shit at everyone (even though I'm white lol). For the record, I'm damn glad Trump isn't tweeting to make it worse. I've been physically attacked by these idiots.

If I assume what you are saying is true-which I don't because at this point I have enough reason to doubt your interpretation of events-it seems that you are against the right because of your personal experiences, but that does not mean speak to the truth value of their claims. Instead, it seems like you're having an emotional reaction to anything vaguely associated with the right, which you seek to discredit immediately because of it.

Also, what does this have to do with censorship? Are you just trolling at this point?

And yes, sometimes small political groups push political change contrary to the moderate majority. Soemtimes[sic] its good, sometimes its bad.

No, it is ALWAYS bad, because you are MEANT to rule with the CONSENT of the governed. If the governed do not consent to your actions, or what you are doing, even if it has good effects, then it's a moment where the means do not justify the ends. The only exception is that the majority cannot oppress the minority by infringing on their rights, because these rights are not dictated by the state, but instead are unalienable from man due to his reason and intellect, meaning that any oppression of these rights is depriving someone of what they are entitled to by thinking creatures.

"both sides have crazies" yes but one doesn't believe in basic facts because of misinformation, and calls to violence.

Can we get an "F" in chat boys?

Also you can’t use a poem about how Nazis are bad to DEFEND Nazis. That misses the entire point.

The point is that you don't dehumanize ANYONE for their political beliefs or beliefs in general, and that INCLUDES Nazis. They have rights just as anyone else, no matter how vile or repugnant their beliefs are. The moment you start to persecute people for their beliefs, it is incredibly difficult to make people stop as the purity spiral continues.

What you want to do is not to persecute or attack them, but to deconvert them and convince them not to be so extreme. If you treat them with hostility and vitriol, they'll only entrench themselves more and close themselves off further and further.

The socialists the Nazis killed were definitely not Nazis my dude. Top fucking kek
Yes they killed socialists, Nazis are fascists and the poem does not directly refer to the Nacht, but also doesn’t change the fact that Nazis aren’t socialists, they’re fascists

Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive, and it is very easy to argue that Nazism rose out of socialist philosophy. (See: Their name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte or the National Socialist German's Works Party)

Granted, they are not marxists nor communists, but that does not mean they are not included under the umbrella term "socialist," which seeks collective ownership of property and incorporation of it either through the state or through the people generally. If I were to explain it another way, the German form of socialism that lead to Nazism was right-wing in nature, but was based in things such as some of Bismarck's policies of State Socialism and later War Socialism, which sought the reallocation of resources by the state and collective bargaining by the state and worker's unions.

The fascist economic philosophy is that everything within the state, including corporations, businesses, and even the people themselves, were to directly serve the state and, whilst they didn't interfere with ALL business, if the business went against state interests, it would be reapproriated by the state. Why should you go through the effort of reapproriating every business for the state if you own and regulate every person who works at that business and keep them in line with your government politically? That is what makes fascism so insidious, because not only is it based on a desire to expand and conquer foreign territories, but that everything MUST serve the state or be reincorporated WITHIN the state so nothing can go AGAINST it.

Also note that not all forms of Fascism are the same, just as not all forms of socialism are the same, as the Nazi ideology was uniquely racially charged compared to Franco's fascism or Mussolini's fascism given it arose from the German cultural circumstances and economic conditions. In that sense, I would say that not all fascists are socialists or right-wing socialists, but German fascism and Nazism definitely arose from Marx just as Marx arose from the Enlightenment, even if their values contradict the source.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
334
@Tamerlane
By your logic, you could justify ISIS blowing up Assyrian and Babylonian statues and history because they do not represent the country's modern values. I believe they should be preserved because of their cultural significance and because of their worth as an artistic medium. Now you have to defend by what principles you have that they should not be destroyed.

uh oh, you made a comparison! now he's going to claim that your saying he actively supports those things unable to recognize what passive support is.

