Truth Leads to Victory!

[The Nehor]

“I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.” -Adolf Hitler

Putting aside Hitler's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point. Things that are false will eventually fall. Focus on the truth. Focus on truth’s eventual victory. It is like the hymn we sing “Oh Say, What is Truth?”

The truths contained within the restored gospel will endure all things. Very reassuring.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.” -Adolf Hitler

Putting aside Hitler's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point. Things that are false will eventually fall. Focus on the truth. Focus on truth’s eventual victory. It is like the hymn we sing “Oh Say, What is Truth?”

The truths contained within the restored gospel will endure all things. Very reassuring.

If the post was about 2000 words longer…

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.” -Adolf Hitler

Putting aside Hitler's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point. Things that are false will eventually fall. Focus on the truth. Focus on truth’s eventual victory. It is like the hymn we sing “Oh Say, What is Truth?”

The truths contained within the restored gospel will endure all things. Very reassuring.

It is reassuring. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

“I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.” -Adolf Hitler

Putting aside Hitler's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point. Things that are false will eventually fall. Focus on the truth. Focus on truth’s eventual victory. It is like the hymn we sing “Oh Say, What is Truth?”

The truths contained within the restored gospel will endure all things. Very reassuring.

Godwin’s Law shows itself on the first post.  Is this a record?

[MustardSeed]

I’m a little slow 

Edited May 8, 2023 by MustardSeed

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Godwin’s Law shows itself on the first post.  Is this a record?

Please don’t make this thread about Hitler. I explicitly asked everyone not to do that.

😈

[RAD DAD]

This is insane, but very telling. Adolf Hitler? 

Doesn't this thread belong in Social Hall?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, RAD DAD said:

This is insane, but very telling. Adolf Hitler? 

Doesn't this thread belong in Social Hall?

He’s just trying to prove he was write about Smac’s thread. That’s all the OP should be telling you. 😁

[CV75]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

“I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.” -Adolf Hitler

Putting aside Hitler's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point. Things that are false will eventually fall. Focus on the truth. Focus on truth’s eventual victory. It is like the hymn we sing “Oh Say, What is Truth?”

The truths contained within the restored gospel will endure all things. Very reassuring.

"Hitler... there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!" -- Franz Leibkind (The Producers, 1968).

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He’s just trying to prove he was write about Smac’s thread. That’s all the OP should be telling you. 😁

I started another thread that was based on a Deseret News Op-Ed piece about the relationship between family size and happiness.  The article used a comment from Tucker Carlson as a starting point, which comment mentioned the Latter-day Saints.  The article was not about Tucker Carlson, nor did I intend it to be so.  To the contrary, I started the thread with: "Putting aside Carlson's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point."

Nevertheless, several posters, including Nehor, insisted on making the thread about Carlson:

• MisereerNobis: "Why use him as a starting point to this discussion? Couldn't the same point been brought up without using him? He is a highly divisive figure and not really known for his honesty or kindness."
• Ben McGuire: "You can ask us to put Carlson's politics and polemics aside, but in this case, that's not entirely reasonable."
• Tacenda: "I don't trust what Carlson says...How can you put aside that it's Carlson?"
• SeekingUnderstanding: "Tucker is a propagandist spouting outrage machine with zero redeeming qualities. One of the most corrosive influences and in our society."
• Nehor: "My advice would be to find people that Russian government propagandists aren’t eagerly offering job to as an advice-giver in the future."
• Ttribe: "There's a pretty quick and direct path to a so-called Godwin's Law 'violation' that is also an apt comparison, here.  I mean, Volkswagen turned out to be a pretty good car company, but...."

I was surprised at the level of vitriol against Carlson as a person, and tried to get the discussion to focus on the topic.  It didn't work, and the thread was locked.

Nehor, ever the provocateur, and who dislikes me personally quite a bit, then started this thread as an exercise in Godwin's Law.  Tucker Carlson is Hitler.  Uh-huh.

In the other thread I commented:

Quote

Quote

@smac97How can you put aside that it's Carlson?

The same way I can put aside the repulsive things Bill Maher has said.  Or Richard Dawkins.  Or South Park.  These are also partisan and divisive voices, but on occasion they make valid points that I think merit some attention.

