Right Wing Terrorism

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't see that at all.

What don't you see, that he's very popular among the rank and file of the Republican Party or that his popularity is being underestimated ?

IMO anyone who suggests that the Republican Party candidate in 2024 will be anyone other than Donald Trump is underestimating his popularity. IMO the only way he wouldn't be the candidate is if he doesn't end up actually seeing it through - either because he withdraws from the race or he is unable to complete his run for legal reasons.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

Yes.



No. Are you and Tyr competing to see who can be the most ridiculous? One of the problems in the Republican Party is that the lunatics are running the asylum. Politicians are clowns pandering to an increasingly paranoid base, not maestros orchestrating the masses. Their rhetoric is irresponsible and stupid, but it's difficult to reconcile the weapons-grade nincompoopery of Boeberts and Greenes with "KNOWING FULL WELL"... anything. Those window-lickers?? How do they benefit, or, how do they think they benefit, from a nightclub shooting? People normally benefit from being perceived as victims. A more parsimonious explanation is that these performative demagogues are throwing caution to the window as they compete for attention. Normally, I'd say a politician wants power, but it's not clear to me that the MAGA types are interested in governing.

I saw a car last night dangerously threading through traffic. If he ended up killing a family of four, should I have concluded, "Well, that's what he WANTED to happen"? We are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, but we're also glorified monkeys prone to self-deception and rationalization. When it comes to tribal politics, people are particularly susceptible to fundamental attribution error.

The highlighted portions of your argument are at odds with each other. You acknowledge that they are not rational, but you dismiss that any of them wanted or are ok with shootings like this because it doesn't rationally gain them anything from your point of view. Do lunatics often behave in a way you'd call rational?

More than that, you're ignoring what they say and do. The goal is to end public participation by non-straight people, and if the law won't do that enough for them then they know the shootings will continue until the 'grooming' ends. That last part? Did you not notice how many right wing thinkers said some version of that? The most honest reaction from any right winger in this thread was when warp12 said he doesn't endorse the violence but he understands it.

Cain, warp12 has a better handle on this issue than you do.

Some of the right wing are just using the issue to get power, some of them really want to protect children and are ******* stupid enough to think the public existence of anyone not cishet is a sexual danger to them, and a lot of them flip that last one (want to deny public participation by anyone not cishet and think claiming they're 'groomers' will justify the laws and violence needed to do that).

The 'reckless indifference' vs 'intentionally evil' is more a spectrum than a binary state. You're thinking that the more recklessly indifferent they are, the less they are being intentionally evil. It can be both. They are being recklessly indifferent about their intentional evil.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't see that at all.

Blinders will have that effect.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Maybe among parts of the wackadoodle right pushing the whole groomer bit, <snip>

The wackadoodle right are the leaders of the Republican party.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Blinders will have that effect.

I am sure if/when Trump becomes the nominee again, Warp will "have seen it all along" and support Trump.. again.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

(the LGB Alliance had to reveal in court that not only are they funded by anti-gay right wing groups, but 95% of their members are cishet people).

Evidence for this, please? It would come in useful in an argument I'm having elsewhere.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The highlighted portions of your argument are at odds with each other. You acknowledge that they are not rational, but you dismiss that any of them wanted or are ok with shootings like this because it doesn't rationally gain them anything from your point of view. Do lunatics often behave in a way you'd call rational?

You have to do a couple of things to force this kind of misreading. 1) Not understand how idioms work; 2) Refuse to grapple with the highlighted question, "how do they think they benefit... from a nightclub shooting?" I am happy to continue entertaining the idea that their plan is unfolding as intended.

Quote:

More than that, you're ignoring what they say and do.

I admittedly do not closely follow the remarks of the Marjorie Taylor Greene crowd (just as I do not read all of the posts in Cancel Culture threads), but I did catch Boebert's comments after the shooting (but only because of the blowback she received) "The news out of Colorado Springs is absolutely awful. This morning the victims & their families are in my prayers. This lawless violence needs to end and end quickly."

So how do we make sense of that statement? Boebert hears the news and pumps her fists, "******* called it! In a few hours, I'll go on Facebook and pretend to be big sad, but my followers (and critics) will understand how I really feel"?

Quote:

The goal is to end public participation by non-straight people, and if the law won't do that enough for them then they know the shootings will continue until the 'grooming' ends. That last part? Did you not notice how many right wing thinkers said some version of that? The most honest reaction from any right winger in this thread was when warp12 said he doesn't endorse the violence but he understands it.

I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect explanation and excuse sit next to each other in the human brain. Politics and violence unto themselves are difficult enough to process, but combining them multiplies the blinding effect.

Quote:

Some of the right wing are just using the issue to get power, some of them really want to protect children and are ******* stupid enough to think the public existence of anyone not cishet is a sexual danger to them, and a lot of them flip that last one (want to deny public participation by anyone not cishet and think claiming they're 'groomers' will justify the laws and violence needed to do that).

Just a moment earlier you were talking about "the goal," but now we're in a mishmash of the right-wing. Let's restrict ourselves to specific people. Smartcooky named individuals, though I would not lump Greene & Boebert with DeSantis.

Quote:

The 'reckless indifference' vs 'intentionally evil' is more a spectrum than a binary state. You're thinking that the more recklessly indifferent they are, the less they are being intentionally evil. It can be both. They are being recklessly indifferent about their intentional evil.

Thanks for trying to tell me what I'm thinking. If it were not so amusing, it would be amazing that you know what others "really" believe -- numerous thread participants, even public figures. They can say one thing, but you know exactly what they "meant." You know exactly where they're coming from, even if it's the other end of the spectrum horeshoe grid dodecahedron. Stunning cognitive empathy of the Other plus faux sophistication: It's not some simpleton "binary," maaaaaan, it's a "spectrum" between "reckless indifference" vs. "intentional evil." That's a subtle kind of insult: That you think I think in redundant terms: to be reckless is to be indifferent; for a human to be "evil" probably means their actions are intentional. And here I foolishly thought I was being reasonably clear when it came to intentional recklessness.