If the governed do not consent to your actions, or what you are doing, even if it has good effects

while i agree with you on a grander scheme of things there are arguments for policy that dont require majority consent and to fight policy that does. if there wasnt, there wouldnt be a reason to not simply have a direct democracy instead of a parliamentary or republic system.

pretty much it comes down to the size of the change, if your changing the constitution majority support is needed but if you trying to adjust levels of government spending you dont.

Can we get an "F" in chat boys?

F my man

but to deconvert them and convince them not to be so extreme

before anyone tries to claim it cant be done or that its 'naive' allow me to show you Daryl Davis
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
27
@tamerlane
"Niemöller's original argument was premised on naming groups he and his audience would instinctively not care about. The omission of Communists in Washington, and of Jews in Germany, distorts that meaning and should be corrected."[1]

In 1976, Niemöller gave the following answer in response to an interview question asking about the origins of the poem.[1] The Martin-Niemöller-Stiftung ("Martin Niemöller Foundation") considers this the "classical" version of the speech:

“There were no minutes or copy of what I said, and it may be that I formulated it differently. But the idea was anyhow: The Communists, we still let that happen calmly; and the trade unions, we also let that happen; and we even let the Social Democrats happen. All of that was not our affair.”

This entire time you’ve used a censored version of the poem to promote your viewpoint on absolutionist “anti-censorship”
Lmao

Also no, I couldn’t justify a radical regressionist conservative group like ISIS destroying a historical monument, as they
1. Aren’t modern
2. Are committing violence
3. You must be insane to think you can stretch my argument to mean the most extreme thing, every single time, as if we don’t constantly live in a culture wherein things are partial, and the draconian picture you paint isn’t close to true

For example, I sleep great at night knowing Trump isn’t spreading misinformation to these Qnuts here in Red State Hell, even though I still have to listen to their rants about fake snow in Texas or 5G or whatever the fuck and still provide “customer service.” And of him being banned from Twitter means Twitter makes less money? Hey, that’s a win in my book too.

You also do realize that you are passively supporting the status quo by resisting change in curriculum right? Dr. Seuss is one of the most popular children’s book authors, and is and will continue to be taught without nuance or criticism, because
A. That level of thinking is hard for the directed audience
B. We can’t expect that much from our poor education system (hence my mention)

And is my response emotional? Sure. After months of dealing with these proud plague rats I’m a bit sick of it.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,545
@okdudeswow

If that is the only rebuttal you have to my entire post, then I most consider the arguments I have made sound.

Even then, it's a knitpick because it does not address the main point of my argument. Even assuming that what you cited here is correct, it does not discredit the core point I am making.

"Hrrrr drrrrrr Even though you're anti-censorship, you used a poem that was censored. That somehow makes you a hypocrite."

Your argument essentially disregards the entire reason I used the poem in the first place to underlie the idea that censorship and dehumanization is ever-escalating and begins with groups that are acceptable targets before moving ever closer to unrelated groups by shifting the goal posts. Hell, by the quotes you've cited,

"Niemöller's original argument was premised on naming groups he and his audience would instinctively not care about. The omission of Communists in Washington, and of Jews in Germany, distorts that meaning and should be corrected."

THIS ARGUMENT WAS ONE OF MY CORE POINTS , in that it begins with targeting groups that "his audience would instinctively not care about." And then would escalate until it encompasses more and more people. Congratulations, you've just debunked yourself by citing wikipedia

Also, calling my view "absolutionist[sic] anti censorship" (should be "absolutist" but whatever) is a bit of a misnomer because I have outlined instances where censorship is appropriate such as in child pornography.

It's become exceptionally clear that you have no idea what arguments I even am making and so are jumping to nitpicks that do not hurt my overall argument, and inadvertently weakening your own position by not understanding the nuances of what you quote or what my points are.

