Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally. [W:349]

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

OK, whatever.I am sure the "news" knows the inner workings of the investigation.

It knows who's been hired and where the investigations are now expanding into, to say nothing of who now is in the investigations sights.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

Yes <meaningless off topic parts deleted>

So what about the 1000s of white members, who are they racists to? oooops.
SO here we are at the same point, you claim is factually wrong and no honest discussion can be had until you simply admit that fact.
BLM =/= racists Nazis or white supremacists.

 

[Mason66]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

It knows who's been hired and where the investigations are now expanding into, to say nothing of who now is in the investigations sights.

You consider that proof of it ramping up? Ok I guess.

 

[Conaeolos]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

So what about the 1000s of white members, who are they racists to? oooops.
SO here we are at the same point, you claim is factually wrong and no honest discussion can be had until you simply admit that fact.
BLM =/= racists Nazis or white supremacists.

No oops. You know people support racist movements against their own race right? Would a black white supremacist be any less abhorrent? Or a Jewish nazi? A racist idea is an racist idea and a race a race.

That is not even close to a fact and is very much an opinion at best and a feeling at worst. But sure I guess we can leave this discussion there. I am confident in my statements, and it seem you thought I never had a point to begin with. If you or anyone else have any other follow up questions happy to answer.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

1.)No oops. You know people support racist movements against their own race right?
2.) That is not even close to a fact and is very much an opinion at best and a feeling at worst.
3.) But sure I guess we can leave this discussion there. I am confident in my statements, and it seem you thought I never had a point to begin with.
4.) If you or anyone else have any other follow up questions happy to answer.

1.) riiiiiiiight. All the white people in BLM are racist towards . . .white people. LMAO Ill tell this lady that according to you(with zero evidence and facts to back it up) she is racists!!



2.) actually it is a fact no matter how much you deny it and its already been proven.
3.)Your confidence is meaningless to the subject, it just shows how either severely dishonest or topically ignorant your statements are. You can be confident that 2+2=675 its meaningless. It was a fact your claim was wrong and it will be fact tomorrow too. Nobody honest, educated and objective will ever fall for it. This is further proven by you inability to bring one fact to the table that makes your false claim true. The definition of the word racist doesnt even fit your made up feelings, its completely illogical.
4.) No new questions are needed. Its been proven your claim is factually wrong. You still havent been able to support your claim that BLM = racists. Until you can your post will continue to fail and you got nothing but your factually wrong feelings. And we will be happy to point out that fact over and over.

Fact Remains
BLM =/= racists Nazis/white supremacists

when you have ONE fact that proves otherwise please let us know, thanks!!!

 

[Moon]

The danger in all this is the misidentification of people based on a simple photo, as has already happened. There is no justification for ruining the lives if people who had nothing to do with the rally or its aftermath.

 

[Conaeolos]

The definition of the word racist doesnt even fit your made up feelings, its completely illogical.

The only difference in our definitions of "racist" is in phrasing. One is phrased in the affirmative and one the negative. Affirmative definitions are more specific than negative definitions.

Racism is the promotion of attitudes, policies and laws based on race.

Verses

Racism is being against-x racial group

By your definition most of the white supremacists which are labeled in this article are excluded. It might be wise to keep this in mind in future discussions.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) The only difference in our definitions of "racist" is in phrasing. One is phrased in the affirmative and one the negative. Affirmative definitions are more specific than negative definitions.
2.) Racism is the promotion of attitudes, policies and laws based on race.
3.) verses Racism is being against-x racial group
4.) By your definition most of the white supremacists which are labeled in this article are excluded.
5.) It might be wise to keep this in mind in future discussions.