Learning where people are coming from is an important skill/talent/ability. I'm inclined to believe those who in effect say, "Well, you've got to understand that my political enemies are motivated by evil" tend to be pretty bad at it. Granted, I try not to obsess over the Greenes & Boeberts, so I'm open to a compelling counter-narrative. I also don't obsess over the JFK assassination, yet I'm still presumptuous enough to believe that those who know umpteen more details nevertheless manage to get one big thing wrong.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Was the person driving the car a religious fanatic who hated pedestrians and viewed them as an abomination in the eyes of their god? If so, then yes, I would say they definitely wanted to kill pedestrians.

I managed to keep up with him for a good mile because he hit several red lights (not people). He was trying to dodge other cars -- successfully as far as I know. I would not be surprised if there's a steel coffin in his near future.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

You have to do a couple of things to force this kind of misreading. 1) Not understand how idioms work; 2) Refuse to grapple with the highlighted question, "how do they think they benefit... from a nightclub shooting?" I am happy to continue entertaining the idea that their plan is unfolding as intended.

Naw, you didn't use the idiom correctly if what I understood isn't what you wanted to say. 'The inmates are running the asylum' means the 'crazy' (least reasonable or having the least grasp on the reality) people are in charge, in this case of the conservative movement in the US. You used this to advance the idea that their motivations are incompatible with being ok with the shooting(s) and must still be reasonable. By definition, the 'inmates' can't be reasonable.

As for two, I explicitly did. You even attempt to address it below. Duh.

Quote:

I admittedly do not closely follow the remarks of the Marjorie Taylor Greene crowd (just as I do not read all of the posts in Cancel Culture threads), but I did catch Boebert's comments after the shooting (but only because of the blowback she received) "The news out of Colorado Springs is absolutely awful. This morning the victims & their families are in my prayers. This lawless violence needs to end and end quickly."

So how do we make sense of that statement? Boebert hears the news and pumps her fists, "******* called it! In a few hours, I'll go on Facebook and pretend to be big sad, but my followers (and critics) will understand how I really feel"?

'I don't follow this but let me cherry pick' is a hell of an argument Cain. Such logic. So rational.

Maybe read some more and try to understand her other actions and arguments then maybe you'll know something. Start with Greene, who said in response to criticism of the groomer rehtoric driving additional violence,
“Pass my Protect Children’s Innocence Act to stop communist groomers like this from using state government power to take children away from their parents to allow a for-profit medical industry to chop off these confused children’s genitals before they are even old enough to vote.”

'They're chopping your kids dicks off!' in response to 'stop saying things that get people shot'.

Quote:

I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect explanation and excuse sit next to each other in the human brain. Politics and violence unto themselves are difficult enough to process, but combining them multiplies the blinding effect.

Well, yeah, and in political/ideological movements cultivating one can lead it to become the other once 'the inmates run the asylum'. At some point things like 'we have to act like we want to ban abortion to get power from our base' becomes actually banning abortion because they think abortion is murder. 'We have to pretend the gays and teachers are grooming kids for sex to gain political power' becomes shooting the rape threat to your kids. With keeping them from 'grooming' your kids for rape with their existing in public.

But hey, would you look at that! We're back to the answer to the question you said I refused to engage in! What they think they gain from shootings like this is pushing non-cishet people out of public participation, public life. Out of the thing they say they believe is a direct sexual threat to children. You know, the same thing they keep trying to get laws passed to do.

That's why you're getting responses like 'I don't agree with the violence but the grooming needs to stop'. Well, you aren't since you're not paying much attention to it, but that's what is being said. They are saying, 'yeah the gays are grooming our kids to rape them and chopping of your kid's dicks, but they shouldn't be shot, the law should deal with them' (or some variation of that since you will expand or contract the set under discussion to make the general summation seem unreasonable).

Quote:

Just a moment earlier you were talking about "the goal," but now we're in a mishmash of the right-wing. Let's restrict ourselves to specific people. Smartcooky named individuals, though I would not lump Greene & Boebert with DeSantis.

Why not? Why not address the general conservative movement?

The goal of DeSantis personally might be to gain political power, but he's doing it by advancing the conservative goal of the conservative movement in the US to get non-cishet people out of public life. He does it with legislation and statements from his reps. So why can't we lump that in with the other people advancing the same goal in the same line of work in the same ideological movement and the same political party?

Quote:

Thanks for trying to tell me what I'm thinking.

You're welcome; you obviously needed the help.

Quote:

If it were not so amusing, it would be amazing that you know what others "really" believe -- numerous thread participants, even public figures. They can say one thing, but you know exactly what they "meant." You know exactly where they're coming from, even if it's the other end of the spectrum horeshoe grid dodecahedron. Stunning cognitive empathy of the Other plus faux sophistication: It's not some simpleton "binary," maaaaaan, it's a "spectrum" between "reckless indifference" vs. "intentional evil." That's a subtle kind of insult: That you think I think in redundant terms: to be reckless is to be indifferent; for a human to be "evil" probably means their actions are intentional. And here I foolishly thought I was being reasonably clear when it came to intentional recklessness.

Learning where people are coming from is an important skill/talent/ability. I'm inclined to believe those who in effect say, "Well, you've got to understand that my political enemies are motivated by evil" tend to be pretty bad at it. Granted, I try not to obsess over the Greenes & Boeberts, so I'm open to a compelling counter-narrative. I also don't obsess over the JFK assassination, yet I'm still presumptuous enough to believe that those who know umpteen more details nevertheless manage to get one big thing wrong.

Yes, because everyone argues in good faith and it is wrong to notice when they don't. Where people say they are coming from is often, unsurprisingly, not actually where they are coming from. 'I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know you're wrong', is again, a hell of an argument Cain.

Tactically the conservative movement has weaponized trolling and 'reasonable' tones like those used in say science to break down traditional discourse. To derail it.

So if someone wants to call you arrogant, or imply it, lean in. Say you're personally awesome. Or dismiss it. Call yourself **** but correct ****. If someone says you can't be sure and there is wiggle room so they could be right (the anti-vax special of no 100% exists in science so I'm right) and because they could be right they know they are right, be just as confident in your better supported position.

Thus forgive me for not being in the habit any longer of putting in endless caveats and outs for the conclusions I'm advancing.

