Shofercia, if you later edit out all the inane strawmen and edit in some actual thought-out arguments that relate to mine, please remark upon it when you do.
Also, strawmen are supposed to be easy to knock down, not get you into such a fit of rage that you lose all coherence.
Shofercia wrote:Attempted Socialism wrote:Except in the far-right circles that make up paedophile allegations, "great replacement" lunacy and thinks anti-white racists are relevant. In these circles, white supremacy is the positive term, and progressive is said with the same derision as traitor.
I haven't been to many far-right circles so I'll just take your word for it; however, on NSG, the forum that I was referring to, the term "progressive" carries a positive or neutral connation, whereas the term "racist" carries a negative connotation. As far as making up pedophile allegation, perhaps if Joe Biden would kindly stop the sniffing and grabbing around kids, there wouldn't be those allegations. Just keep your hands to yourself and stop sniffing humans. You're not a dog.
I mean, this is exactly the line of insane, paedophile-making-up, far-right circle that derides "progressives" and exalts white supremacy, on NSG. You're parroting their talking points. It's also irrelevant to whether it's trolling to point out that "all white supremacists and racists" (Except the ones you're making up in a second), to within a rounding error, are Trump supporters, and that saying e.g. "all paedophiles support Biden" is untrue and meant to inflame and enrage.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Both white supremacist and racist should be viewed negatively, but that's not the issue here (If you want to argue about whatever made-up white supremacist conspiracy theory you believe today, General is that way -> ). Is "all white supremacists and racists support Trump" literally true? No, you can find a handful of racist, elected GOP members who oppose him, and some racist Democrats as well. Rounding off in this case is warranted though.
Once again, racist is viewed negatively, and any supremacist is also viewed negatively, black supremacist, Latino supremacist, white supremacist, etc, at least on NSG, and when I'm referring to NSG rules, I'm talking about NSG.
Yeah?
I thought that went without saying, but apparently I have to clarify even this extraordinarily basic point.
You didn't, but I think you got blinded by your own strawmen and lost your footing.
As for rounding off is warranted or not - who decides that?
Well, in this case, all the white supremacists and racists themselves. They declared themselves for Trump, endorsed, and got endorsed by, him. Meanwhile you have to search quite a bit to find the white supremacists and racists who are not for Trump.
That's the problem with fact checkers on Social Media, be they Liberal on Conservative, as long as you have money or power or votes - you decide, irrespective of reality, and then claim that your decision is reality. That's not going to work in the World we live in, the World where it's rather easy to move from one country to another, and it's getting easier.
...
Attempted Socialism wrote:Not really.
So claiming that racists who want to slaughter white people support Trump isn't controversial?!
That's mainly because you're trying to strawman and move the goalposts here, instead of making a valid argument. You originally said the quote was "all white supremacists and racists" supporting Trump. Your faceplant with inventing anti-white racists who want to slaughter whites and inserting it into your weird invented issue was initially disregarded, because I thought we could both follow along.
Attempted Socialism wrote:I do have a bias towards the relevant and reality.
Like stating that claiming that certain BLM rioters support Trump isn't controversial? That's a bias toward reality?!
You're the one inventing far-fetched and increasingly fantastic scenarios. I can't really comment on whatever madeup BS you're trying to peddle, except to question the relevance to the thread here.
Attempted Socialism wrote:That's still trolling, though, and not the flipside of "all white supremacists and racists support Trump".
That's the exact version of the flipside. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it any less of a factual statement. Heck, you've argued that claiming that racist who want to slaughter whites support Trump is not controversial, and then proceeded to claim that your biased toward reality in the very next response, so I can understand why you're struggling with the analogy, but I'm not sure if I can help.
Strawmen and weird conspiracy anecdotes you've made up are unhelpful, true. But you're not quite getting your own analogy, so let me assist.
"All white supremacists and racists support Trump" is, while not exactly true, correct within any significant figure you wish to round to. This is a non-controversial statement of fact, based on endorsements and base support.
"All paedophiles support Biden" is a madeup notion you arrived at by "concluding" that since Biden shows creepy behaviour, not only must he be a paedophile but it is reasonable to allege that there is a paedophile base who supports him. This is nonsense made up to anger, which you know, and that is why you continually try to drag this into NSG territory and shit-flinging by making this a discussion about Biden rather than the rules and your shitty, original argument.