The same way I can put aside the purported serial philandering and academic plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. and listen to what he had to say about Civil Rights.

The same way I can put aside Martin Luther's raging anti-semitism and listen to what he had to say about religious reform.

The same way I can put aside Harvey Milk's outing of Bill Sipple and his purported ephebophilic relationship with Glen McKinley and appreciate his contributions to civil rights for gay folks.

To be sure, there are past and present figures who are simply beyond the pale.  

Back in 2012, I posted this thread about Bill Maher: Bill Maher Performs "Un-Baptism" Of Mitt Romney'S Deceased Father-In-Law

Quote

Here (warning: language at the link):

Quote

Bill Maher is making waves (and history) after performing the very first "unbaptism" live on HBO.

The outspoken atheist took it upon himself to free the late father of Mitt Romney's wife from his posthumous baptism, in which he was named a member of the Mormon religion.

"In case you didn't hear, it was discovered last week that Edward Davies, Ann Romney's father -- an enthusiastically anti-religious scientist who called organized faith 'hogwash,' was posthumously baptized in the Mormon tradition 14 months after he died," he said on Friday's episode of Real Time With Bill Maher. "They tried to do it sooner, but he wouldn't stop spinning in his grave."

Donning a sorcerer's hat and wielding a magic wand, Maher then produced a black and white photograph of Davies, on which he performed his mystical ritual. The brief ceremony was made complete with references to Laverne and Shirley, Harry Potter and The Blair Witch Project.

"By the power granted in me by the Blair Witch," he declared, "I call upon the Mormon spirits to leave your body the *** alone."

"Brother Edward, in this world you had to put up with Mitt Romney," he concluded. "You've suffered enough."

A few thoughts:

1. Maher is obviously intending to offend, whereas the LDS practice of proxy baptism is not intended to offend.

2. This actually doesn't bother me that much. If anything, Maher has just lost any sort of claim to outrage at the practice of proxy baptisms. His exploitation of Edward Davies to make a political attack is, I think, decidedly more objectionable than family members performing a private religious ceremony on behalf of Mr. Davies.

3. I think Maher exposes his religious bigotry when he does things like this. Take, for example, the treatment of LDS proxy baptisms by Erik Jaffe, a contributor to a group law blog, The Volokh Conspiracy:

Quote

I actually find it somewhat endearing that Mormons are concerned enough about my erstwhile soul to try and protect it in a non-intrusive manner after my death. Other religious groups are not so considerate and instead seek to intimidate the @#%$ out of you or otherwise confront and demean you while you are alive in a supposed effort to save your soul. I have my doubts about the true motives of the hell-and-brimstone types, but the Mormons seem perfectly genuine to me. At worst it is no-harm, no-foul; at best they do me a great service.

 

A few other instances of Bill Maher saying offensive/provocative stuff that is later quoted and discussed on this board:

 

 

 

So I'm not exactly a big fan of Bill Maher, but I also haven't seen hissy fits when he is quoted and discussed.  

Last June I even quoted Maher approvingly here, and nobody seemed to complain.

Anyone or anything that Nehor does not like, or with whom he may disagree politically, he labels a Nazi or a Fascist, and then endorses actual physical violence against them (see, e.g., here).  I think this is an unhealthy and unhelpful propensity, and quite ironic given how actual Nazis and Fascists used violence to suppress viewpoints they disliked.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 8, 2023 by smac97

[Hamilton Porter]

Point of the post lost on me.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Nehor's analogy is not quite on point, either.  Smac quoted Carlson because the quote included a reference to the Latter-day Saints.  Yes, he could have found another quote with a similar idea from a less polemic figure, but would that quote have had the same LDS-referential nexus?  Maybe, maybe not. 

Nehor needs to re-do his post, using a quote from Hitler in which he mentions the LDS people or culture.  And then his analogy will be more apt.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I was surprised at the level of vitriol against Carlson as a person

😂🤣

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Anyone or anything that Nehor does not like, or with whom he may disagree politically, he labels a Nazi or a Fascist,

CFR. Specifically Nehor disagrees with you. I’d like to see the post where he called you a Nazi and asked people to punch you. Thanks

[blackstrap]

If only the OP quote had been attributed to Amber Heard, all would have been fine and the sentiment would still have held .