That said, naw, you're just wrong and using the existence of moral judgements to pretend it's only moral judgement. That I consider their goal of keeping non-cishet people out of public participation evil is in no way evidence that I'm wrong about that being their goal. Your argument as you presented it having the problem it does isn't a fault of mine. You did use reductive terms. Not redundant. 'Reckless indifference' isn't redundant. Their goal is intentionally evil, while accepting shootings like this as a consequence of how they are going about achieving that goal is reckless indifference. That it is as bad as intent doesn't mean it is the same as intent. Calling people 'groomers' to get political power and/or non-cishet people out of public life might not have the intent of increasing shootings like this one, but they don't care if it does. The first part is intentional (and evil) the second part is reckless indifference.

But I'm sure I've made a spelling/grammar error somewhere because this isn't worth proof-reading, so glomp onto that next.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

I managed to keep up with him for a good mile because he hit several red lights (not people). He was trying to dodge other cars -- successfully as far as I know. I would not be surprised if there's a steel coffin in his near future.

If that's the case, then your analogy fails.

[The Great Zaganza]

The question Republicans are asking themselves is not:" Do we want Trump as candidate in 2024?".
It's: "Will we have anything but disastrous Party infighting if we nominated anyone but Trump?"

[arayder]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The question Republicans are asking themselves is not:" Do we want Trump as candidate in 2024?".
It's: "Will we have anything but disastrous Party infighting if we nominated anyone but Trump?"

An ambitious 30 or 35 year old Republican might want Trump to run figuring he loses and the party consequently falls to pieces. Then the young Republican gets to be one of the heroes who lead the party out of the wilderness.

[MarkCorrigan]

It's going to be a straight fight between Trump and De Santis. I'm not sure which is worse to be honest. Probably Trump but ehhh...

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

It's going to be a straight fight between Trump and De Santis. I'm not sure which is worse to be honest. Probably Trump but ehhh...

DeSantis won't run against Trump

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

It's going to be a straight fight between Trump and De Santis. I'm not sure which is worse to be honest. Probably Trump but ehhh...

DeSantis would be worse. Trump is a known quantity; he had aspirations of tyranny but his pettiness, greed and general incompetence got in his own way at every turn, only succeeding in making a mockery of the office of the President and smearing ketchup on the wall. The actual lasting evil done under his watch was instigated by McConnell, who'd have done that with any R in office. DeSantis has all of Trump's hatefulness and vile demagoguery in a younger and more ambitious package.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Logical via modus foyle? Because it's certainly not logical via modus tollens or modus ponens.

Logical in that you pushing the vile lie that group A deserve murderous persecution for self-idenitifying should mean that you should equally accept the vile lie that group B deserved murderous persecution for self-identifying. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Logical in that you pushing the vile lie that group A deserve murderous persecution for self-idenitifying should mean that you should equally accept the vile lie that group B deserved murderous persecution for self-identifying. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The question Republicans are asking themselves is not:" Do we want Trump as candidate in 2024?".
It's: "Will we have anything but disastrous Party infighting if we nominated anyone but Trump?"

The Repubs will get rid of Trump, if Trump doesn't go all on his own via criminal trials or failing health.

What they want right now is a path away from Trumpism. Trump is not a winner he is a loser. Just ask all his supported candidates, most of which lost. The writing is on the wall.

Pull off the scab and get it done now.

I think enough of them have the survival instinct to get rid of Trump and that their numbers are growing. They will figure out a way.

The Repubs will never vote for a commie Dem. They do not need Trump. They did, or thought they did, but not anymore.

Trump never becomes President again.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Naw, you didn't use the idiom correctly if what I understood isn't what you wanted to say. 'The inmates are running the asylum' means the 'crazy' (least reasonable or having the least grasp on the reality) people are in charge, in this case of the conservative movement in the US. You used this to advance the idea that their motivations are incompatible with being ok with the shooting(s) and must still be reasonable. By definition, the 'inmates' can't be reasonable.

You're just doubling down on your hamfisted misreading. Initially, you seized upon "lunatics," ignoring "windowlickers" and "clowns" because you want to pretend I'm claiming they "can't be reasonable," as if, what, they're drooling blobs? That's what you inferred? You can't handle the argument at hand, so you must invent a new one, which is precisely what happened up-thread regarding a revocation of "woke cards." I'm saying they're dumb. I'm saying the plotting outlined by Smartcooky exceeds their ability. A child cannot plot a George R.R. Martin novel, but she can lie about stealing a cookie. There is quite a lot of ground between raving lunatic and dumb person. If it helps, imagine it as a "spectrum."

Quote:

'I don't follow this but let me cherry pick' is a hell of an argument Cain. Such logic. So rational.

Once again, the accusations are confessions. I'm "cherry-picking" a statement by one of the accused for the event in question?? Boebert laments the very violence smartcooky (somehow) knows she craves.

Quote:

Start with Greene, who said in response to criticism of the groomer rehtoric driving additional violence,
“Pass my Protect Children’s Innocence Act to stop communist groomers like this from using state government power to take children away from their parents to allow a for-profit medical industry to chop off these confused children’s genitals before they are even old enough to vote.”

'They're chopping your kids dicks off!' in response to 'stop saying things that get people shot'.

You know what would make this really compelling? If instead of calling for more legislation, she called for more mass shootings. OR if you had any evidence that she's in rare agreement with this "communist groomer" that her rhetoric for legislation causes mass shootings.

Quote:

But hey, would you look at that! We're back to the answer to the question you said I refused to engage in! What they think they gain from shootings like this is pushing non-cishet people out of public participation, public life. Out of the thing they say they believe is a direct sexual threat to children. You know, the same thing they keep trying to get laws passed to do.

It's funny you think you're remotely competent at arguing a position. You need evidence that they believe they're actively working to cause mass shootings. I went onto MTG's Twitter page, which now haunts my browser history, and she called the Colorado shooting a tragedy (naturally, she was downplaying it).

You seem to want an uber-cartoonish villain. Greene & Boebert are bad enough. The Bush administration was bad enough; we did not need to believe, nor did we have any good reason to believe, that those incompetent boobs masterminded the 9/11 terror attacks.

Quote:

That's why you're getting responses like 'I don't agree with the violence but the grooming needs to stop'. Well, you aren't since you're not paying much attention to it, but that's what is being said. They are saying, 'yeah the gays are grooming our kids to rape them and chopping of your kid's dicks, but they shouldn't be shot, the law should deal with them' (or some variation of that since you will expand or contract the set under discussion to make the general summation seem unreasonable).

