Ungerbur

reading “sorcerer vs

wizard”. end id]

I’m seeing so many shitters in the notes who are obfuscating the issue with cancel culture, and while I’m not about to pretend that it doesn’t happen to innocent people, the percentage of misfires is low enough to be negligible.

But to the main point, there comes a point in time where everyone should know better than to buy hateful nonsensical ideologies that prove to harm people, and if you don’t wise up or shut up, you don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Other people have gone on to mention the paradox of tolerance in other threads, but it sounds like you’re taking umbrage just for the sake of being upset without actually thinking about the core issue.

People on the left can so often miss the mark when it comes to labeling the opposition, but when faced with the levels of bigotry still so strongly abounds, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

They’re fine voting for politicans who kidnap legal asylum seekers and illegally traffic them across the country. They’re fine voting for politicans who spew disproven anti-trans rhetoric and use it to legalize the kidnapping of trans children. They’re fine voting for politicians who vote to legalize child marriage with one breath, while calling LGBT people “the real groomers” in the next.

They’ll say they’re fine with gay people, just as long as they remain closeted and they never have to acknolwedge their existence.

They’ll say they’re not racist, but they’ll call anyone who protests against systemic racism “violent thugs”

They’ll say they’re not sexist, while beating their son for putting on makeup.

Five shillings says they never read it in context, and left out the part that says using intolerance should be a last resort.

I like how you never even pretended to address the main claim that the left is identitarian.

People on the left can so often miss the mark when it comes to labeling the opposition, but when faced with the levels of bigotry still so strongly abounds, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

“People on my side are often wrong, but we’re really still right sometimes, so that counts, right?”

So what happens when y'all end up punishing innocent people who are not actually bigots? Do you simply not care about those people? Doesn’t seem like a constructive use of your time and efforts.

Doesn’t seem like what you’d do if you actually cared about protecting people.

DDB >If you openly and knowingly continue to stand with an openly fascist party, which for the past few decades has been devoted to nothing other than stripping away rights from people, then yes, you are a fascist. Period.

Imagine being such a bigot that you literally can’t imagine that people on the other side fundamentally disagree with you.

Or you simply don’t care.

Also, I like how the person who is supporting terrorism against crimethinkers wants to hide behind the idea of “protecting rights”.

Also, remind me which Party supports lockdowns and gun control and government censorship of speech most recently?

And which party had a president who was and still is attacked by the left because they think he should’ve restricted more rights?

If you have 11 nazis at a table, the twelfth person who sits there, knowing they’re nazis, is a nazi as well.

That’s literally not how things work. Nazis are not a viral cognitohazard. And people on your team say a single Nazi at a table of 11 non-Nazis is just as dangerous as the reverse.

I’ve seen people who said Nazis were all excellent debaters who could win any argument. Which doesn’t explain why, y'know, everyone else hates them.

And you’re ignoring the possibility that folks on your side might be wrong about who Nazis are. Which they have been. Repeatedly.

I’m not even sure it’s deliberate. You might not even be capable of getting it.

If and when innocent people are harmed, I believe that restitution is in order.

I'd post the strawman fallacy thing as well, considering you seem to believe the left as a collective is of the opinion that all action againdt perceived opponents is inherently justified, but I don't feel like giving more attention to that obviously ridiculous point.

Introducing: my 'Queer as in...' series! It's about all the different meanings and associations of the word. It's a word not without it's negative connotations as well, but for me it means community and a word that encompasses all of me, through questioning and shifting identities. I'm not interested in appeasing or assimilating. We need to stand with the most marginalised members of our community, those who don't want to fit in and those who can't.