1.) there is no "our" definitions theres only the definition and nothing you have shown fits said definition or makes your claim true, your prove wrong claim its still remains false.
2.) i can accept that sorta fits with the actual definition and that further proves your claim to be false, thanks
3.) there is no verses, that is part of the definition and it also proves your claim to be factually false
4.) here we go again with you posting retarded lies and strawmen again LMAO, please quote where i gave "my" definition of racism, if you cant its a lie you made up, thanks
5.) it might be wise to not post lies and strawmen that nobody said and your posts wont easily be proven wrong and exposed in the furture

so here we are you made another post with ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim. Please let us know when you have ONE fact that makes your claim true . . one. Thanks you

 

[Conaeolos]

1.) there is no "our" definitions theres only the definition and nothing you have shown fits said definition or makes your claim true, your prove wrong claim its still remains false.
2.) i can accept that sorta fits with the actual definition and that further proves your claim to be false, thanks
3.) there is no verses, that is part of the definition and it also proves your claim to be factually false
4.) here we go again with you posting retarded lies and strawmen again LMAO, please quote where i gave "my" definition of racism, if you cant its a lie you made up, thanks
5.) it might be wise to not post lies and strawmen that nobody said and your posts wont easily be proven wrong and exposed in the furture

so here we are you made another post with ZERO facts to support your proven wrong claim. Please let us know when you have ONE fact that makes your claim true . . one. Thanks you

If we are working off the same definition, the one I posted: racism is any ideology that supports policies, attitudes and laws which are based on race. How can you say BLM message isn't racist?

Your question to disprove me asked which race their message was against, remember - that is from a reading exclusive to the second definition. For as you may have noticed such classifications is included in the affirmative definition listed above.

A policy that say white kids receive x is the same as a policy which says black kids receive y. The anti is anyone not included. Thus many alt-right positions are racist as they are based in race.

Are you saying it's a straw man to say BLM advocates exclusive policies, attitudes and laws which are pro-black at the exclusion of other racial categories? As that would certainly be a follow up question.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) If we are working off the same definition, the one I posted: racism is any ideology that supports policies, attitudes and laws which are based on race. How can you say BLM message isn't racist?
2.) Your question to disprove me asked which race their message was against, remember - that is from a reading exclusive to the second definition. For as you may have noticed such classifications is included in the affirmative definition listed above.
3.) A policy that say white kids receive x is the same as a policy which says black kids receive y. The anti is anyone not included. Thus many alt-right positions are racist as they are based in race.
4.) Are you saying it's a straw man to say BLM advocates exclusive policies which are pro-black at the exclusion of other racial categories? As that would certainly be a follow up question.

1.) easy because thats not quite accurate nor does BLM do that :shrug:
2.) correct my question that destroyed your false claim asked who BLM was racists against, you stated white people and that was proven factually wrong and that is still the case. You have presented ZERO facts to change that
3.) meaningless to your claim being factually wrong
4.) im pointing out almost EVERYTHING you post is a straw man because NOBODY said it lol hence proven by your inability to quote me saying what you claimed i did (why not?)

The issue your posts will continue to have and why they are so easily defeated is that honest educated and objective people wont fall for them. The ONLY thing on the table is for you to present ONE fact that makes your factually proven wrong claim true. so far you cant do it. Now you will make another post full of feelings, opinions, lies and strawmen DESPERATELY hoping to deflect and get off topic, and to discuss YOUR philosophies but it wont have ONE fact supporting your claim making it true. not one LOL. Please let us know when you can, thanks!
In fact i will simply not even entertain anything else in the slightest until you can. No honest discussion can be had until you accept facts.

Facts: BLM =/= racist nazis/white supremacists

 

[Conaeolos]

easy because thats not quite accurate nor does BLM do that

What is not quite right about that definition?

So just to clarify, in your assessment BLM does not advocate policies, attitudes and laws which are based on being "black"?

 

[AGENT J]

What is not quite right about that definition?

So just to clarify, in your assessment BLM does not advocate policies, attitudes and laws which are based on being "black"?

Sigh . . . .
to continue in good faith and prove you are interested in honest conversation you must back up your false claim with ONE single fact that makes it true or simply admit you can not. I will not be discussing any retarded lies, strawmen or deflections. If you can't support your already prove wrong claim, thats your issue. So, PLEASE present one fact that supports your claim and makes it truth or admit you cant, otherwise you will continue to lose. Thanks!

 

[Conaeolos]

Sigh . . . .
to continue in good faith and prove you are interested in honest conversation you must back up your false claim with ONE single fact that makes it true or simply admit you can not. I will not be discussing any retarded lies, strawmen or deflections. If you can't support your already prove wrong claim, thats your issue. So, PLEASE present one fact that supports your claim and makes it truth or admit you cant, otherwise you will continue to lose. Thanks!