This is substantially different than the original claim which is that they're purposely working to promote mass shootings. It should also go without saying that extraordinary claims require more evidence. There's a difference between saying MTG can run an eight-minute mile (which I can accept on someone's say-so) versus a four-minute mile (where I'll need to see a video); similar standards are going to apply when it comes to hard-core psychopathy.

Quote:

Yes, because everyone argues in good faith and it is wrong to notice when they don't [self-congratulatory nonsense]

Your problem One of your problems is that you're really bad at getting into other people's mental states. Oedipus' desire to have sex with Jocasta is not a desire to have incest. You're not cutting through any ********. You're a monument of it.

As for criticizing grammar and spelling, it is something I do with incompetent semantic wankers so that they proofread their work. I cannot say it helps a lot.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

If that's the case, then your analogy fails.

Uh huh. The analogy you did not understand fails to illustrate the position you didn't understand. OK. Well said.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

The Repubs will get rid of Trump, if Trump doesn't go all on his own via criminal trials or failing health.

What they want right now is a path away from Trumpism. Trump is not a winner he is a loser. Just ask all his supported candidates, most of which lost. The writing is on the wall.

Pull off the scab and get it done now.

I think enough of them have the survival instinct to get rid of Trump and that their numbers are growing. They will figure out a way.

The Repubs will never vote for a commie Dem. They do not need Trump. They did, or thought they did, but not anymore.

Trump never becomes President again.

I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.

From my perspective, I agree that the GOP needs to free itself of Trumpism but I'm not sure how many of the Republican rank and file share that view. I also think that the GOP needs to get rid of the loonies and the Christian Fundamentalists but if they do that, who is left ?

I'm pretty sure that if President Trump can run he will, and that if he runs his popularity with the Republican base will be enough to comfortably secure the nomination. Back in 2016 he had very little support from within the party - at least until he won the nomination at which point all those who had previously said (correctly IMO) that he was manifestly unfit to lead suddenly had a Damascene conversion - this time he has a core of support among members of Congress, state party leaders and some senior GOP figures. IMO the task of securing the nomination is significantly easier.

Once he has secured the GOP nomination then it's a toss-up. If inflation continues to be a big problem and people feel that the economy is bad then whatever candidate the Democratic Party puts up will have a huge uphill task.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Cain

Boebert laments the very violence smartcooky (somehow) knows she craves.

Your uber conservative schtick works so well that even when you aren't posting sarcastically it peeks through sometimes.

Are you really taking the stance that if a public official tweets one time that:

'the news about an event that my rhetoric helped to cause makes me look bad. I officially say that violence against those godless evil heathen gays who are perversions of nature is bad, mkay? <wink, wink>'

that you would take that at face value?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

Uh huh. The analogy you did not understand fails to illustrate the position you didn't understand. OK. Well said.

Clearly, you didn't understand what I said.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

You're just doubling down on your hamfisted misreading. Initially, you seized upon "lunatics," ignoring "windowlickers" and "clowns" because you want to pretend I'm claiming they "can't be reasonable," as if, what, they're drooling blobs? That's what you inferred? You can't handle the argument at hand, so you must invent a new one, which is precisely what happened up-thread regarding a revocation of "woke cards." I'm saying they're dumb. I'm saying the plotting outlined by Smartcooky exceeds their ability. A child cannot plot a George R.R. Martin novel, but she can lie about stealing a cookie. There is quite a lot of ground between raving lunatic and dumb person. If it helps, imagine it as a "spectrum."

Yes, 'windowlickers' and 'clowns' are so much more rational than lunatics. Holy Hel Cain, you just restated what I said your claim was but did so while saying I'm wrong and 'can't handle' your argument.

Saying they are literally too stupid to want violence while saying they don't would mean you're are arguing that they're drooling blobs. That's the 'George R.R. Martin plot' you think those people can't handle? Fomenting violence but saying you're not isn't some masterstroke, unless one has had one master of a stroke. How could they ever figure out simply lying.

Quote:

Once again, the accusations are confessions. I'm "cherry-picking" a statement by one of the accused for the event in question?? Boebert laments the very violence smartcooky (somehow) knows she craves.

Yes, that's what you're doing. Again, saying you're against something you actually like isn't some complex conspiracy. It's just basic lying.

I'm not going to claim that each of those people individually have beyond a reasonable doubt level statements proving they meet all of Smartcooky's bullet points, but it's a damn slight different than your flailing claim that they're all too stupid to have a handle on basic ass lying. More on their statements and actions later, but at some far passed point, the deniability stops being plausible.

Quote:

You know what would make this really compelling? If instead of calling for more legislation, she called for more mass shootings. OR if you had any evidence that she's in rare agreement with this "communist groomer" that her rhetoric for legislation causes mass shootings.

Their general stance is that if they don't get the legislation they want, the violence will continue. The grooming they're lying about (remember that part? The part where the grooming accusations are wildly vile unsupportable lies?) is the justification for both the violence and the shootings. Did you forget about Jaimee Michell on Turker Carlson? No, you never knew about it because you aren't paying attention but feel completely justified in making calls on the subject. (You do this a lot and it never ceases to be a losing way to argue.)

Now Carlson isn't influential enough for you to talk about what this GOP wants? That's not reasonable, but ok! Tim Pool posted a series of tweets calling for violence as well! And remember, he said on his show that calling people groomers is calling for violence against them, so when he calls them groomers himself, he knows he is calling for violence! Steven Crowder tweeted in response that "Strong legislation to protect children and an armed populace to protect themselves/their kin." An armed populace you say? To do what? Protect your kin with arms? That's not violence?

Matt Walsh and Candace Owen's were in a similar vein. “Leftists are using a mass shooting to try and blackmail us into accepting the castration and sexualization of children. These people are just beyond evil. I have never felt more motivated to oppose everything they stand for, with every fiber of my being. Despicable scumbags.” and then Owen's “I just want to make sure I’m correct in understanding that the Left is using the tragedy in Colorado to make the argument that unless conservatives get on board with experimenting on children’s genitals with puberty blockers, then nightclub shootings will continue to happen.”

Now the Libs of TikTok account didn't mention the shooting itself, but why would they when they're busy getting people to send bomb threats to Boston Children's Hospital with the claims of grooming and genital mutilation, and drugging of teens. They are far too important for that when they can be calling all drag shows grooming and calling out by name the Colorado State Representatives who have supported a drag show educational organization. Oh, wait, Colorado? Must be a coincidence that the next day the account did that!

