[One Degree]

Do you have an actual argument or are you just going to do these not-very-sneaky attacks on those of us who disagree with you?

What do you disagree with me about? You just did what you accused me of. Hypocrisy?

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you disagree with me about?

There is nothing to disagree with, as you made no argument. You just accused us of deliberately trying to do a disinformation campaign.

You just did what you accused me of. Hypocrisy?

It is not sneaky nor an insult to point out that you are not arguing and are accusing others of dishonesty.

[One Degree]

There is nothing to disagree with, as you made no argument. You just accused us of deliberately trying to do a disinformation campaign.



It is not sneaky nor an insult to point out that you are not arguing and are accusing others of dishonesty.

You absolutely are involved in a disinformation campaign, whether you are smart enough to realize you are is irrelevant.
When you profess "peace and equality " and then argue for violence against those who disagree with you, then your dishonesty is a proven fact. So it was a statement of fact, not an accusation.

[Pants-of-dog]

You absolutely are involved in a disinformation campaign, whether you are smart enough to realize you are is irrelevant.
When you profess "peace and equality " and then argue for violence against those who disagree with you, then your dishonesty is a proven fact. So it was a statement of fact, not an accusation.

Please quote a post where I argue for violence against those who disagree with me.

Please note that I am not as disrespectful as you and have never called you a liar or insinuated that you were.

[One Degree]

Please quote a post where I argue for violence against those who disagree with me.

Please note that I am not as disrespectful as you and have never called you a liar or insinuated that you were.

So now we use the general term 'you' as being specific? I have no interest in proving you have by searching your posts. My point is for you and others to determine that for themselves. However, your claimed ideology would presuppose you do support violence while you claim you don't. I did not term you as a liar by this conflict. You chose that term. Freudian slip?

[Pants-of-dog]

So now we use the general term 'you' as being specific?

You, the specific you, have hid behind that before. But if you are discussing the general you, then you are hypocritical in that you are treating us as a group instead of as individuals, which is a behaviour you have denounced before.

Go ahead and find posts from any of us who have denounced the white supremacists.

I have no interest in proving you have by searching your posts. My point is for you and others to determine that for themselves. However, your claimed ideology would presuppose you do support violence while you claim you don't. I did not term you as a liar by this conflict. You chose that term. Freudian slip?

I never claimed I do not support violence. Are you under the impression that people who oppose racism are all pacifist extremists? Sometimes you have to fight racism with fists.

[One Degree]

Go ahead and find posts from any of us who have denounced the white supremacists.

Really? Do you enjoy wasting people's time asking them to provide evidence of the self evident?
Pick a thread yourself. The comments are plentiful.

[Pants-of-dog]

Really? Do you enjoy wasting people's time asking them to provide evidence of the self evident?
Pick a thread yourself. The comments are plentiful.

So no evidence. Got it.

I will assume you are incorrect.

[One Degree]

So no evidence. Got it.

I will assume you are incorrect.

Right, because no one is going on and on about the "Nazi menace"? No one is saying they deserved to be punched? Etc etc

[Pants-of-dog]

Right, because no one is going on and on about the "Nazi menace"? No one is saying they deserved to be punched? Etc etc

Yes, we all know your opinion. Repeating it over and over again does not make it a fact.

Do you understand that it is possible for someone to think that Nazis should be allowed to speak, that Nazis are a menace to minorities, and that they should be punched as a response to their bigoted speech, all at the same time? It is not logically inconsistent.

[One Degree]

Yes, we all know your opinion. Repeating it over and over again does not make it a fact.

Do you understand that it is possible for someone to think that Nazis should be allowed to speak, that Nazis are a menace to minorities, and that they should be punched as a response to their bigoted speech, all at the same time? It is not logically inconsistent.

It is not logically consistent unless you agree I am righteous in punching you before you actually speak.
Do you? How about after you speak? Do you support my righteousness in punching you?

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not logically consistent unless you agree I am righteous in punching you before you actually speak.

No. You are incorrect. My claim of logical consistency does not discuss violence before the racist guy speaks.

How about after you speak? Do you support my righteousness in punching you?

If I am talking Nazi crap, then yes.

Freedom of speech does not include being protected from the consequences of your own speech.

[One Degree]

No. You are incorrect. My claim of logical consistency does not discuss violence before the racist guy speaks.



If I am talking Nazi crap, then yes.

Freedom of speech does not include being protected from the consequences of your own speech.

Why do you say it has to be Nazi crap? Why are you evading the actual question?

