Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Glad to see you admit to be fine with the destruction of innocent people's property.

Deflection. This is what I would say, if my candidate supported literal torch-carrying Nazis, and I wanted to change the subject.

[Elegiac]

See, now you're adding previously unknown qualifiers like "innocent" that you didn't use before.

It is truly crazy to be anti-fascist, though, sure.

Sign of the times that people are now talking shit at the Wolfenstein developers for "being SJWs" by...having their game be about killing Nazis.

These people really do not realise how far the Overton Window has been moved to the point they're actively carrying water for fascists.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, that's already happening today.

Prove it.

Who's being oppressed. Because suburban inconvenience isn't oppression.

[Santti]

The ideology that people should be treated equally under the law and should not be oppressed? That ideology?

It's like being against an ideology that water is wet.

Like how the hell does that even begin to make sense?

[Elegiac]

It's like being against an ideology that water is wet.

Like how the hell does that even begin to make sense?

It makes perfect sense if one believes that certain groups of people are subhuman - i.e. if you're a fascist.

Hence, conservatism being a function of favoring in-groups that the law protects but does not bind, and denigrating out-groups that the law binds but doesn't protect.

This is why it's always "self defense" when a right winger shoots someone.

[postman1782]

all ill say to that whole post is ask if you can say biden is much better

Most definitely. And we have his record as a VP to prove that.

[Gelannerai]

It's like being against an ideology that water is wet.

Like how the hell does that even begin to make sense?

I mean, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers /shrug.

[Soliloque]

See, now you're adding previously unknown qualifiers like "innocent" that you didn't use before. Still, property is nothing when weighed against a life. Property damage is not violence.

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty in a trial.
Protesters and rioters don't get to decide that.

The fact you considered this a "previously unknown qualifier" tells me everything I need to know.

Why are you more concerned with the property damage resulting from protests rather than the causes of the protest itself. /yawn

Because you have a right of peacefully protesting, not violently protesting destroying and looting innocent citizen's property.

[postman1782]

Looking forward to when this clown is out of office and Twitter can stop pretending the Emperor has clothes.

I hope they finally fucking ban him then.

[Elegiac]

Because you have a right of peacefully protesting, not violently protesting destroying and looting innocent citizen's property.

And people don't have a right to life or equality under the law. Okay, Felicia.

Also, thanks for admitting your political position on the subject is basically just being the tone police.

[Soliloque]

So you’re ok with one side murdering and oppressing people because of their skin color or political beliefs?

How did you get to this conclusion?
Naturally I'm against it.
The thing is that I don't care which political side does the evil, I condem it regardless, while many here turn into complete 100% apologists when it's from the left.

[Santti]

I mean, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers /shrug.

At least there is still something when it comes those, as ridiculous and ignorant as they are.

[Elegiac]

How did you get to this conclusion?
Naturally I'm against it.
The thing is that I don't care which political side does the evil, I condem it regardless, while many here turn into complete 100% apologists when it's from the left.

You do realise that insisting people obey the rules "just because" in a fundamentally unjust system is just helping to enforce that injustice, right?

Agnosticism is not automatically a virtuous position.

[postman1782]

How did you get to this conclusion?
Naturally I'm against it.
The thing is that I don't care which political side does the evil, I condem it regardless, while many here turn into complete 100% apologists when it's from the left.

Point to it. I haven't seen anyone condoning violence from the left, but I have seen about a dozen people defend Rittenhouse on this forum alone when he murdered 2 people and maimed another person after illegally carrying a rifle to a protest.

[Soliloque]

All it should tell you, logically, is that you didn't specifically use "innocent people" before. We're comparing buildings with actual living people. Buildings will never win out, no matter how much you bleat about it.

Why is this a /or/ situation to you?
Is it difficult to condemn both violence to people and destruction of those same people's property?

Aren't both wrong? Why is one getting a pass?

[Santti]

In fairness, water isn't wet

The "ideology" of fire being hot then. You meanie.

[Soliloque]

Point to it. I haven't seen anyone condoning violence from the left, but I have seen about a dozen people defend Rittenhouse on this forum alone when he murdered 2 people and maimed another person after illegally carrying a rifle to a protest.

I said "evil", not just physical violence.
Setting the line at "murder" is one of the tricks these apologists love to use to condone all the evils of the left, as if "murder" is the only bad thing someone can do to one another.

Ironically they play the same game the nazi did, when they destroyed Jew's private properties and stores even if the owner wasn't harmed in the attack.
Guess in the end they're just the same.

[Elegiac]

Why is this a /or/ situation to you?
Is it difficult to condemn both violence to people and destruction of those same people's property?

Aren't both wrong? Why is one getting a pass?

Why are you asking when your intent here is to point out "hypocrisy" rather than understand the ideology behind civil disobedience?

[Gelannerai]

How did you get to this conclusion?
Naturally I'm against it.
The thing is that I don't care which political side does the evil, I condem it regardless, while many here turn into complete 100% apologists when it's from the left.

Glad to see that you’re against it, because the language you were using in your earlier posts imply a very tribal view on the subject. Now, do you think that property damage is an equal sin to taking someone’s life?

[Elegiac]

Ironically they play the same game the nazi did, when they destroyed Jew's private properties and stores even if the owner didn't die in the process.

Please point out where the protesters are acting on behalf of a state campaign of violence and oppression against a particular minority demographic?

Because if you can't, they aren't the same. Stop lying.

[Soliloque]

You do realise that insisting people obey the rules "just because" in a fundamentally unjust system is just helping to enforce that injustice, right?

First you need to prove they live in this "fundamentally unjust" system, kiddo.
You can't just make the claim and then immediately jump to demanding the issue be solved.

First you need to prove the issue is real. Do your work.
You can't just come out pretending the moon is made of cheese without bringing some serious evidence of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Glad to see that you’re against it, because the language you were using in your earlier posts imply a very tribal view on the subject. Now, do you think that property damage is an equal sin to taking someone’s life?

Do you think property damage is justified because it's less harmful than taking someone's life?