But wait! I can hear the smug mask being slipped on, 'those people aren't DeSantis or Greene or Boburt and you spelled her name wrong!'

Guess who interacted with Libs of TikTok with support for their anti-lgbtq legislation? DeSantis's administration. Who follows, approvingly retweets, and other cites Walsh and Owens and Crowder and Pool and Carlson? Greene. Boebert. Abbott.

You're here saying that they're too dumb to say they're against violence and also don't think their rhetoric is causing violence while they agree with people that do think it is a call for violence and that this violence is correct. What an irrational and unreasonable benefit of the doubt you extend.

And that's before we get into the bleeding obvious that calling people groomers who rape children and cut off their genitals is going to lead to violence. Of course it would. Such accusations need to be held for when there is at least some decent evidence of it. They know, or should know, that not only is what they are saying a moronic lie, but that it will cause violence. You can't just claim you don't agree and have it be reasonably seen as fair by anyone. You can't just take someone's car and claim you thought it was yours, especially after they take it back and you keep stealing it again.

How many times does Oedipus go back to Jocasta's bed after being told she's his mother before he really is just a ************? To you, as long as he says he doesn't think she is, he's clear!

Quote:

It's funny you think you're remotely competent at arguing a position. You need evidence that they believe they're actively working to cause mass shootings. I went onto MTG's Twitter page, which now haunts my browser history, and she called the Colorado shooting a tragedy (naturally, she was downplaying it).

You seem to want an uber-cartoonish villain. Greene & Boebert are bad enough. The Bush administration was bad enough; we did not need to believe, nor did we have any good reason to believe, that those incompetent boobs masterminded the 9/11 terror attacks.

Their villainy being extreme isn't evidence it doesn't exist. Bush wasn't the mastermind of 9/11 but lying about violence doesn't require a mastermind. Duh. ******* duh.

How many times have Trump followers disbelieved something horrible and abjectly true about him because it sounds so over the top? Congratulations on sharing reasoning! You're so competent.

Quote:

This is substantially different than the original claim which is that they're purposely working to promote mass shootings. It should also go without saying that extraordinary claims require more evidence. There's a difference between saying MTG can run an eight-minute mile (which I can accept on someone's say-so) versus a four-minute mile (where I'll need to see a video); similar standards are going to apply when it comes to hard-core psychopathy.

Yeah, my position is a little more nuanced that Smartcooky's, which doesn't mean your position is well supported, or at all supported.

'All they're doing is saying that those people were groomers who rape kids and chop off dicks, how is that so bad? Why would that cause violence?'

Again, well argued. Such rationality. They know it's causing violence and they claim the lies are worth that violence anyway! They agree with those saying that it would rational lead to violence, even while they claim to not want violence. That the cause they are advancing is important enough to stay with saying people who are non-cishet in public are child raping groomers.

But as long as they put the disclaimer on, all good, right Cain? I know, I know, not 'all good' but your unending benefit of the doubt only extends to those calling drag events grooming, so you'll read that in the worst possible light.

Quote:

Your problem One of your problems is that you're really bad at getting into other people's mental states. Oedipus' desire to have sex with Jocasta is not a desire to have incest. You're not cutting through any ********. You're a monument of it.

Naw, I'm pretty good at it. I understand these people way better than you do, but that's not saying much because so does Warp12. You're so tied up in the semantic wank of 'well they haven't outright admitted to wanting violence so they don't want violence, because of how I choose to frame want' that you think you're being the best, most rational, most fair arbiter. You're so up your own view of yourself (and your own 'psychic' analysis of my and Smartcooky's mental states!) that you complained about my nuanced explanation of what they intend and what they have reckless disregard for is both too absolutists and 'semantic wankery' with no hint of irony.

Quote:

As for criticizing grammar and spelling, it is something I do with incompetent semantic wankers so that they proofread their work. I cannot say it helps a lot.

It's hardly worth typing this out in the first place, let alone proof reading to try to appear 'competent' to you. That's worth basically nothing.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by The Don

I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.

From my perspective, I agree that the GOP needs to free itself of Trumpism but I'm not sure how many of the Republican rank and file share that view. I also think that the GOP needs to get rid of the loonies and the Christian Fundamentalists but if they do that, who is left ?

I'm pretty sure that if President Trump can run he will, and that if he runs his popularity with the Republican base will be enough to comfortably secure the nomination. Back in 2016 he had very little support from within the party - at least until he won the nomination at which point all those who had previously said (correctly IMO) that he was manifestly unfit to lead suddenly had a Damascene conversion - this time he has a core of support among members of Congress, state party leaders and some senior GOP figures. IMO the task of securing the nomination is significantly easier.

Once he has secured the GOP nomination then it's a toss-up. If inflation continues to be a big problem and people feel that the economy is bad then whatever candidate the Democratic Party puts up will have a huge uphill task.

It is difficult to predict what a bunch of crazy a-holes will do, for sure. I have to simulate insanity within my own brain to try and guess.

All I can really do is hope that the evidence I see keeps growing - that these guys are wising up to the fact that Trump needs to go. At some point survival instinct has to kick in. But of course I could be wrong.

Trump will never enter the White House again as a sworn-in President. Words chosen carefully.

[Carlotta]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

It is difficult to predict what a bunch of crazy a-holes will do, for sure. I have to simulate insanity within my own brain to try and guess.

All I can really do is hope that the evidence I see keeps growing - that these guys are wising up to the fact that Trump needs to go. At some point survival instinct has to kick in. But of course I could be wrong.

Trump will never enter the White House again as a sworn-in President. Words chosen carefully.

By the good Dog, I hope you're right about that!

[Cain]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Are you really taking the stance that if a public official tweets one time that:

'the news about an event that my rhetoric helped to cause makes me look bad. I officially say that violence against those godless evil heathen gays who are perversions of nature is bad, mkay? <wink, wink>'

that you would take that at face value?

"Face value" here is meaningless if you're including the subtext. If it's a question at all, it's incoherent, but tell me if I have this right: You think Boebert believes her rhetoric helped make that attack possible, and that the attack is a good thing. If the attack has a negative consequence, it's that she receives some undesirable attention, which she hopes to move past by offering insincere condolences. She wants LGBT+ people, who are evil godless heathens, to be slaughtered. In her ideal world, she would openly lead the slaughter, but, unfortunately, she has to play the winking game because of current social-political realities.