[Navidad]

Methinks the best reply to this post is to point out that every interpretation of the gospel message has within it polemics, politics, and truth. Every one!

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Anyone or anything that Nehor does not like, or with whom he may disagree politically, he labels a Nazi or a Fascist,

CFR. Specifically Nehor disagrees with you. I’d like to see the post where he called you a Nazi and asked people to punch you. Thanks

Example #1: This thread.

Example #2: Here:

Quote

Quote

"Nazis" being a pejorative label that anyone can, for any reason or no reason at all, attach to any other person.  And then comes the mob to mete out extralegal violence against that person.

An example:

Quote

Two Marine reservists testified Dec. 13 in a Philadelphia courtroom about an incident a month prior in which they were reportedly maced, beat up and robbed by a group of 10 to 12 people with alleged ties to antifa, the left-leaning, oftentimes violent, groups who proclaim to be vehemently anti-racist.

Visiting Philadelphia on Nov. 17 with their Joint Base McGuire–Dix–Lakehurst, New Jersey, unit for an event at a nearby hotel, Alejandro Godinez and Luis Torres decided to do a little sightseeing of the historic city...

But unbeknownst to the Marines, a controversial “We the People Rally” was kicking off nearby, attracting a small alt-right crowd — with a much larger group, Tom Keenan and Thomas Massey included, of counterprotestors flooding the scene near Independence Hall, the magazine described.

Spotting the two visitors, not in uniform at the time, Keenan approached and asked, “Are you proud?" according to the Marines' testimonies.

“We are Marines,” Godinez claims to have responded, inevitably confused.

Keenan persisted with his gauche interrogation techniques. “Are you Proud Boys?" he allegedly asked, referencing one of the far right groups leading the rally.

“I didn’t know what Proud Boys meant,” Torres told the judge.

Godinez and Torres testified that immediately after the short exchange, about a dozen people — including Keenan and Massey — attacked the two Marines, punching and kicking them, spraying them with mace and calling them “Nazis.”

“I’m Mexican!” a “bewildered” Godinez said he shouted while being attacked and called a “white supremacist.”

With that newly-discovered ethnic information, Keenan and other members reportedly shifted to racial insults, calling Godinez “spic” and “wetback,” the Marine told the judge.

Imagine the Everest-like mountain of idiocy one must scale to accuse a person of being a racist, only to then transition to accosting that same person with a barrage of racial slurs moments after learning of his Mexican background.

As the group allegedly chanted “F--k him up," Godinez was maced at least six times, stomped, kicked in the side and hit in the head, he told the judge.

“The best way I can describe it is the sound of people chanting in a soccer stadium,” Godinez testified, adding that Keenan was “laughing, smiling, and having a good time, while I could have died that day.”

Torres, meanwhile, said he was holding his hands up near his head to protect himself while Massey struck him repeatedly with “full force.”

“We were outnumbered,” Gordinez said in a statement obtained by Philadelphia magazine. There were “two Marines against 10 to 12 assailants.”

When the attack finally subsided, Gordinez said he tried to dial 911, but was unable to see his phone’s display due to being maced.

Eventually, Torres was able to call the police and the two were transported to the hospital to be treated for injuries. Godinez testified that he is still dealing with the injuries he sustained during the attack and may require surgery.

Another example:

Quote

Video shows ‘Antifa’ group block elderly couple’s path, yell ‘Nazi scum’

An elderly woman using a walker and her companion were blocked by a group of antifascist activists shouting, “Nazi scum, off our streets!” — and blocking the couple from entering a right-wing political rally, according to reports.

A widely circulated video shows the white-haired woman and a bearded man trying to cross a street toward Mohawk College in Hamilton, Ontario, on Sunday when three masked protesters block their path, according to the CBC.

 

Nehor: 

Quote

Quote

We've had this discussion before.  If someone were to label you a "Nazi" or a "fascist," and then proceed to beat you to a pulp and destroy or steal your property, I don't you would respond with "a touch of fun."

True, I would punch them back and even try to have a “touch of fun” doing it.