Edit, you've added more in the mean time, so I will address them in a minute
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
27
@tamerlane
Well no, you actually used the word “socialist” (and your friend did so as well) to point out that Nazis could be Socialists, and incorrectly stated the poem referenced the Night of Broken Glass. (In reference to in-fighting, instead of the implication that Nazis are an existential threat)

I mean, if you’re anti-censorship you should at least have done your research if you’re going to use the quote.

Come on, say “communists”
 
Group Leader
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
2,062
Another one in the Olympic team bites the dust because he said something careless.

But the narrative is quite worrisome... Just because he has some sort of personal disdain for a woman, doesn't mean he's automatically sexist. You can't just have a problem with one woman? The next time a woman insults me, is she sexist against men?

Not a good thing he said, but let's not conflate the issue here.
 
Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
484
@Mr_Detective ;
That's humanity in a nutshell for you right now - in places like Saudi Arabia, women are toys and men can have multiple wives because patriarchy or sum'n, but a place like the US is a hypocrisy: women reportedly get paid less to the dollar than men, but then the law aspect says that women basically get away with more and/or are punished less harshly than men, likely due to the fact we're just a pair of tits & asses to them - but that's just my personal opinion and experiences talking, totally not history or society in general, and definitely not how a majority (slight majority but still) have this thought that "men shouldn't do women's chores and women can't do a man's job."
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
27
@Mr_Detective
Because of the work culture in Japan compounded by the previous incidents, it probably was the most practical way to deal with it at this point. Someone has to “take responsibility” to save face in their eyes.
 
Dex-chan lover
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
10,545
Also no, I couldn’t justify a radical regressionist conservative group like ISIS destroying a historical monument, as they
1. Aren’t modern
2. Are committing violence
3. You must be insane to think you can stretch my argument to mean the most extreme thing, every single time, as if we don’t constantly live in a culture wherein things are partial, and the draconian picture you paint isn’t close to true

1) Who are you to be the arbiter of what is regressive and what is progressive? To them, you are a kafir, a heretic who seeks to oppress them and their religious doctorine. In their eyes, you are the one who is regressing their soceity with degeneracy, and in order to combat your cultural imperialism by putting your standards upon them, they seek to assert their independence.

This is why it is important to have clear principles, and to protect notions such as individualism and natural rights, so that when a toxic ideology arises that uses emotionally-charged rhetoric comes forth, you are able to counter their points and be swept in by their pathos.

2) Yes, and what do you think has been happening non-stop in regards to groups like Antifa and BLM which have caused wanton destruction for their political goals and ideology? No accountability, and very little justice as they parade themselves as the morally righteous ones.

My beliefs are against any use of force in a democratic society unless it is expressly to combat tyranny, which can be expressly demonstrated. I'm wondering where your principles lie and why.

3) The point I am trying to make in regards to ISIS is because we both understand and agree them to be bad, yet they fit under the parameters you have laid out, and the only reasons you seem to want to exclude their destruction of art and history is because you don't personally agree with it, yet by your own standards, you have to.

Unless you want to admit that your standards only apply to the groups you like and don't care when it happens to someone else.

For instance, I believe books and art are both essentially "historical monuments." To quote Horace, who was referencing his legacy as a poet:
I have created a monument more lasting than bronze
and loftier than the royal structure of the pyramids,

Literature and these pieces of cultural heritage should be preserved in my view, irrespective of whether I find them offensive or distasteful to modernity, because I know that they are more important as pieces of history than they are in any other respect. Yet, you seem to be okay with erasing material or history if it offends modern sensibilities, which is more special pleading than it an outlining of a principle.

For example, I sleep great at night knowing Trump isn’t spreading misinformation to these Qnuts here in Red State Hell, even though I still have to listen to their rants about fake snow in Texas or 5G or whatever the fuck and still provide “customer service.”

I am assured you never even looked at Trump's twitter given I can assure you he never endorsed Qanon or 5G conspiracy theories, and he was off twitter by the time the idea of "fake snow" even became a thing. It seems very collectivist to lump him in with some fringe nutcases that are the media's boogiemen more than anything.