In my view, I think the normal person reacts to these shootings with initial horror. Shockingly, despite the outpouring of thoughts and prayers, I also think the typical person does not care all that much, as they're able to carry on with their day without giving the event a second thought (and that Adam Smith was more or less correct in Theory of Moral Sentiments).

As for Boebert, I would not be at all surprised if she reacted to the news with unexamined horror. In keeping with common human sentiments, she does not really care all that much about the atrocities, especially given the victims. After all, people die every day. Hoomans naturally get more upset that someone else stole their lunch from the office fridge, or that a colleague again hit "Reply All." Where she departs from normal, non-political people is that Boebert predicts "the Left" will "blame" her "yet again" whereas she blames where it belongs: on the "confused, mentally ill 'non-binary' MAN" who has been corrupted by a "decadent" culture. He's the product of a single-parent household and needs God in his life as all people can still be saved, including those in the nightclub, and indeed LGBT+ deviants everywhere. Jesus loves them.

Quote:

Your uber conservative schtick works so well that even when you aren't posting sarcastically it peeks through sometimes.

I make a habit of not commenting on those posts, but the best of them, mostly from the early years, are what would now be called "self-owns." I want to say they were based primarily on a lack of self-awareness, usually highlighting some form of hypocrisy. Not attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Despite being obviously self-refuting, posters on this forum could not resist being the first to identify a reasoning error (now they "dunk" on famous Twitter morons).

Overwhelmingly, conservatives were the people who would conflate motive and effect. Democrats WANT people to be ignorant and dependent upon the government so that they can get more votes. The Left WANTS the predictable chaos that comes with taking God out of public life because it will help them seize more power. So much power. All of the power. Democrats know exactly what they're doing, which is why they want to disarm us. Cultural Marxism. The Frankfurt/Franklin School. George Soros. Ze Jews. I see similarities to the temperament of the more obnoxious right-wingers by non-right-wingers in this thread. Denying a person's common humanity, believing their political rivals are motivated by pure wickedness. Mundane explanations are traded for the exotic. I saw similar things in the police shooting thread that we participated in. Human weakness was swapped out for conspiracy.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Yes, 'windowlickers' and 'clowns' are so much more rational than lunatics. Holy Hel Cain, you just restated what I said your claim was but did so while saying I'm wrong and 'can't handle' your argument.

A lunatic is not legally responsible for their actions, so, yes, there's a substantial difference, one you have been incapable of bridging; you're reduced to straw man after straw man. Also, I enjoy mockery, but you're so very bad at it that this is like nails on a chalkboard. As in previous threads, I feel a tinge of embarrassment for you.

Quote:

Saying they are literally too stupid to want violence while saying they don't would mean you're are arguing that they're drooling blobs.

This is confused. It's not a matter of being "literally too stupid to want violence." The desire for violence here has little to do with intelligence. smartcooky explains this sequence of events by starting with evil whereas it can more easily be explained by people who are dumb and performative.

Quote:

That's the 'George R.R. Martin plot' you think those people can't handle? Fomenting violence but saying you're not isn't some masterstroke, unless one has had one master of a stroke. How could they ever figure out simply lying.

Never mind in the example I said that a child was capable of lying, the problem is that the lie stems from the motive.

It's not just rhetoric -------> violence

The claim is that they desire violence. They know (full well) they can generate this violence by engaging in a particular type of rhetoric, which then leads to their predicted violence. Subsequently, they plausibly lie about causing it and (less plausibly) lie when they say it's a tragedy because we know they don't think it's really a tragedy. What occurred was a good thing that cannot happen often enough.

The competing hypothesis is that they're stupidly motivated for attention, so they stupidly engage in inflammatory rhetoric (often chasing their audiences rather than leading them), and stupidly fail to see a connection between their words and someone else's actions.

Assuming this rhetoric in fact causes violence, but that this violence was never intended -- the rhetoric was intended to raise their media profile -- they're not really lying. The lie is contingent upon the motive. Similarly, Oedipus does not intend to engage in incest even if that's exactly what he's doing.

Quote:

I'm not going to claim that each of those people individually have beyond a reasonable doubt level statements proving they meet all of Smartcooky's bullet points, but it's a damn slight different than your flailing claim that they're all too stupid to have a handle on basic ass lying. More on their statements and actions later, but at some far passed point, the deniability stops being plausible.

So you're saying that they've connected the dots and want people murdered. We somehow know they've connected these dots and want people murdered. People on Twitter tell them we know all about their schemes, but, even though they've been caught, they continue to do it anyway, not so much for attention/votes, but because they're dedicated to making sure non-cis-het people are excluded from public life/murdered.

Quote:

Their general stance is that if they don't get the legislation they want, the violence will continue. The grooming they're lying about (remember that part? The part where the grooming accusations are wildly vile unsupportable lies?) is the justification for both the violence and the shootings. Did you forget about Jaimee Michell on Turker Carlson? No, you never knew about it because you aren't paying attention but feel completely justified in making calls on the subject. (You do this a lot and it never ceases to be a losing way to argue.)

Now Carlson isn't influential enough for you to talk about what this GOP wants? That's not reasonable, but ok! Tim Pool posted a series of tweets calling for violence as well! And remember, he said on his show that calling people groomers is calling for violence against them, so when he calls them groomers himself, he knows he is calling for violence! Steven Crowder tweeted in response that "Strong legislation to protect children and an armed populace to protect themselves/their kin." An armed populace you say? To do what? Protect your kin with arms? That's not violence?

Matt Walsh and Candace Owen's were in a similar vein. “Leftists are using a mass shooting to try and blackmail us into accepting the castration and sexualization of children. These people are just beyond evil. I have never felt more motivated to oppose everything they stand for, with every fiber of my being. Despicable scumbags.” and then Owen's “I just want to make sure I’m correct in understanding that the Left is using the tragedy in Colorado to make the argument that unless conservatives get on board with experimenting on children’s genitals with puberty blockers, then nightclub shootings will continue to happen.”