Pretend I never made a "false" claim and answer those two simple questions. And I will either admit your right I had my definition wrong and ran off the deep end, defend my definition is correct or provide the many facts which show BLM does advocate policies, attitudes & laws based on race verses the noble elements of the civil rights movement who sought the removal of policies, laws and attitudes based on race.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Pretend I never made a "false" claim and answer those two simple questions.
2.) And I will either admit your right I had my definition wrong and ran off the deep end
3.) defend my definition is correct or provide the many facts which show BLM does advocate policies, attitudes & laws based on race verses the noble elements of the civil rights movement who sought the removal of policies, laws and attitudes based on race.

1.) that will never happen because you havent proven to be interested in honest conversation nor can you support your false claim and i have asked you probably like 15 times and now you want me to just do what you say? LMAO. You WANT the conversation to go else where but like i said, it wont until you show good faith.
2.) it has nothign to do with me, it has to do with facts. FACTS are right and your claim was proven wrong already.
3.) if you could show BLM = Racists you would of done it already LOL but you cant so again here we all reading your desperate deflections lies strawman and reframes :shrug:
Its on you like it has been since the beginning. Its YOUR job to support your claims. So support your false claim with ONE fact that makes it true, admit you were wrong or continue with your posts failing one after another.

Facts: BLM =/= racist nazis/white supremacists

 

[Conaeolos]

Its on you like it has been since the beginning. Its YOUR job to support your claims. So support your false claim with ONE fact that makes it true, admit you were wrong or continue with your posts failing one after another

Well this sounds like the end to our dialogue. Here are three facts I'll leave on plus my feelings on the matter at the end as the cherry on the cake.

BLM represents an ideology which promotes policies, attitudes and laws based on racial ground. That is the definition of racist policies, those policies even with good intentions lead to crime, murder and suffering. Supporting BLM is in my opinion equivalent to supporting any supremacist group, the blood and chaos is on the hands of those who legitimize and encourage them. I will resist, I will speak up and I will defend the victims. I find all of it abhorrent but I respect and will defend anyone's right to speak and will continue to listen and be vigilant against the inevitable escalation of violence these racist ideas have shown to produce.

God bless you and may honesty and truth shine light on the lies and advocation of government supported racism.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Well this sounds like the end to our dialogue.
2.) Here are three facts I'll leave on plus my feelings on the matter at the end as the cherry on the cake.
3.) BLM represents an ideology which promotes policies, attitudes and laws based on racial ground.
4.) That is the definition of racist policies, those policies even with good intentions lead to crime, murder and suffering.
5.) Supporting BLM is in my opinion equivalent to supporting any supremacist group, the blood and chaos is on the hands of those who legitimize and encourage them. I will resist, I will speak up and I will defend the victims. I find all of it abhorrent but I respect and will defend anyone's right to speak and will continue to listen and be vigilant against the inevitable escalation of violence these racist ideas have shown to produce.
6.) God bless you and may honesty and truth shine light on the lies and advocation of government supported racism.

1.) it never started really because you made a factual wrong claim, it got exposed and i have asked you repeatedly to support it with facts that make it true and you haven't been able too.
2.) again your feelings are meaningless to facts but every post you make is defilement cherry on the cake since it furthers exposes your inability to provided any facts that support your proven wrong claims
3.) your OPINION, not a fact LMAO a cherry already
4.) See #4
5.) at least you called this opinion, but its still factually wrong because definitions of words and facts make it that way.

Where are your 3 facts?

6.) Thanks, you too. Hopefully you learned from your mistakes and in the future you wont post such dishonest, false claims, retarded lies and strawmen. I accept your concession and inability to support your claim.
facts remains BLM =/= racists nazis / white supremacists.

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

It was Republicans that did away with the "Fairness Doctrine" that required both sides of an issue or debate to be heard.

The Fairness Doctrine was affirmative action for speech. Ludicrous.

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

Everybody should be condemning these people. Everybody should condemn Muslim terrorism as well.

Did the left ever try to expose the identities of Americans who support Islamic jihad?

 

[radcen]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

I have absolutely no love for Nazis. However, this kind of thing may give a good sense of self-rightous satisfaction but is contrary to American values.

