3 ms·

No blanket statements made. I spoke about the GOP, referring to the leadership. No blanket labeling. I merely continued the discussion from this context: > so

No blanket statements made. I spoke about the GOP, referring to the leadership. No blanket labeling. I merely continued the discussion from this context: > sometimes you can't have nice things because there are people who will abuse them. > there are actual Nazis out there who want to put people in ovens, so it's taboo to make jokes about how they may have a point. > similar thing with trans people, you mention them and trolls come out of the woodwork saying they should kill themselves. The fact that you keep claiming that my responses do not relate to the matter at hand indicate that you are willfully ignoring context whenever it suites you. You have repeatedly avoided actual discussion of the matter at hand, the position I put forth, and instead relied on sly attempts to dismiss everything I said. Your behaviour is not appropriate for a website that values arguing for claims. --- As for this website for "curious" discussion is not a website where paraphrasing Popper of all people and mentioning the statements of a political leader in the same comment gets you flagged. You keep deflecting from the subject at hand, and never actually engaging with it... So much for "discussion". Quite pathetic if you ask me.

adamrezich 4y ago
> No blanket statements made. I spoke about the GOP, referring to the leadership. No blanket labeling. > It is easy to see the two countries are by all means shitholes, and so are red states... it is possible that you have become so accustomed to "political talking points"-type "discussion" (i.e. twitter) that you genuinely think this is normal, respectful discourse—I would consider reflecting upon this a bit. > You have repeatedly avoided actual discussion of the matter at hand, the position I put forth yes, this was intentional—I did not come to this comments thread to discuss Russia or red states or Trump or Republicans or Ben Shapiro or Nazis or Iran or Putin or any of the other dozens of unrelated things you've brought up, and repeated taunts attempting to get me to do so, on your terms, are extremely unbecoming and exceedingly tiring. you already have an entire ideology that explains how you should feel about these things, and I've made it clear that I am familiar with this ideology, yet unwilling to participate in or engage with it—why do you consider this unsatisfactory, to the point of direct personal insults, which I have refrained from thus far? why am I supposed to engage in good-faith discourse with someone who comports themselves thusly? you have yet to give me any incentive for engaging with you and your myriad highly-charged political talking points other than "because I want you to", and then on top of this, you insult me for not taking you up on your offer? ironically, this is precisely what I was talking about in my original post above: this is exactly the level of discourse I've come to expect from anyone who casually lobs the word "fascists" about. no attempt at good-faith discussion, a complex Byzantine web of interconnected political ideas, any and all of which may be brought into discussion without warning, and a general attitude of abject rudeness. again: I recommend serious self-reflection.
- ekleraki 4y ago
  Enlighten me then, if not with the word "fascist", how should I characterize the class of people that apparently wants me dead, and as a collective exhibit all 14 characteristics of Fascism as defined by Umberto Eco? Which word has sufficient gravitas to convey that I am genuinely scared about my friends in red states who can't leave? To convey the terror of hearing about yet another shooting towards people just like you? Which word can I use to describe people who don't want me to live? Which word can adequately describe the class of people that carry such vile acts or condone them? What should I use instead?
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    far be it from me to question your Gospel and its preferred terms. by all means feel free to continue to keep using the word as you have been—not only do I lack authority to prescribe which terms you can and cannot use, but also as I said above, the mere use of the term provides a convenient heuristic for many to simply avoid engaging or associating with that person, lest they bring topics such as Donald Trump, Nazis, Vladimir Putin, Iran, the GOP, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, red states, and direct personal insults into the conversation, almost all at once, completely unprompted. there was a time in years past where I was more willing to engage with this sort of openly-antagonistic rhetoric but then I turned 30 and it's all just so tiresome now. arguing with you about your political ideology is exactly equivalent to arguing with a zealot of a religion that is not my own—I want to be as respectful as possible with regards to something that you clearly take very seriously and personally (despite you refusing to extend the same courtesy), while simultaneously refusing to directly engage with the disagreements between us, as there's virtually zero chance that any of that is going to be in any way productive for any of us. do you happen to have any friends of any political persuasion other than that of your own? about half of my friends disagree with me politically, and we all know it, yet we can remain civil when talking about stuff, because we all have a sense for which things we consider take for granted as true, that the others may not, so we all wordlessly agree to avoid making statements like that. but that's just about all you've done so far here in this thread, which is something I've come to attribute to people who don't have that much ideological diversity in their social circle(s), such that they're only used to interacting with people that generally either agree with them about everything (upon which they find mutual agreement), or have wholesale outright ideological opposition towards (upon which they get into twitter-style flamewar arguments, usually exclusively over the Internet). by contrast, when you have an ideologically diverse group of friends and people you associate with, you generally learn to comport yourself better in circumstances where your personal beliefs are at odds with others.