Now the Libs of TikTok account didn't mention the shooting itself, but why would they when they're busy getting people to send bomb threats to Boston Children's Hospital with the claims of grooming and genital mutilation, and drugging of teens. They are far too important for that when they can be calling all drag shows grooming and calling out by name the Colorado State Representatives who have supported a drag show educational organization. Oh, wait, Colorado? Must be a coincidence that the next day the account did that!

But wait! I can hear the smug mask being slipped on, 'those people aren't DeSantis or Greene or Boburt and you spelled her name wrong!'

Guess who interacted with Libs of TikTok with support for their anti-lgbtq legislation? DeSantis's administration. Who follows, approvingly retweets, and other cites Walsh and Owens and Crowder and Pool and Carlson? Greene. Boebert. Abbott.

I think I deserve a lot of credit for reading this far.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Cain

A lunatic is not legally responsible for their actions, so, yes, there's a substantial difference, one you have been incapable of bridging; you're reduced to straw man after straw man. Also, I enjoy mockery, but you're so very bad at it that this is like nails on a chalkboard. As in previous threads, I feel a tinge of embarrassment for you.

Congratulations for having bad tastes. It isn't meant to be enjoyable for you.

'Straw man after straw man'. You just argued simultaneously that you weren't talking literally about lunatics in your use of the phrase, and that I should take it to mean literal lunatics who are not competent to hold accountable to differentiate them from the clowns and 'window lickers'. Do you understand what you were even trying to argue? That they are stupid. Do stupid people behave rationally to you? This 'well they aren't like lunatics despite me saying they're like lunatics because of this difference that isn't actually different'.

If you meant it literally, my point still stands. If you meant it all figuratively, then there's not a difference and your rebuttal here fails and my point still stands. I assumed you meant figuratively, but now I'm not sure you knew what you meant. 'They're stupid' doesn't actually change much.

You're embarrassed for me? Sure.

Quote:

This is confused. It's not a matter of being "literally too stupid to want violence." The desire for violence here has little to do with intelligence. smartcooky explains this sequence of events by starting with evil whereas it can more easily be explained by people who are dumb and performative.

Then what was your entire point about saying the 'plot' (which you analogized to George R.R. Martin plots) exceeds their capabilities? I didn't say, "literally too stupid to want violence," I said, "literally too stupid to want violence while saying they don't."

The 'plot' consists of saying things that get people shot while then claiming they didn't want people to get shot. That's it. That's the basic summery of the 'plot' you object to as beyond their capacity.

You think that being dumb and other motivations are more likely, great, fine opinion to have. That doesn't mean they aren't capable of simple lies about violence. And we know they are capable of such simple lies about violence because they all straight up lied about the violence on Jan 6th, lying about trivially observable reality.

Quote:

Never mind in the example I said that a child was capable of lying, the problem is that the lie stems from the motive.

It's not just rhetoric -------> violence

The claim is that they desire violence. They know (full well) they can generate this violence by engaging in a particular type of rhetoric, which then leads to their predicted violence. Subsequently, they plausibly lie about causing it and (less plausibly) lie when they say it's a tragedy because we know they don't think it's really a tragedy. What occurred was a good thing that cannot happen often enough.

The competing hypothesis is that they're stupidly motivated for attention, so they stupidly engage in inflammatory rhetoric (often chasing their audiences rather than leading them), and stupidly fail to see a connection between their words and someone else's actions.

Assuming this rhetoric in fact causes violence, but that this violence was never intended -- the rhetoric was intended to raise their media profile -- they're not really lying. The lie is contingent upon the motive. Similarly, Oedipus does not intend to engage in incest even if that's exactly what he's doing.

Fine hypothesis; how many times after finding out Jocasta is his mother does Oedipus get to bang her before you question his stated motives? You consider their current deniability plausible by claiming they are just that stupid. Smartcooky, and to a less degree I, claim that even being so stupid they know it's causing violence and want that (or in my case, a combination of some wanting it and other being fine with it).

Nevermind that sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice, believing their motivations string from stupidity doesn't mean they're incapable of the malice needed. Your argument that they're too stupid is simply ridiculous.

Stupid people can be malicious.

Quote:

So you're saying that they've connected the dots and want people murdered. We somehow know they've connected these dots and want people murdered. People on Twitter tell them we know all about their schemes, but, even though they've been caught, they continue to do it anyway, not so much for attention/votes, but because they're dedicated to making sure non-cis-het people are excluded from public life/murdered.

Why not both? This is why I don't think you understand the phrase 'the lunatics are running the asylum'. I explained already but your reading ability drops precipitously when you get a bug up your ass, so I'll repeat, yet again. Something that started as almost purely a way to get attention and votes (which doesn't work if there isn't a fear and/or malice to exploit already, but let's set that aside), once the people who have been sold that as an actual, factual, existential threat start running, then they're going after power and think it is right to do things like ban gay marriage, fire teachers who acknowledge the existence of not cishet people, criminalize parents and doctors providing gender-affirming care, etc. Indeed probability being what it is, some of them undoubtedly are seeking power, attention, votes in order to do things like exclude the groups they hate from public participation.

Quote:

https://i.imgur.com/Xvwe7Bp.jpg

I think I deserve a lot of credit for reading this far.

You want evidence then just handwave it.

Yeah, I'm not the one who has trouble understanding where others are coming from. Yes, if you agree with people in your own party in your own ideological movement to the point you consult them for the laws you are writing (the DeSantis administration with Libs of TikTok for example) and approvingly sharing their endorsements of violence...then you do in fact agree with them. This isn't complicated. These people say the violence is understandable and won't stop until the 'grooming' stops, and the people approvingly sharing...approve.

'Just because they're agreeing doesn't mean they agree' is just, well again, well argued Cain. All the credit to you for that one.

[smartcooky]

I, for one, have zero doubt that people such as Boebert, Taylor-Greene, Gosar, DeSantis and others of their ilk KNOW that their vile rhetoric leads to violence. You can draw a straight line between their racist, homophobic vomit, and the shootings at Buffalo Tops and Colorado Strings Club-Q. At at the very least, they do not care that their words lead to the violence, and at the worst, they want it to do so! Why? Because they think it will further their political agendas and energize the deplorables that compose their base.

The violence is the point - its not a bug, its a feature!

[tyr_13]

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...269579392.html

Power infrastructure was shot up last night in NC during a drag show. A local Christian group is claiming credit in their own way, saying they know why the power is out. "God did it."

