Tree said:I didn't strawman you, there's a difference between strawman and pointing out the absurd conclusions of your beliefs.
Absurd conclusions that are non-sequiturs on your part, and which you phrase as if they were my position. It's not once or twice, Tree. It's every fucking post you write.
If you want to contend that Y follows from X, then you're going to need to justify that contention, not slip it in as if it's fact, because no one here aside from you adheres to the Gospel according to Tree.
Tree said:So, once again you said Sargon is alt-right and then used Spencer's endorsement of him as evidence of him being alt-right.
So once again, I am answering your whinging in the original post, where you whine that your ilk aren't given equal time in atheist conventions.
I have provided a number of reasons why a group that aims to include more than just white, middle class, angsty teenage boys might not want to give numpties like SoA a platform. Firstly, there's the sexism - which you spent considerable energy pretending wasn't sexism. Then there's the fact that neo-Nazis seem to be falling over themselves to endorse him, and you of course have spent considerable energy trying to obfuscate that too.
There's a pattern there that you'd have to be an idiot to assume that others are too idiotic to see, Tree.
Tree said:I pointed out there is no way you can draw a valid conclusion from this premise that Sargon is alt-right. If you can't understand this point even after you've been given examples after examples, you're not worth my time.
Stop beating your chest, chap, because you're not really worth a whazz anyway. Instead, I've been giving you the rope to hang yourself, but so pumped up are you on your own certainty, you never even noticed how easy it was to get you to show your hand.
Tree said:But do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA
Your point?
Well, let's see... my point is do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA
Tree said:What exactly are you hoping to prove by continuously bringing up this piece of information?
I don't hope to 'prove' anything, Tree, not least because I've told you how utterly idiotic such a notion is in the first place, and the fact that I understand the nature of proof means I would never make such an asinine error once, let alone repeatedly.
Rather, as I've told you quite clearly a dozen times, I am answering your pseudo question posed in your original post. Yes, we all noticed how you're so busy running about denying things that you've failed to notice how I established this point already.
Tree said:We've already established this doesn't prove Sargon is alt-right, so what do you think it proves? Give me a clear answer.
Learn what proof is, then come back to me. Given I've already educated you several times with respect to the notion of proof, I won't be drawn into making a statement that would require me to stoop to your simplistic level.
Tree said:You weren't asked to. You were asked to justify your implicit contention that Atheism Plus is somehow functionally equivalent to white supremacist neo-Nazis.
Well they're both based on heavily collectivist ideologies that in practice have always lead to dictatorships when allowed to flourish.
No, they're not. There's nothing 'collectivist' about atheism plus, nor is 'collectivism' necessarily correlated with dictatorships or authoritarianism. Know how you can tell this? Because all those democratic European countries are 'collectivist' in the sense that they have a collectively taxed medical service, universally available for all, in the sense that they offer state pensions, in the sense that they provide free education paid for with collective taxes, in the sense that all societies are fundamentally collectivist for all the basic and more complex infrastructure and services... so this would strongly suggest that your notion that collectivism is tantamount to tyranny is batshit delusional hogwash you've uncritically swallowed and proudly regurgitated while never having given it a moment's thought.
Is Atlas Shrugged your Bible?
Tree said:Atheism Plus is a far left movement...
No it's not.
Tree said:.... and is based on ideas of class struggle applied to minority-majority and female-male relations with the minority (and women) being the "exploited class" and the majority (i.e. white male Christians) the "exploiter class".
No it's not.
Tree said:The only reason you don't seem them for the danger they are is because they fooled you with nice-sounding surface-level talking points like "we're only against racism" and "we're for justice".
No, you're talking out of your rectum. They didn't 'fool' me you numpty because I rejected them mere moments after I discovered their existence. Thanks though for exemplifying the points I made in my last post: all ideology, all prejudice, zero room left for the niceties like asking people what they think.
So I've established this all already, Tree. You are incapable of holding any level of reasoned discussion because you want to take both sides postion. Of course, the fact that you lack any degree of competence in taking my position for me, and how I've routinely showed you were wrong, you'd think you'd have learned to stop making a tool out of yourself in public by now. And that's what makes you come across as an ideological automaton.
