Too much ice

#4,886
#4,886
Orange_Crush said:
Not sure who that guy is, but... Anyone here not think that guy is despicable, raise your hand.
Click to expand...
He just needs to spread his hatred of white people that don't bow down to his beliefs... Acting like we support someone that talks like that... It's post completely in bad faith, like everything else him, beard, and huff posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,890
#4,890
NashVol11 said:
You are making my point for me that he can't. The person I called a bigot is Jake Lang, who inarguably is one. I'm so tired of people creating new arguments out of something that should have been very simple
Click to expand...
I could imagine you getting tired of this particular branch of the argument fairly quickly.

Would you care to define "bigoted" and "MAGA" for me?

I can take an initial stab at it:

Bigoted:

obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:
Click to expand...

I saw 2-3 others respond about the ***hole racist you are posting about. That's a 2-3 sample size. At least two of the three seemed to indicate an agreement that he's a bigot.

The original "MAGA" you were interacting with stated both "I don't care for that guy" and also seemed to affirm that he's a bigot:

Majors said:
Yes, I called him a bigot as well as you. Not sure you understand the term defending. We can’t revisit the original thread of you endorsing Jews being targeted on Columbia’s Campus. But we can see you’ve failed to speak out against Zoharan wanting to target “white neighborhoods”. Guess I get to live on.
Click to expand...

So, I guess we'll need to get clarity on what you meant by:

NashVol11 said:
MAGA now arguing that the person doing a Sieg Heil and complaining about "n****r lovers" isn't a neo-Nazi, truly a cult of idiots

Click to expand...


That sounds dangerously like you are attacking an entire group via stereotype, based on an interpretation of one post, which was only 1/3 of a tiny sample size that shouldn't be assumed to be the view or argument of the entire group?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and allstar34
#4,891
#4,891
luthervol said:
It's sad that trump's policies, rhetoric, divisiveness, and overall POS nature; have led to a situation like this.
But it was the clear inevitable result from the beginning in 2016.
Click to expand...

You’re admitting the leftist activists are only protecting the criminals because these policies are being implemented by the Trump administration.

If it were Kamala, then it’s ok to arrest and deport those accused of these felonies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and allstar34
#4,892
#4,892
NashVol11 said:
MAGA now arguing that the person doing a Sieg Heil and complaining about "n****r lovers" isn't a neo-Nazi, truly a cult of idiots[/MEDIA]
Click to expand...

Yep, still not seeing any evidence that he's a Neo Nazi. You can ask people around the water cooler tomorrow to gauge their opinion, provided they aren't stricken with NashVol11 fatigue (and we know that seems like an impossibility).
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,893
#4,893
Orange_Crush said:
I could imagine you getting tired of this particular branch of the argument fairly quickly.

Would you care to define "bigoted" and "MAGA" for me?

I can take an initial stab at it:

Bigoted:



I saw 2-3 others respond about the ***hole racist you are posting about. That's a 2-3 sample size. At least two of the three seemed to indicate an agreement that he's a bigot.

The original "MAGA" you were interacting with stated both "I don't care for that guy" and also seemed to affirm that he's a bigot:



So, I guess we'll need to get clarity on what you meant by:



That sounds dangerously like you are attacking an entire group via stereotype, based on an interpretation of one post, which was only 1/3 of a tiny sample size that shouldn't be assumed to be the view or argument of the entire group?
Click to expand...
Good gracious, the guy said that me saying the Sieg Heil guy was a neo-Nazi was me "struggling to define" things. I don't think every person in MAGA agrees with him but he's the third or fourth MAGA idiot to take issue with me saying a bigot is a bigot in the last few hours. Nothing I said should have been debatable
 
#4,894
#4,894
NashVol11 said:
Good gracious, the guy said that me saying the Sieg Heil guy was a neo-Nazi was me "struggling to define" things. I don't think every person in MAGA agrees with him but he's the third or fourth MAGA idiot to take issue with me saying a bigot is a bigot in the last few hours. Nothing I said should have been debatable
Click to expand...

Do you see the problems that I pointed out in your post?

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt, and everyone who replied (three people, by the way, as far as I could tell) defended him against being a neo-Nazi/bigot, that's three people (again, by my count) out of a huge movement. You then took that sample size and smeared the entire movement as "a cult of idiots".

But again, I'm not sure I'm willing to give you even that benefit of the doubt, as the original "MAGA-ite" immediately said he doesn't "care for" the guy, followed up and confirmed the guy is a bigot, but if I recall correctly, made the assertion that you were a bigot as well, which you seem to have ironically proven correct.