[The Immortal Goon]

The 'mob' is liberal extremists who found out the liberal media loves to promote stories about boycotts. Their joint effort became so effective all they usually have to do is just suggest a boycott. This is what the companies are afraid of. It has proven effectiveness to intimidate companies into supporting their cause.

Okay, so this is a conspiracy again.

Who is in charge of this? Why? How?

'"Don't call us alt left, quit saying liberals, liberals are not leftists, the media is only concerned about profit."

The above demonstrates how a disinformation campaign works. Confuse the facts by concentrating on terminology.

The above demonstrates how people familiar with the English language and basic tenants of capitalism seem to disagree with you.

[One Degree]

Whoever Hillary's owners are. I have expressed my views elsewhere about ideological conspiracy. My comments above however are actually meant to point out how two groups with different incentives promote the same agenda. No conspiracy needed.

[RhetoricThug]

Skulking skulls, dislocated dog-bones, and noosphere pathogens.

The re-tribalized west world will protest point-of-view and declare war on introspection as our techno-troft feeds bloated-belly-billyclub-kids digital bone meal. Caught in the act, noosphere grazers grovel yonder & gobble up grudge judgments, a plethora of diversionary tactics shape ape vision. Revel-ye-rubble-rebel-rabble-rouser, nickle and dime-a-dozen diamond gods, sh(r)ine-around tribal relics, absorb fractal duality, become one with yesterday's odium. The picky politicking posters on GameofThrones.borg assimilate refraction, flickering fleas bite fragments of photo-frames and transmit diseased ideas, pretending to understand the process of being human. They post, they reply, for today... in the name of yesterday. Syphilis-minded sol lights burning slowly, wrinkling space-time, infectious perspectives live out a lifetime at the speed of light. The WorldWide Statue War was a world-wide-web myth, but the tail-wagging war-dogs kept gnawing on broken bones, ignoring the body of civilization and its decaying flesh.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do you say it has to be Nazi crap?

Because that is what Nazis have to give us in the marketplace of ideas: crap.

Why are you evading the actual question?

I answered your questions. If Nazis spread their racist and oppressive ideology, they should expect people to resist that, and that resistance may become violent if necessary.

[One Degree]

Because that is what Nazis have to give us in the marketplace of ideas: crap.



I answered your questions. If Nazis spread their racist and oppressive ideology, they should expect people to resist that, and that resistance may become violent if necessary.

I will take your repeated refusal to answer my question to mean you do not think people should punch you, but okay to punch Nazis.

[foxdemon]

Skulking skulls, dislocated dog-bones, and noosphere pathogens.

The re-tribalized west world will protest point-of-view and declare war on introspection as our techno-troft feeds bloated-belly-billyclub-kids digital bone meal. Caught in the act, noosphere grazers grovel yonder & gobble up grudge judgments, a plethora of diversionary tactics shape ape vision. Revel-ye-rubble-rebel-rabble-rouser, nickle and dime-a-dozen diamond gods, sh(r)ine-around tribal relics, absorb fractal duality, become one with yesterday's odium. The picky politicking posters on GameofThrones.borg assimilate refraction, flickering fleas bite fragments of photo-frames and transmit diseased ideas, pretending to understand the process of being human. They post, they reply, for today... in the name of yesterday. Syphilis-minded sol lights burning slowly, wrinkling space-time, infectious perspectives live out a lifetime at the speed of light. The WorldWide Statue War was a world-wide-web myth, but the tail-wagging war-dogs kept gnawing on broken bones, ignoring the body of civilization and its decaying flesh.

How do we interpret this? Is RhetoricalThug saying we all suck?

Tribalism is about 'us' versus 'them'. The in-group is all good and the out-group is all bad. The out-group is the 'other', whose humanity must not be recognised. Nothing they say can be left unchallenged and must be discredited. 'We' are right, 'they' are wrong.

To what existent does tribalism thinking permeate the debates on Pofo?

[One Degree]

How do we interpret this? Is RhetoricalThug saying we all suck?

Tribalism is about 'us' versus 'them'. The in-group is all good and the out-group is all bad. The out-group is the 'other', whose humanity must not be recognised. Nothing they say can be left unchallenged and must be discredited. 'We' are right, 'they' are wrong.

To what existent does tribalism thinking permeate the debates on Pofo?

Hard to tell because so many who may not be tribal thinkers don't post much. I would guess 50% are consistently tribalists and the rest stretched out by how often their attempts at critical thinking is corrupted by tribal thinking.

Edit: what do you think @foxdemon ?