And they're about as dangerous as a lump of wet cotton wool. They offer precisely zero threat to anyone at all.
Whereas, as much as you want to just ignore it and distract the conversation away, white supremacist neo-Nazis actively hurt, murder, torture and physically and verbally abuse groups of people based on their supposed race.
So there's simply no parallel there, regardless of how much obfuscation you're engaging in.
Tree said:They are anything but, they're liars, they're hypocrites, they're against free speech, and if you think about their policies, they're pretty damn racist because they want different standards for whites and non-whites.
Tree emoting the universe again. Which bit of me not giving a hairy fuck about your silly beliefs conjured in the absence of thought do you not understand?
Tree said:There was even a forum post back when they had it where most of them openly admitted to being Marxists, not that there was any surprise to people who can recognize a Marxist a mile away.
And?
Again, you're plonking your bias down on the table, Tree. For you and your numpty ilk, the term 'Marxist' may well be a frightening boogeyman with which to poison wells... but for most people, Marxism alone does not indicate a bad person, rather it indicates a political position expressly related to class struggles and to specific forms of economic and material production.
So again, Marxists are not equivalent to white-supremacist neo-Nazis... but do keep flapping your hands around - it is so entertaining!
Tree said:Really is absolutely amazing, even to me. But given how you routinely profess to know my position better than me, you must be right, eh?
Of course, if I asked you to justify your assertion, you'll just ignore it because you're not really about honest discourse, are you Tree?
Can you then please explain why you correctly view fascism as a danger but Communism as just a "boogeyman"?
I will do so the moment after I exemplify my point.
Cite where I said that 'Communism is just a boogeyman'.
This will expose how you have, once again, utterly failed to process my position, and instead have made one up for me, then spent considerable effort castigating me for it, then when pushed its clear you wouldn't know my position if it was fucking you in the earhole.
Tree said:The stance is absolutely inconsistent given the historical crimes of both ideologues.
The stance you have made up for me because your brain is immersed in vacuous binary partisanship bred by numpty sources like 4chan, Breitbart, and reddit,
In reality, you don't own a position, Tree - you've unwittingly borrowed someone else's, and while you don't seem to have any idea how you came to your position, you assume that as it's the only one you possess, that it must be the only one anyone is allowed to possess.
Tree said:See this video as well for why you're wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You clown.
Tree said:Red herring.
No, it isn't.
Yep, it assuredly is.
Tree said:Please stop lying through your teeth and employing the entire catalogue of logical fallacies.
Says the person who can't stop making logical fallacies.
Yeah, only I've identified your repeated fallacious contentions and shown why they're wrong, whereas you've just trotted out a tu quoque! :lol:
Tree said:You aren't winning anything. Anyone reading will see how you've made up my position for me half a dozen times only to castigate me for a position I never took.
There's a difference between strawman and pointing out the inevitable conclusions of your beliefs. You don't need to explicitly say it.
If I don't explicitly say something, Tree - then just exactly who the fuck do you think you are to say it for me?
No, fuck off, there's a good lad. If you want to know my position, I will inform you - not the other way round. Is that amply clear, or can't you hear me from your highhorse?
Tree said:It's very clear to anyone with a brain:
1. you're against fascist ideologies and think they're dangerous (they are, nothing to argue there)
2. you won't hold communism to the same standard which you simply dismissed as a "boogeyman".
I would be you my life savings that if people with a brain are reading this thread, they wouldn't agree with your summation.
At no point have I said that fascist ideologies are something I am against. Rather, I've said I am against white-supremacist neo-Nazies - intriguing how you can't tell the difference regardless of how many times I dismiss your strawman.
Similarly, at no point have I said that communism cannot be dangerous. Rather, I've said that your witterings about communism amount to a boogeyman - the same form of McCarthyism that your supposed interest in history should have protected you from repeating.
