So what form does the resistance take?

[dirtywick]

You don’t get to claim you’re "clarifying disinformation" while simultaneously trying to rewrite history. Calling a violent breach of the Capitol a harmless "wander" is a lie. The fact that it was a coordinated attempt to overturn an election makes it an insurrection by definition.

there's hours of violent footage and a bunch of evidence that it was part of a larger election fraud scheme. j6 was a singular, intentionally and organized to be violent event as a part of a plot organized by the sitting president to retain power after an election in which he lost. period, that's not an exaggeration, it's a factual recounting of what happened.

anything other than that is wrong, or lying.

 

[wareyin]

I love it when a thread stops being about the topic and becomes about one of the posters. I wonder if there's a pattern in it, some commonality between all the threads it happens to?

It does seem to happen whenever a poster claims things about themselves that are completely contrary to their post history. It’s especially common when that same poster keeps asking everyone else to "label" them or can't help but drag their specific hobbyhorse into every single thread they join. The pattern is pretty hard to miss.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have a problem with self-hating right-wingers insisting that opportunistic vandals and looters are actually not only left-wing protestors, but the majority of left-wing protesters.

Interesting that you seem to have a bigger problem with misattribution of partisanship and volume than you have with the actual criminal activity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I also have a problem with comparing protests about a murder by a law enforcement officer with an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power, instigated by the politician who was about to legitimately lose it.

OKay, back this up just a wee bit. You're taking umbrage at the *reason* for the protest/riot. Fine, go ahead and do that - by all means favor one motivation over the other.

But the reason isn't the only aspect of these riots. The impacts and actions taken by the rioters are also part of the issue. Do you think that the reason for a riot is sufficient to excuse criminal activity, damage, and harm done by the rioters? Do you think the reason for a riot is sufficient to justify criminal harm done to bystanders and the property of people who are neither the group being objected to nor a member of the riot itself?

 

[Thermal]

Quick reminder about these vicious criminals ICE is corralling up: it has been found that only 5% of the immigrants had a violent crime conviction. 73% had no criminal convictions at all. ICE is not going after bad guys, and when they catch one, it appears accidental.

https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convictions-73-no-convictions

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don’t get to claim you’re "clarifying disinformation" while simultaneously trying to rewrite history. Calling a violent breach of the Capitol a harmless "wander" is a lie. The fact that it was a coordinated attempt to overturn an election makes it an insurrection by definition.

Your views haven't moved toward the center since you called yourself a conservative ten years ago. They’ve moved steadily to the right. Pushing the myth of "insecure" elections to justify financial barriers to voting and forcing anti-trans rants into nearly every post you make isn't centrism. It’s still a rant even if it’s only "a few sentences" when you can't seem to stop talking about it. Based on your signature and your strident complaints about calling MAGA Nazis right up until the chat leak about them loving Hitler dropped, it's clear you're walking the walk but just don't like wearing the label.

Sure, sure. You're totally accurate, and all of your views are the absolute perfectly correct view.

Clearly there are no weaknesses at all with the US voting system, everything is perfect and cannot possibly be improved. Win for you!

And clearly there's no physical differences between males and females at all, and nobody can ever tell the difference. It's perfectly fine to give males the right by law to override female consent, and females should just STFU and let strange males look at them naked if they want to, failure to do so is totally bigotry.

And of course, every single person who holds even the slightest conservative policy view on any topic at all is completely indistinguishable from an actual for realsies nazi - you should totally kill all of them before they can do harm.

Sounds eminently reasonable and well thought out. Clearly you live up to the objective of "when people tell you who they are, believe them". It's abundantly apparent that you *never* override another person's identity and tell them who and what they are based on your perfect mind-reading skills.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When you have to cherry pick over decades just to find five names, and three of those people haven't actually been accused of anything, it's pretty telling. You're trying to build a case out of thin air to justify your hostility, which is exactly why no one believes your "centrist" act.

Uh huh. So do you agree with Safe-Keeper that phsycially intact males never go into female intimate spaces, and it's something completely imaginary then?

I guess the transphobes have been taught to imagine non-transitioned guys roaming female locker rooms, which is patently ridiculous.

Why is it so important to you that males get to override female boundaries and look at naked females if they want to, and females lose the right to consent?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I love it when a thread stops being about the topic and becomes about one of the posters. I wonder if there's a pattern in it, some commonality between all the threads it happens to?

Yes, there is a pattern. That pattern is a small group of posters who feel justified in persistently denigrating other members by spreading falsehoods about them, and derailing any attempt at civil conversation by attacking the character of others instead of discussing the merits of the arguments.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It does seem to happen whenever a poster claims things about themselves that are completely contrary to their post history. It’s especially common when that same poster keeps asking everyone else to "label" them or can't help but drag their specific hobbyhorse into every single thread they join. The pattern is pretty hard to miss.

Oh FFS. I'm not the one who introduced the topic. YOU introduced the topic. And you did so by saying something that is maliciously false about me.

There absolutely is a pattern - several of you frequently introduce that topic into other, unrelated discussions. And you almost always do it as a personal attack against a fellow poster, in the form of a strawman that misrepresents both the core of the topic itself and the views of those to whom you persistently express contempt and hatred.

How about you don't bring it up at all? Give that a shot, and I bet you'll end up with a lot less topic leakage.