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.

 

[Darat]

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

Sort of. What it seems to be is that the claims of Trump et all that illegal immigrants are predominately rapists, mental patients looking for a new asylum, murderers and members of gangs that engage in drug distribution and sex trafficking may not be entirely accurate.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If the SA / Gestapo arrested you, you *were* a subversive.
If the Stasi/KGB/securitate arrested you, you *were* a reactionary enemy of the state
and if ICE arrests you, you *are* an illegal immigrant or violent left wing terrorist.

All proven by courts and investigations by the institutions themselves. Legal banalities like the right to a trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty or right to council are only for party members.

The Bush II administration opened they way to this future by abandoning rules of law with internment centers like Guantanamo bay and successive governments lacked the will to remove these foundations for fascism and even expanded on them. Sure the Republicans more enthusiastically than the Democrats, but still. And all because so many US citizens actually believe their own propaganda that the US is the most righteous nation on earth, that only acts altruistically and carries the burden of protecting the world all alone. Your country has the rot run deep and the MAGA cult is what is grown out of that.

 

[wareyin]

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.

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?



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?

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.

I brought up your anti-trans rhetoric because you specifically asked for examples of your right-wing views. Since then, you’ve used it as an excuse to derail the thread with hyperbolic rants about denying all trans people the ability to use public bathrooms based on a total of two bad actors found across several decades. I’m not going to help you derail this into yet another one of your hobbyhorse threads.

The fact remains that you downplayed a violent insurrection as a "wander" and continue to push the myth of "insecure" elections. Those aren't centrist positions. For someone with a signature about the "dehumanization of a people," you sure spend a lot of time trying to justify the exclusion of an entire group. If you’re tired of being called a partisan, stop acting like a spokesperson for the far right.

 

[Trausti]

I brought up your anti-trans rhetoric because you specifically asked for examples of your right-wing views.

I so, so, so much want lefties to keep attacking anyone as "right wing" if they don't believe men in dresses are actually girls. Can you keep this up through 2028?

 

[wareyin]

I so, so, so much want lefties to keep attacking anyone as "right wing" if they don't believe men in dresses are actually girls. Can you keep this up through 2028?

Keep on not hating trans people? Sure, I can do that through 2028 and beyond. It’s not the "gotcha" you think it is to point out that the right-wing obsession with this topic is weird and off-topic.

 

[Trausti]

Keep on not hating trans people? Sure, I can do that through 2028 and beyond. It’s not the "gotcha" you think it is to point out that the right-wing obsession with this topic is weird and off-topic.

Thanks!

 

[johnny karate]

According to actor Giancarlo Esposito, in an interview with Variety, the resistance might have to take the form of a lot of dead martyrs - not him, though:

Giancarlo Esposito Says It’s ‘Time for a Revolution’ as Trump’s White House Fuels a ‘Feeling of Civil War in the Streets’

Giancarlo Esposito speaks out at Sundance as immigration protests and political tensions shape the festival’s final year in Park City.

variety.com

50 million of you may have to die for the revolution, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

Finally, someone has put *checks notes* Giancarlo Esposito in his place!

I guess when ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on the Minnesota protestors becomes too embarrassing to maintain, you've got to work with what you've got.

 

[johnny karate]

Colleen Francis
Darren Merager
Alexis Black
Eddie Izzard
Alex Drummond
And many more.

The thing you claim never happens happens a whole lot.

Says the person who denies over 1,000 assaults against police officers on January 6th.

 

[johnny karate]

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

Says the person who denies over 1,000 assaults against police officers on January 6th and ignores the fact that the people who committed those assaults were all pardoned by Trump.

 

[johnny karate]

I so, so, so much want lefties to keep attacking anyone as "right wing" if they don't believe men in dresses are actually girls. Can you keep this up through 2028?

I've got bad news for you: No one cares about this weird obsession anymore. We had elections last year that proved it. You're bringing it up in a thread about a historically massive resistance against a fascist regime that murders people in the streets, and generally sucks in every area of governance. People hate the Trump administration and they have a lot of reasons to do so. For most people, whether or not some trans kid plays JV lacrosse has dropped far down their list of concerns.

 

[Trausti]

I've got bad news for you: No one cares about this weird obsession anymore. We had elections last year that proved it. You're bringing it up in a thread about a historically massive resistance against a fascist regime that murders people in the streets, and generally sucks in every area of governance. People hate the Trump administration and they have a lot of reasons to do so. For most people, whether or not some trans kid plays JV lacrosse has dropped far down their list of concerns.

If the Republican in the next presidential election can run an ad that says "The Democrat is for they/them, The Republican is for you," I would be much appreciative.