So again, your supposed absolutely clear summary is shown to be wholly a figment of your imagination that in no way accurately represents my position at all.
What you are actually talking about is the position of the windmill you dragged in to tilt at. That's why you're having this dialogue with yourself where you have to write both parts, protagonist and antagonist. I'm just facilitating it. You certainly wouldn't know my position on anything because you don't listen, just emote.
Tree said:Yes, that makes you naive.
Yes, your terminal miscomprehension makes me naive! :lol:
Tree said:Your stance is completely inconsistent.
It's perfectly consistent, it just doesn't fit into your simplistic paradigm.
I added a quote to my signature just for you - it reads: กบในกะลาครอบ or frog in a coconut.
It means someone whose vista is extremely limited, and consequently believes they know everything there is to know about the world, whereas the truth is that they only know the pathetic little slice they huddle in.
Tree said:I would have an easier time understanding it if you thought both were "boogeymen" or both were dangerous.
You wouldn't know what I think Tree because you are far too busy telling me what I think to find out.
Tree said:Just because you won't admit to being naive doesn't mean you're being strawmanned.
Your latest ad hominem has no bearing on the fact that you are repeatedly strawmanning and employing red herrings. These are factually observable regardless of whether I am naive or no.
Tree said:To be clear, you're also naive on Islam and SJW ideology.
On Islam too?
On a topic I've never talked about? But of course... you already know my position because you consulted with your prejudice, and your binary glasses ensure you only see two positions.
You really are a functional moron, Tree. I am sorry to say it, but it's manifestly the case. You realize that 30% of the population are below normal intelligence? If so, have you considered whether you might just be snugly in that group? :lol:
No chap, just because you are ideologically deranged, doesn't mean your fictional demons can hurt me.
Of course, we know there's no acknowledgment of how white supremacist neo-Nazis actually have hurt and do hurt people, you still want to tell us about how atheism plus is at least as equally a compelling danger.
Batshit, Tree. Completely batshit.
Tree said:SJWs are just neo-Marxists by the way,...
No, they're not.
Tree said:same shit as before.
Yep, same shit as before repeated again because justifying assertions isn't your game.
Tree said:Islam has core similarities to fascism such as strong in-group preference at the expense of outsiders who must be conquered and made second class subjects, aggressive militarism and a severe lack of individual rights and political freedoms such as free and fair elections.
Ignoring all the instances where Islam is not like that, such as Islamic states which are not aggressive, militaristic, and who routinely hold free and fair democratic elections. But boogeymen are much more compelling to a demagogue, or those fooled by one.
Tree said:It is wholly inconsistent to say one is bad and we need to fear it but the other one is a non-issue and you're just paranoid.
It is wholly inconsistent with reality how you keep pretending that you are talking about my position, when it's clear I don't hold the position you are trying to pretend is mine.
Tree said:And no that's not strawmanning you either, that is what your post implies.
No, my post doesn't remotely imply that. The problem is that your thinking is limited to a restricted binary fantasy where the entire world is divided up into two groups: the one Tree belongs to, and the one contrary to what Tree believes. Of course, the one which doesn't agree with Tree is full of terrible, awful characteristics, while Tree's group's shit smells like roses.
And it doesn't matter to Tree whether someone ascribes to either group, or rejects both... Tree must put the pigeons in the pigeonholes he's got.
For the rest of the world who aren't Tree, you might be surprised to know that we demand the right to own our own positions and not have them emoted at us by an ideologically deranged fruitcake.
Tree said:That's just a flaccid delusion on your part indicative of how you buy into vacuous propaganda from numpty outlets without employing any degree of reasoning.. In reality, they're a bunch of kids who have, at worst, caused some property damage
No, they're not. This is a total whitewashing of antifa and its far left roots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascist
We're not talking about its historical context dating back a century or so, Tree - we're clearly talking about the modern movement in the USA.
Amusingly though, the internet expert on everything who cites wikipedia all the time seems unable to note that his own solitary source contradicts the fetid delusions he's been asserting as fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than on encouraging pro-left policy.