Also Nehor:

Quote

Quote

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

No, I would still be in favor on punching Nazis. I would probably have to punch the idiot (and possible Nazi) who claimed I was a Nazi too. But that is just a regular bump in the road for the dedicated Nazi Puncher.

Also Nehor:

• Yeah, punching Nazis is funny and people should rejoice when it happens.
• Everyone should unite in joy at things that frustrate, stop, or harm Nazis.
• War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly. So yes, extralegal {violence}.
• Punching Nazis is not wrong...
• I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

I think the counsel from the Church is apt. 

I am concerned about casual calls for extralegal mobocratic violence.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am concerned at people being concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists dedicating to overthrowing things I love and care about.

• Yeah, punching Nazis is funny and people should rejoice when it happens.
• Everyone should unite in joy at things that frustrate, stop, or harm Nazis.
• War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly. So yes, extralegal {violence}.
• Punching Nazis is not wrong...
• I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

Yeah, i can still stand behind that……..for now.

Here Nehor describes me as a person "concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists."

Example #3: Here:

Quote

Quote

Thanks,

-Smac

Example #4: Here: 

Quote

At the beginning of the 20th century a German clinic operated to study what we would later call the lgbt community and tried to help individuals dealing with gender dysphoria and non heteronormative sexualities. They amassed a lot of research and accounts of the lives of people of that community.

Then the Nazis showed up and knowledge was likely pushed backwards by decades and a lot of information including information on gender affirming care is forever lost.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-forgotten-history-of-the-worlds-first-trans-clinic/

“This has all happened before and it will happen again.”

On a very related note remember to punch Nazis.

Example #5: Here:

Quote

I see Nazis everywhere. I am Bisexual and identify as a young dragon named Edward that joined the Allied invasion at Normandy. THERE ARE NAZIS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!

If you can’t find Nazis though then punch fascists. I am okay with that too.

Example #6: Here:

Quote

Yep, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Churchill, all turned out to be the Nazis in the end.

Example #7: Here:

Quote

Quote

 

Meanwhile, you are repeatedly on record as publicly advocating for actual physical violence against anyone whom you dislike, and justifying it by arbitrarily labeling them as "nazis" and/or "fascists."

Again, malarky.  We ought to be having difficult conversations, and doing so with civility and respect - and also without advocacy of physical violence.

Says the guy who publicly approved physical violence against an 81-year-old woman with a walker whom he labeled a "Nazi."

 

 

You aren't stupid. You know exactly how these threads are going to go. You start them all the time.

That 81 year old lady was going to a party rally for a party that had a literal neo-Nazi as one of its founders. Old people can be Nazis. In fact it even seems to make it more likely these days.

Example #8: Here:

Quote

I am not going to pretend that someone just wanting to learn what the Nazis have to say is somehow an earnest seeker of truth. The lady wasn't going to yell "Heil Hitler" at the reporter even if she was a Nazi. She would say the same thing whether she was a genuine supporter or some kind of open-minded weirdo curious what the crazy people have to say.

And she couldn't hear it that well????? TRAGEDY!!!!!!!

And why do I keep falling for smac's irrelevant bait callbacks? Waste of valuable time that could be spent in more profitable activities like stamp collecting or Nazi punching.

Example #9: Here:

Quote

Quote

It's almost as if Nehor wants to use a heckler's veto to suppress discussions he dislikes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t have a problem with it. The idea that I don’t like a good verbal fight is ridiculous on the face of it. Have you not seen me post before? I throw dramabombs around here all the time. I charge into the fights and often get thread banned. If I wanted to suppress it I would use much different tactics.

It is your hypocrisy that I find disgusting. You like to start fights and are in denial about it. And that is just sad.

Edit: Of particular note you keep dragging in the Nazi thing everywhere to provoke me (do I really need provoking?) or in some misguided attempt to shame me (Good luck with that, lol).

Example #10: Here:

Quote

Quote

 

Is the Swastika permanently and indelibly stigmatized? 

Or does context matter?

 

Context does matter and if I saw a Pepe avatar on a forum dedicated to comics by someone who shares his favorite Pepe comics I would give them the doubt. In the context of this hashtag I will suspect the worst.