Using guilt by association or trying to publicly shame a private citizen exercising their free speech rights is unacceptable. If any of them were engaged in the violence, name names and make them famous. Otherwise, let private citizens be private citizens.

I didn't contribute any money during the last Presidential campaign. The overriding reason was not because of a lack of motivation but the real chilling effect of the IRS targeting Republicans and right-leaning groups. No one needs to know my personal or political affiliations unless I choose to tell them. Being at a public rally does not constitute "telling the world". Although they should be ashamed, public shaming simply justifies the same thing for any other "value" where people disagree.

How would public shaming of the Nazis be any different from public shaming of private citizens at a gay pride parade or BLM or Antifa rally? Do we start publishing photos of NAMBLA supporters next? Do we send memes of modern day Wiccans to people and ask "Is this your employee?" Do we start hounding private citizens for not supporting Israel or being a communist or being in the sex industry?

This is McCarthyism for the 21st century.

Good post. I hope this hasn't already been covered, but I just found the thread and I'm not reading 37 pages.

People need to be careful. Personally, I believe Mr Quinn should be able to sue all those who refuse to acknowledge they made a mistake for libel/slander.

Amateur Sleuths Aim to Identify Charlottesville Marchers, but Sometimes Misfire

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html

Quote from article:
A man at the rally had been photographed wearing an “Arkansas Engineering” shirt, and the amateur investigators found a photo of Mr. Quinn that looked somewhat similar. They were both bearded and had similar builds.

By internet frenzy standards, that was proof enough.

 

[Wilbur Mercer]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

Very hard to have any sympathy at all for anyone who might lose their job for being "outed" as an American 2017 Nazi.

Nope. Not gonna lose any sleep over it.

Thats because youre a fascist - think like me, or you have no Right to exist.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Wilbur Mercer]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

I dunno, do BLM and Antifa support genocide?

Yes, they do. Furthermore 'Nazis' and 'white supremacists' TALK about their beliefs, while BLM and ANTIFA illegally silence others with violence. The riot, smash, burn and **** on everything in sight. They attack with bats, sticks, clubs, rocks, bottles, 'flame throwers', pepper spray and piss balloons. They throw their own feces like chimps, they throw molotov cocktails, they loot, they spit on people, etc., etc. They do this in 'opposition' to people who have already suffered the oppression of obtaining permits, to exercise their Rights. They commit mass violence, in masks, for the purpose of coercing political concession. This is the definition of 'terrorism'. So, while 'Nazis' and 'white supremacists' have ugly thoughts, BLM and ANTIFA are not only terrorists, but bona fide fascists, seeking single party rule, by silencing, marginalizing and ostracizing anyone who holds unapproved beliefs.

At the KKK rally, who wore masks and deprived others of their Rights?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Wilbur Mercer]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

"Why won't someone think of the Nazis?"

If you dont support Nazi's Right to Free Association, Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Equal Representation, then you do not support the fundamental Human Rights you pretend to, with your fraudulent moral superiority.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[CMPancake]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

If you dont support Nazi's Right to Free Association, Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Equal Representation, then you do not support the fundamental Human Rights you pretend to, with your fraudulent moral superiority.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

I support Nazis right to free speech, but I also support the right to free speech for people who post the pictures of those Nazis and shame them for their advocacy of genocide.

Oh, and unless you want to strap on a pair of boots and hump a 240B, get out of here with your "holier than thou" **** while mitigating the damage done by white supremacists.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

I support Nazis right to free speech, but I also support the right to free speech for people who post the pictures of those Nazis and shame them for their advocacy of genocide.

Oh, and unless you want to strap on a pair of boots and hump a 240B, get out of here with your "holier than thou" **** while mitigating the damage done by white supremacists.

I really do worry that regular people might be mislabeled as Nazis in this campaign. Most of the people that gathered for this weren't white supremacists, just as most of the people who gathered on the anti-protestors side weren't actually in Antifa.

Everyone who had a tiki torch deserves what's coming to them, though.

 

[JamesBY]

Re: Do you know me? I was at a white supremacists' rally.

If you dont support Nazi's Right to Free Association, Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Equal Representation, then you do not support the fundamental Human Rights you pretend to, with your fraudulent moral superiority. Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

That's not the issue, though, is it? They came with torches, clubs, and guns, and in that case they have the right to be beat down.