Again, what's actually occurring is that your preferred propaganda source has been working hard over the last few months or years to inculcate into you a set of beliefs that are not actually based on reality, but rather are a smattering of half-truths and outright lies sieved through the strainer of a preconceived set of political positions.
They're coming to take away our property....
That kind of gave it away, Tree. You sound like Glenn Beck! :lol:
Tree said:Everywhere you find antifa groups, they're either entirely run by far leftist ideologues or dominated by far leftist ideologues with maybe a handful of clueless useful idiots in there. It is not true at all that they're merely vandals doing property damage.
Which is yet more red herrings on your part, because you posted a list of assertions about what Antifa are supposedly for, but rather than support them, you are trying to engage my dismissal of your assertions.
When you do something so many times, Tree, everyone here's going to spot it.
If you are genuinely unaware of your repeated discoursive failings, then you should say so - then I will try to employ Hanlon's Razor more often.
Tree said:Here's a statement from a standard antifa site:
A 'standard' one?
How do we know it's a standard one, Tree? :lol:
Tree said:3. We oppose all forms of oppression and exploitation. We intend to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement of oppressed people centered on the working class against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. We want a classless, free society. We intend to win!
Where's the source?
Tree said:Gee, where have we heard this talk of classless society before?
I dunno, but if it was in communism, then you might want to notice the long list of differences to communism, such as being against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people, you know, the entire content of the paragraph you cited?
And again, so what? Is there something wrong with wanting a classless society? Only, you haven't said anything worthwhile listening to about it - just emoted at me several times.
Are you saying that the only good society is a class based society?
Do you actually disagree with them?
Tree said:Of course, ANTIFA has never expressed any claim that they wish to kill people based on property ownership, so perhaps you might want to pull up your trousers as your vacuous prejudice is showing.
WHATABOUT...... WHATABOUT..... WHATABOUT?
Shame there's no one here thick enough to fall for your patter, Tree.
Oh God, how can you be this naive?
Naive or perhaps far too canny because while you think you're an amazing magician, I keep spotting the fact that you've pocketed the white rabbit.
Are you now going to ironically and hypocritically claim that, in direct contradiction to what they said, that all the delusion drivel you asserted about how they're going to take your stuff away was in fact correct?
Tree said:Everywhere this far left ideology has been tried there were mass purges of people. Russia, Cuba, Eastern bloc countries, North Korea, Zimbabwe, you name it. Never any exceptions. And of course they'll rarely if ever admit to it, what murderer wants to be exposed as one? Fool.
You are a genuine moron, Tree. You realize that most of Europe is 'far left' by your standards? But wait... mass purges? Must have skipped that history class.
And on top of that, what about all the repression, wars, and inequalities in far right nations? No mass purges there? Amirite?
You don't seem to comprehend other than a binary, whereas the world is vastly too complicated for such numptyism - even your own country can't be squeezed into this thick as shit paradigm.
Instead, there's clearly at least one more paradigm here that isn't within your simplistic system, that of authoritarianism. Funnily, regardless of whether left or right, it's the authoritarian states which have historically performed these ghastly iniquities on their own populaces.
If you'd been paying attention, you might have noted me talking about this before. If you'd stooped to asking me to state my opinion rather than repeatedly pretending you know my position, you'd have discovered that politically, I am anti-authoritarian, not 'left wing'. In fact, I'm a centrist, but don't let reality impinge on your spittle flecked internet ravings.
Tree said:There is no way to expropriate people without mass murder because inevitably some will resist and won't relinquish their property. And rightfully so, why should they? It's theirs. Get your own.
But most socialist states don't remotely seek to take away your property, you incoherent numbnut. There's that reality failing to coincide with Tree's emoted 'facts'! What they do, for example, is seek to ensure that many of the key pieces of national infrastructure remain in public hands. They seek to ensure that all people have equal access to education, healthcare, and society regardless of wealth. And no mass purgings are remotely necessary for this. So all the dozens of wealthy, liberal, democratic Western/Northern European nations are manifest contradictions to your febrile witterings.