Even then, this entire unhinged tirade is irrelevant to the conversation at large, so what's the point of taking it seriously?

You also do realize that you are passively supporting the status quo by resisting change in curriculum right?

Not wanting things to be arbitrarily changed for the sake of change is not passively supporting the status quo. How the fuck are you defining "status quo?"

Even then, no I want the status quo of education changed and to root out all of the critical theory and far-left ideology that has rooted in it, just as I want all the conservative talking points taken out of the education in my home state. If anything, I want MORE change in education so we can have an impartial and objective form of education, instead of the indoctrination tool it seems to be now for the majority ideology of whatever state you are in, and whatever level of education you are on.

If you wanted to remove all the Magic Treehouse Books for no real reason and replace them all with conserative dribble, I would be just as opposed. Yet you would be saying that is "passively supporting the status quo."

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Dr. Seuss is one of the most popular children’s book authors, and is and will continue to be taught without nuance or criticism, because
Who's to say they aren't taught without nuance considering that I would argue most of his work displays quite a bit of nuance? The Lorax, Yertle the Turtle, The Butter Battle Book, etc.

A. That level of thinking is hard for the directed audience
Kids are a lot smarter than you think, and they tend to pick up on things passively that they will only appreciate as they grow older.

Dumbing down works because "it's for kids," is one of the things I feel adults have as a stereotype, and planting seeds of more complex ideas or the ability for them to think critically is essentially for creating a productive society.

Making kids just consume information and unquestioningly accept it instead of making works that require them to put in the legwork and think is one of the worst things you can do.

And is my response emotional? Sure. After months of dealing with these proud plague rats I’m a bit sick of it.

Aside from the fact you compare people who disagree with you with Clan Pestilens, your emotional bias is only making having a productive conversation harder as it makes it so you're on the offensive and not actually processing what I am telling you.


You need to slow down, process what you're responding to and consider what argument I'm actually making, or this conversation is never going to get through to you.
Well no, you actually used the word “socialist” (and your friend did so as well) to point out that Nazis could be Socialists,
Yes, as in I defined socialism, but explicitly was doing so because the Nazis could be characterized accurately by that term, but I made sure to expressly state that not all socialists are the same nor that the Nazis are Marxist or Left wing.

For instance, the Incan system is widely considered "socialist" due to there being no currency or medium of exchange, but that does not mean it is the same kind of socialism as Marx was proposing, as Marxism relies on an atheistic society with very little hierarchy or imperialism. The Incan Empire was ruled by a God-King which was expressly imperialist and had a strict hierarchy and labor tax.

Also, assuming readingsit and I are affiliated just because we both disagree with you seems to me like you're mixing our arguments together mentally.
and incorrectly stated the poem referenced the Night of Broken Glass.
I never referenced Kristallnacht. Stop trying to put words in my mouth

@readingsit referenced Night of the Long Knives, which was different and took place four years earlier. But it was not me who said. If he got something wrong, take it up with him.

(In reference to in-fighting, instead of the implication that Nazis are an existential threat)
When did I reference infighting? Or say that Nazi Germany was no an existential threat to the Western world?

At this point the mischaracterizations have gotten so bad I can't even find what you're mischaracterizing

I mean, if you’re anti-censorship you should at least have done your research if you’re going to use the quote.
Two versions of the poem exist, and both support the point I am making. Which one I used is NOT relevant to the conversation because they both suffice to outline what I am saying.

The fact I did not use the version of the poem YOU wanted me to does not change the argument I made with poem.

Please reconsider your argument and see if it's actually contradicting my point or if it's contradicting the point YOU wanted me to make.

Come on, say “communists”
Communists


I don't see why you wanted me to say it? If it's because it wasn't included in the poem, I'll outright state that you shouldn't infringe on the rights of Communists just for being communists, or their freedom of speech.

I thought that was clear by my multiple references to McCarthyism.
@okdudeswow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top