adamrezich 4y ago

> No blanket statements made. I spoke about the GOP, referring to the leadership. No blanket labeling. > It is easy to see the two countries are by all means shitholes, and so are red states... it is possible that you have become so accustomed to "political talking points"-type "discussion" (i.e. twitter) that you genuinely think this is normal, respectful discourse—I would consider reflecting upon this a bit. > You have repeatedly avoided actual discussion of the matter at hand, the position I put forth yes, this was intentional—I did not come to this comments thread to discuss Russia or red states or Trump or Republicans or Ben Shapiro or Nazis or Iran or Putin or any of the other dozens of unrelated things you've brought up, and repeated taunts attempting to get me to do so, on your terms, are extremely unbecoming and exceedingly tiring. you already have an entire ideology that explains how you should feel about these things, and I've made it clear that I am familiar with this ideology, yet unwilling to participate in or engage with it—why do you consider this unsatisfactory, to the point of direct personal insults, which I have refrained from thus far? why am I supposed to engage in good-faith discourse with someone who comports themselves thusly? you have yet to give me any incentive for engaging with you and your myriad highly-charged political talking points other than "because I want you to", and then on top of this, you insult me for not taking you up on your offer? ironically, this is precisely what I was talking about in my original post above: this is exactly the level of discourse I've come to expect from anyone who casually lobs the word "fascists" about. no attempt at good-faith discussion, a complex Byzantine web of interconnected political ideas, any and all of which may be brought into discussion without warning, and a general attitude of abject rudeness. again: I recommend serious self-reflection.

ekleraki 4y ago
Enlighten me then, if not with the word "fascist", how should I characterize the class of people that apparently wants me dead, and as a collective exhibit all 14 characteristics of Fascism as defined by Umberto Eco? Which word has sufficient gravitas to convey that I am genuinely scared about my friends in red states who can't leave? To convey the terror of hearing about yet another shooting towards people just like you? Which word can I use to describe people who don't want me to live? Which word can adequately describe the class of people that carry such vile acts or condone them? What should I use instead?
- adamrezich 4y ago
  far be it from me to question your Gospel and its preferred terms. by all means feel free to continue to keep using the word as you have been—not only do I lack authority to prescribe which terms you can and cannot use, but also as I said above, the mere use of the term provides a convenient heuristic for many to simply avoid engaging or associating with that person, lest they bring topics such as Donald Trump, Nazis, Vladimir Putin, Iran, the GOP, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, red states, and direct personal insults into the conversation, almost all at once, completely unprompted. there was a time in years past where I was more willing to engage with this sort of openly-antagonistic rhetoric but then I turned 30 and it's all just so tiresome now. arguing with you about your political ideology is exactly equivalent to arguing with a zealot of a religion that is not my own—I want to be as respectful as possible with regards to something that you clearly take very seriously and personally (despite you refusing to extend the same courtesy), while simultaneously refusing to directly engage with the disagreements between us, as there's virtually zero chance that any of that is going to be in any way productive for any of us. do you happen to have any friends of any political persuasion other than that of your own? about half of my friends disagree with me politically, and we all know it, yet we can remain civil when talking about stuff, because we all have a sense for which things we consider take for granted as true, that the others may not, so we all wordlessly agree to avoid making statements like that. but that's just about all you've done so far here in this thread, which is something I've come to attribute to people who don't have that much ideological diversity in their social circle(s), such that they're only used to interacting with people that generally either agree with them about everything (upon which they find mutual agreement), or have wholesale outright ideological opposition towards (upon which they get into twitter-style flamewar arguments, usually exclusively over the Internet). by contrast, when you have an ideologically diverse group of friends and people you associate with, you generally learn to comport yourself better in circumstances where your personal beliefs are at odds with others.