If a blond haired blue eyed guy has a swastika on his clothing while walking in an alt-right protest surrounded by ugly weirdos giving the Nazi salute I am not going going to believe him if he insists he is wearing it as a Buddhist symbol of peace and I would consider anyone who believes him to be either an idiot or a liar who is a secret supporter. Now these cases are not that bad. They are very suspicious though and if one wanted to date my sister or be my friend or do something that would bring them into my life I would watch for signs. For the Pepe thing I would also ask them why.

Example #11: Here: 

Quote

Quote

Yes it does, and does antifa use the definition or has antifa created its own "private definition". Beating people, using weapons against people, assaulting people with pad locks, because one either disagrees with the victims sociopolitical beliefs sure seems like of people promoting fascism; yet beatings and/or assault to oppress or silence victims are the common practiced tactics of antifa.

I am going to throw my hands up a little now in frustration since you are trying to create your own private definition of fascism.

First off, the tactics you want to use to call Antifa fascist are not explicitly fascist. They are used by all kinds of movements from authoritarian states to some forms of anarchy so throwing the fascist label back at them is dumb.

Antifa is also not a universal organization. There is no governing group. They are too anarchic. They are militant. Some groups that use the name Antifa use violence. Some use vandalism. Some use digital harassment. They mingle with peaceful counterprotesters and Their targets are usually fascists, racists, and far and alt right groups. Their membership consists of anarchists, communists, socialists, and even a few market socialists. Generally they believe the Nazis would have failed in Germany if people had taken to the streets and beaten up the brownshirts. I kind of agree with them there.

I admit to sympathy with their goal of beating up Nazis and racists and white nationalists as I think they could use a little bit of pain since those people indiscriminately dish out a lot of pain and fear. Hiding behind the law while hurting others disgusts me. That being said at the same time I am generally opposed to vigilante violence and believe Antifa is counterproductive to its stated aims. I am also not convinced their violence is all aimed at the right people for their goals. They should stop and I support law enforcement efforts to stop them but they are not fascists and I reserve the right to giggle and cheer if they beat up fascists. They have killed no one and only caused a few injuries. Acting like they are the biggest threat in America right now is pure stupidity and overwrought hysteria.

Antifa does fit the definition of being terrorists though but I would not throw that label around because I am guessing you are unwilling to label the terrorists on your own side as terrorists. Wouldn’t want you to be biased.

Example #12: Here:

Quote

Quote

Huh.  Now you are using the "fascist" label.  Who, in your view, can be properly labeled a "fascist" in 2019's America?

I don't sympathize with them at all.  I much prefer the rule of law to the rule of anarchistic mobs.  And that's all Antifa is.

I think you would be singing a very different tune if Antifa decided to label you as a fascist, rascist, etc., and proceeded to beat you up in the street, or firebomb your store, etc.

I am reminded here of an amazing scene from A Man for All Seasons.  This film, based on a play, is about Sir Thomas More during the reign of Henry VIII.  More is appointed by the king as Lord Chancellor, but thereafter finds that the appointment comes with expectations from the king that are not compatible with More's sense of ethics.  The scene in question involves More interacting with a poor but ambitious young man, Rich, who wants More's help in obtaining political power.  More declines, and Rich hints that he (Rich) might be willing to pursue his ambitions in other ways, including ways that could injury More.  More nevertheless lets Rich go, much to the consternation of his (More's) wife (Alice), daughter (Margaret) and soon-to-be-son-in-law (Roper).  Here's a link to the video and the dialog:

I hope you someday come to recognize that the rule of law means that there is no cause celebre that can give others the power to dispense with your rights. For your own safety's sake, I hope you come to appreciate the value of the rule of law.

Ah.  That's good to hear.  Still a little unsettling to hear you sympathize with violent, anarchistic thugs.

If their extrra-legal violence was productive to their "stated aims," would that change anything for you?  Do the ends justify the means?

So who, in your view are the "right people" against whom "violence" should be "aimed...for their goals?"

If they beat up someone you disagree with politically, does that make their violence acceptable? 

Just trying to figure out your stance here...

Until they label you a "fascist," and then beat your senseless.