Let's try that another way. If a presidential candidate made a statement--something to the effect that open borders are dangerous because many all Latino immigrants are rapists and murderers, based on the fact that some of them are rapists and murderers, would you have called that a bigoted stereotype and unfair due to the fallacious and insulting misuse of a small sample size?
 
#4,895
#4,895
Orange_Crush said:
Do you see the problems that I pointed out in your post?

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt, and everyone who replied (three people, by the way, as far as I could tell) defended him against being a neo-Nazi/bigot, that's three people (again, by my count) out of a huge movement. You then took that sample size and smeared the entire movement as "a cult of idiots".

But again, I'm not sure I'm willing to give you even that benefit of the doubt, as the original "MAGA-ite" immediately said he doesn't "care for" the guy, followed up and confirmed the guy is a bigot, but if I recall correctly, made the assertion that you were a bigot as well, which you seem to have ironically proven correct.

Let's try that another way. If a presidential candidate made a statement--something to the effect that open borders are dangerous because many all Latino immigrants are rapists and murderers, based on the fact that some of them are rapists and murderers, would you have called that a bigoted stereotype and unfair due to the fallacious and insulting misuse of a small sample size?
Click to expand...
If someone else had three Bernie Bros in a row obnoxiously pushing back on the premise that an "anti-Islam activist" and neo-Nazi is a bigot, and they then said Bernie Bros were a cult of idiots, I would probably understand what they were saying and be annoyed by the people needlessly arguing on behalf of neo-Nazis rather than starting yet another needless argument about prejudice against Bernie Bros. We are done here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#4,896
#4,896
ETV said:
You’re admitting the leftist activists are only protecting the criminals because these policies are being implemented by the Trump administration.

If it were Kamala, then it’s ok to arrest and deport those accused of these felonies.
Click to expand...
Of course it is poisoned by trump. Same with the "WALL" in 2016.
that's why nominating and electing someone so intentionally divisive makes little sense.....unless you simply want division
 
#4,897
#4,897
luthervol said:
Of course it is poisoned by trump. Same with the "WALL" in 2016.
that's why nominating and electing someone so intentionally divisive makes little sense.....unless you simply want division
Click to expand...

Lawlessness and corruption is a trait of the Dems and you want to stand up against Trump because he's finally doing something about it. I hope he multiplies it by ten,
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,900
#4,900
NashVol11 said:
If someone else had three Bernie Bros in a row obnoxiously pushing back on the premise that an "anti-Islam activist" and neo-Nazi is a bigot,
Click to expand...

But that's not what happened. One asked if he is a neo-Nazi. I'd tend to agree with your assumption that the Sieg Heil indicates that he is.

As I quoted, the initial interaction was someone who agreed that he's a bigot. You just pushed back against him calling you a bigot as well. It seems to have smarted a bit.

NashVol11 said:
and they then said Bernie Bros were a cult of idiots, I would probably understand what they were saying
Click to expand...

I'd rightly read that as an ignorant, blatantly stereotypical and bigoted statement. I understand perfectly what you said.

NashVol11 said:
and be annoyed
Click to expand...

Annoyance exposes character; it doesn't excuse it.

NashVol11 said:
by the people needlessly arguing on behalf of neo-Nazis
Click to expand...

Again, I didn't see anyone doing that. I'm open to you showing me where it happened, and I'll alter my stance. But it'll be near-wasted effort, as it wouldn't change the fact that a miniscule sample size was used to attack an entire group.

NashVol11 said:
rather than starting yet another needless argument
Click to expand...

You seemed to think arguments about other peoples' bigotry was worthwhile, discussions about yours is "needless". Interesting, though probably not surprising. It's probably a pretty common part of human nature.

NashVol11 said:
about prejudice against Bernie Bros.
Click to expand...

It's actually a discussion about your comments. It doesn't need to be an argument, and it's not about Bernie-Bros.

NashVol11 said:
We are done here.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. And my first response predicted you'd have a pretty fleeting interest in this branch of the conversation.

If you truly saw bigotry as an objectively bad/evil attribute, as opposed to just a useful accusation against the people you're bigoted against, it probably wouldn't end here. One would think that you'd hate seeing it in yourself MORE than you'd hate seeing it in others.

As opposed to excusing and refusing to further discuss, I could imagine a response something similar to:

"Now that you point it out, I'm kind of shocked and embarrassed that that came out of me. I apologize, and think I probably need some introspection about where that came from."

But, that's only if you think bigotry is a terrible thing, and that the worst place to find it would be in oneself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top