The mysterious ways god works in; right wing attacks on power infrastructure using firearms.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Logical in that you pushing the vile lie that group A deserve murderous persecution for self-idenitifying should mean that you should equally accept the vile lie that group B deserved murderous persecution for self-identifying. Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

Where have I expressed this vile lie that any group deserves murderous persecution? Like I said, Modus Foyle is not logic.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...269579392.html

Power infrastructure was shot up last night in NC during a drag show. A local Christian group is claiming credit in their own way, saying they know why the power is out. "God did it."

The mysterious ways god works in; right wing attacks on power infrastructure using firearms.

Great:

Quote:

“I welcomed them to my home [cops],” wrote Rainey, who organized a group of Moore County residents to travel to Washington on January 6, 2021. “Sorry they wasted their time. I told them that God works in mysterious ways and is responsible for the outage. I used the opportunity to tell them about the immoral drag show and the blasphemies screamed by its supporters.”

Mysterious ways? Gawd is an ******* and this bitch's existence is proof. I resisted in saying that the most recent gay nightclub shooting was right wing terror but I do blame the rhetoric for all of this. I guess it is, and wow it seems to be coming fast.

Shooting up a power station (actually two I believe) to stop a drag show is insane. I don't want to buy a gun because there are too many people I'd like to shoot, but...I dunno.

I need to spell this out for myself... People who believe in a pretend god are killing other people because they think this god wants them to.

Religion is nothing more than a mental disease. What part of it isn't? **** this.

[dudalb]

".. Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. "
Blaise Pascal.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Great:



Mysterious ways? Gawd is an ******* and this bitch's existence is proof. I resisted in saying that the most recent gay nightclub shooting was right wing terror but I do blame the rhetoric for all of this. I guess it is, and wow it seems to be coming fast.

Shooting up a power station (actually two I believe) to stop a drag show is insane. I don't want to buy a gun because there are too many people I'd like to shoot, but...I dunno.

I need to spell this out for myself... People who believe in a pretend god are killing other people because they think this god wants them to.

Religion is nothing more than a mental disease. What part of it isn't? **** this.

No, not a disease, but a mental/emotional NEED.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Mysterious ways? Gawd is an ******* and this bitch's existence is proof. I resisted in saying that the most recent gay nightclub shooting was right wing terror but I do blame the rhetoric for all of this. I guess it is, and wow it seems to be coming fast.

Shooting up a power station (actually two I believe) to stop a drag show is insane. I don't want to buy a gun because there are too many people I'd like to shoot, but...I dunno.

I need to spell this out for myself... People who believe in a pretend god are killing other people because they think this god wants them to.

Religion is nothing more than a mental disease. What part of it isn't? **** this.

Interesting and revealing post.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Great:



Mysterious ways? Gawd is an ******* and this bitch's existence is proof. I resisted in saying that the most recent gay nightclub shooting was right wing terror but I do blame the rhetoric for all of this. I guess it is, and wow it seems to be coming fast.

Shooting up a power station (actually two I believe) to stop a drag show is insane. I don't want to buy a gun because there are too many people I'd like to shoot, but...I dunno.

I need to spell this out for myself... People who believe in a pretend god are killing other people because they think this god wants them to.

Religion is nothing more than a mental disease. What part of it isn't? **** this.

At least two power stations (some local reporting says three), with Duke Energy moving the restoration estimate from a day or two to a week or more. Representatives from Duke say the equipment targeted was very important and more heavily damaged than the initially thought in the night, which they say indicates whoever did the attack knew what they were doing. The local sheriff has been downplaying the implications of these attacks (both what the Christian group claims and how serious an attack this is regardless of motivation) but it's being taken out of his hands; Duke informed state agencies and the FBI who are both stepping in.

Some have speculated it wasn't about the drag show and the Christian group is trying to opportunistically aggrandize itself because there was also reports of looting at a few local gun stores and Wal-Mart. The hypothesis being that they were just trying to get the store security down, which really doesn't make sense because the substations were targeted in a way that indicates the attackers knew what they were doing with the power system, which means they also likely knew any security system worth it's salt has battery backups to run for a while. Of course the way the stations were targeted doesn't make much sense to just stop the drag show either because they took out power for way longer than is needed.

That woman by the way is under investigation for her participation in Jan 6th so there is that.

And maybe there is some hope these deplorables are being treated more seriously. A Texas man was charged with making threats to a doctor at a Boston hospital based on false claims that Libs of TikTok made about her. The same claims that have caused bomb threats there (that they are performing hysterectomies on minors, which of course they are not). Almost none of the death threats have even been investigated until now even when the people making the threats have left their names (and numbers because phones just save those).

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I guess it is, and wow it seems to be coming fast.

To poke more at this, twice this last week armed Nazis have surrounded drag events calling for violence and the deaths of the 'pedophiles' inside. One in Ohio was shut down because of the threat, while one in Florida went on with police also surrounding the building in their cars but doing nothing else as Nazis with long arms and body armor threatened the people inside with death.

So I guess there were two rings of Nazis surrounding the building in Florida.

And before the 'the left calls everyone Nazis/you're mind reading again about their motives/etc' starts, they were waving almost exclusively literal Nazi flags and wearing Nazi symbols and threatening death to people while calling them 'pedophiles' for being at drag events.

Hey, Oedipus, Jocasta is your mother. If you keep bonking her you're willful engaged in incest, no matter how you pretend you don't know.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Interesting and revealing post.

The irony burns.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

To poke more at this, twice this last week armed Nazis have surrounded drag events calling for violence and the deaths of the 'pedophiles' inside. One in Ohio was shut down because of the threat, while one in Florida went on with police also surrounding the building in their cars but doing nothing else as Nazis with long arms and body armor threatened the people inside with death.

So I guess there were two rings of Nazis surrounding the building in Florida.

And before the 'the left calls everyone Nazis/you're mind reading again about their motives/etc' starts, they were waving almost exclusively literal Nazi flags and wearing Nazi symbols and threatening death to people while calling them 'pedophiles' for being at drag events.

Hey, Oedipus, Jocasta is your mother. If you keep bonking her you're willful engaged in incest, no matter how you pretend you don't know.

But of course, if you listen to certain members of this forum, there is totally NO right-wing terrorism in 'murica!!