So short of murder, extra-legal violence as a means of enforcing or compelling political preferences is acceptable?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said their targets include fascists, racists, and white nationalists and I do acknowledge I think some of their targets were mislabeled. I am betting you and I would disagree strongly on who qualifies. As to who can be labeled a fascist today you just went over the definition.

I would probably think worse of Antifa if they attacked me but I also think I could take them and they would end up getting hurt. I am not convinced they label people indiscriminately. Most of those they have clashed with fit the description or are at least very close to it. I am neither.

I do not share your veneration for secular law. I do not believe ANY rule of law is preferable to being without law. There are tyrannies that sometimes must be fought. Our nation was formed out of rejection of the rule of law because the law was found to be oppressive. Ironically British rule was relatively light compared to other nations and colonial rule fair compared to most other British colonies. I am concerned about others taking away my rights. I am just not convinced that slavish adherence or veneration of law will hurry that day.

If Antifa was preventing a legitimate threat of a fascist takeover then yes, I would support them in defiance of law unless the cure started to become worse then the disease of course.

I am okay with violence against Nazis. I would be okay with laws that allowed people to punch Nazis if I trusted anyone to judge who is or is not a Nazi. Until then watching fascists suffer pleases me. It is probably not a noble impulse.

I did not argue that Antifa’s violence was acceptable. I was arguing that it is relatively mild compared to the extremist shootings and murders we have seen. If you listen to Fox they are an existential threat which is patently absurd.

Example #13: Here:

Quote

I call for punching Nazis and fascists. In the past this would be a self-evidently right sentiment. In these unenlightened days it is somehow ‘going too far’ by people who insist they need to be able to carry guns anywhere just in case there are ‘bad people’ around. I am saying we should punch the bad people.

Example #14: Here:

Quote

My goal is to say we have a fascism problem and we need to (metaphorically and literally) punch more Nazis or we won’t have a liberal democracy for much longer.

Nehor is indiscriminate and arbitrary in how he uses "Nazi" and "Fascist."  He applies it to people with whom he disagrees, regardless of the actual sociopolitical beliefs or behaviors of the individual.  This is how we end up with him cheering on the abusive "Nazi scum, off our streets!" threats hurled at a little old lady with a walker.  This is how we get threads like this one, where Nehor invokes Godwin's Law as a specific response to a thread in which I quote a political commentator he dislikes.  To quote an article which quotes Tucker Carlson is to endorse Hitler and be a Nazi.  That's Nehor's reasoning, such as it is.

I think Nehor enjoys playing the part of rank poseur and provocateur.  He admits this.  He's proud of this: "I throw dramabombs around here all the time."

He virtually never has anything substantive to contribute.  No thoughtful commentary or evidence or reasoning. 

Again, the irony here is strong.  Arbitrarily labeling people with whom one disagrees with such risible and offensive labels as "Nazi" and "Fascist" is not a good thing.  The threat or use of extralegal violence (or both, or the endorsement of such threat or use) to intimidate or coerce or suppress ideological speech with which one disagrees is not a healthy thing. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Example #1: This thread.

Example #2: Here:

Here Nehor describes me as a person "concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists."

Example #3: Here:

Example #4: Here: 

Example #5: Here:

Example #6: Here:

Example #7: Here:

Example #8: Here:

Example #9: Here:

Example #10: Here:

Example #11: Here: 

Example #12: Here:

Example #13: Here:

Example #14: Here:

Nehor is indiscriminate and arbitrary in how he uses "Nazi" and "Fascist."  He applies it to people with whom he disagrees, regardless of the actual sociopolitical beliefs or behaviors of the individual.  This is how we end up with him cheering on the abusive "Nazi scum, off our streets!" threats hurled at a little old lady with a walker.  This is how we get threads like this one, where Nehor invokes Godwin's Law as a specific response to a thread in which I quote a political commentator he dislikes.  To quote an article which quotes Tucker Carlson is to endorse Hitler and be a Nazi.  That's Nehor's reasoning, such as it is.

I think Nehor enjoys playing the part of rank poseur and provocateur.  He admits this.  He's proud of this: "I throw dramabombs around here all the time."

He virtually never has anything substantive to contribute.  No thoughtful commentary or evidence or reasoning. 

