a whole lot of goalpost moving (current threat vs. 'historically'), strawmanning (no one suggested left wing violence shouldn't be addressed at all), and disingenuous camboy 'arguments' (some vacuous commonplace like "x doesn't necessarily mean / rule out that y is still true / false", suggesting something while avoiding to make an actual claim, only to fall back to "well i didn't explicitly say x is true / false" when called out) to dodge a concrete reply to my point about the danger of right wing political violence, and the borderline insane belief that violence is somehow a net positive talking point for the right...

Im glad i have a reputation for making arguments, which is a stark contrast from the reputation of anti-intellectual argument-free HG

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 18 2019 06:49am

Why do you hate context and a differentiated look at things?




The danger of extremist ideology is not limited to its murderous aspects.




I never said it is a net positive for the right. Extremism of all forms sucks and should be condemned, plain and simple. It was YOU who brought up a chart which suggested that "left-wing violence is less bad than right-wing violence". You are the one who alluded to the "b-but the right is much worse than the left"-talking point.

two can play that game. it's just that i'd feel incredibly stupid and disingenuous to do that unironically, ignoring crucial parts of a point and pretending it says the opposite of what it actually does. to each their own though...



why do you hate the distinction between 'relevant context' and 'obious deflection attempt'?

true, but if its most severe form is that one-sided, it's not a good look for that side to suggest the others are the 'real' problem.

were you trying to make it that obvious, or does it simply come so naturally to you that you didn't even notice? that's a textbook example for the camboy 'argument' right there: no, you deliberately avoided making a concrete claim, so now you can fall back to 'i never said it', even though your suggestion was clear. thanks for playing.

You should feel "stupid and disingenuous" because thats what you are.


You time and again refuse to engage with anyone's arguments and think calling people names is a good replacement.

I fully recognize you are trash and your post was meant as an insult, but even in your smears and response to other people you admitted I have arguments and you associate me with making certain types of arguments. Lying about the merits of my arguments or not liking my arguments is not a refutation.
I contrasted this with your own argument-free anti-intellectualism.




There is nothing inherently invalid or wrong about the form you characterized as 'x doesn't necessarily mean / rule out that y is still true / false", nor is correcting you when you falsely claim I say and mean things that I do not. Those are valid responses.
Calling valid arguments that refute what you say 'disingenuous, vacuous and dishonest' rather than actually trying to refute them is reflective of your poor character and disinterest in actually being correct and intellectually sound.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 18 2019 07:35am

i know the irony of this is probably lost on you, but this is just too good. this was your very first post in our little 'conversation':



so please, keep crying, white nationalist apologist...

______________________________





This post was edited by fender on Nov 18 2019 07:41am

sub-80 loser cant differentiate between insults and using insults instead of making arguments.. resorts to doubling down on false claims of white nationalism instead of making arguments in true HG fashion.

Hillary Clinton was collapsing and having seizures while on camera. If something was serious with Trump it would of all ready been leaked. ( might be too much for a child of hitler to comprehend.)

This post was edited by Landmine on Nov 18 2019 07:44am

there's literally nothing i could say about you that would insult you more than your own posts.

oh, and your mental gymnastics to defend stephen miller and discredit the people exposing his white nationalism are posts that everyone can read, so please spare me the fake outrage, white nationalist apologist.

HG fully deserves to be insulted for falsely claiming people are 'white nationalists' and 'white nationalist apologists' and for bringing up my name by falsely calling me 'disingenuous'.

Unsurprisingly he has trouble differentiating between valid and deserved insults alongside sound arguments vs falsely smearing people as white nationalists and refusing to make arguments to defend his claims.