Again, the irony here is strong.  Arbitrarily labeling people with whom one disagrees with such risible and offensive labels as "Nazi" and "Fascist" is not a good thing.  The threat or use of extralegal violence (or both, or the endorsement of such threat or use) to intimidate or coerce or suppress ideological speech with which one disagrees is not a healthy thing. 

Thanks,

-Smac

So Nehor has never called you a Nazi, nor advocated for physical violence against you. You could have just said you misspoke. No need for the novel. 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

😂🤣

I was surprised at the level of vitriol against Goebbels as a person. 

Seriously, though, how is one supposed to respond to a shamelessly dishonest demagogue who profits by stirring up outrage and grievance? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I was surprised at the level of vitriol against Goebbels as a person. 

Seriously, though, how is one supposed to respond to a shamelessly dishonest demagogue who profits by stirring up outrage and grievance? 

Especially since it’s impossible to separate Tuckers quote from the context of the great replacement theory. Featured on his show are statements like “We have to do something to increase our birth rate, or the vacuum … will be filled by people who don't believe in our values.”

[jkwilliams]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So Nehor has never called you a Nazi, nor advocated for physical violence against you. You could have just said you misspoke. No need for the novel. 

Yeah, I think it's safe to say Nehor has never called smac a Nazi nor advocated violence against him. "Nehor calls everyone he doesn't like a Nazi" is gross exaggeration and apparently meant to dismiss his opinions as less than worthless. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Especially since it’s impossible to separate Tuckers quote from the context of the great replacement theory. Featured on his show are statements like “We have to do something to increase our birth rate, or the vacuum … will be filled by people who don't believe in our values.”

Right. This is one of the reasons the weird so-called "conservatives" love Viktor Orban so much: he's literally put in place laws to combat the "great replacement." Nothing says you love freedom like advocating racial purity. 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Right. This is one of the reasons the weird so-called "conservatives" love Viktor Orban so much: he's literally put in place laws to combat the "great replacement." Nothing says you love freedom like advocating racial purity. 

Historically, the groups people think don't assimilate actually assimilate the fastest, i.e., Irish and Italians.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Historically, the groups people think don't assimilate actually assimilate the fastest, i.e., Irish and Italians.

A relative recently told me she thought people should stay in their country of origin. When people emigrate to another country, both cultures are "diluted," and eventually the culture is completely lost. But that's where we are today. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Example #1: This thread.

Example #2: Here:

Here Nehor describes me as a person "concerned about the physical safety and comfort of fascists."

Example #3: Here:

Example #4: Here: 

Example #5: Here:

Example #6: Here:

Example #7: Here:

Example #8: Here:

Example #9: Here:

Example #10: Here:

Example #11: Here: 

Example #12: Here:

Example #13: Here:

Example #14: Here:

Nehor is indiscriminate and arbitrary in how he uses "Nazi" and "Fascist."  He applies it to people with whom he disagrees, regardless of the actual sociopolitical beliefs or behaviors of the individual.  This is how we end up with him cheering on the abusive "Nazi scum, off our streets!" threats hurled at a little old lady with a walker.  This is how we get threads like this one, where Nehor invokes Godwin's Law as a specific response to a thread in which I quote a political commentator he dislikes.  To quote an article which quotes Tucker Carlson is to endorse Hitler and be a Nazi.  That's Nehor's reasoning, such as it is.

I think Nehor enjoys playing the part of rank poseur and provocateur.  He admits this.  He's proud of this: "I throw dramabombs around here all the time."

He virtually never has anything substantive to contribute.  No thoughtful commentary or evidence or reasoning. 

Again, the irony here is strong.  Arbitrarily labeling people with whom one disagrees with such risible and offensive labels as "Nazi" and "Fascist" is not a good thing.  The threat or use of extralegal violence (or both, or the endorsement of such threat or use) to intimidate or coerce or suppress ideological speech with which one disagrees is not a healthy thing. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Ad hominem, vituperative insults, easing the badger, poisoning the oil well, powering the flux capacitor, black hole diving, (insert random fallacy here), etc.

Nothing of substance. Just a laundry list of things I said previously. No reason. And a long screed about Nazis when I specifically asked in the OP not to talk about Nazis. If you can’t respect the intent of the thread why post at all?