Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Emily Lake]

Since that is not what "fascism" means in modern usage, the phrase "actual fascists" does not have an objective meaning.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. Just because a word is being used metaphorically does not mean that it has no consistent definition. I would agree that it hss no objective definition, as you say, but that is true of every word ever devised, hence why and how there are 6200 human mutually unintelligible human languages. Objectivity is not on the table, only communication or miscommunication.

Dude, do you know how metaphors even work?

 

[Emily Lake]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

 

[TSwizzle]

So, TSwizzle is making up stuff again,

Link to post(s) of mine where I have made something up.

 

[Politesse]

Since that is not what "fascism" means in modern usage, the phrase "actual fascists" does not have an objective meaning.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. Just because a word is being used metaphorically does not mean that it has no consistent definition. I would agree that it hss no objective definition, as you say, but that is true of every word ever devised, hence why and how there are 6200 human mutually unintelligible human languages. Objectivity is not on the table, only communication or miscommunication.

Dude, do you know how metaphors even work?

Yes. Do you? Metaphors are not without meaning.

 

[Politesse]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

You know what conservatives share with you? "Lack of faith in progressive ideologies". What distinguishes you from conservatives exactly? Because so far I've only seen your beliefs lining up with "conservative values".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow, these TPUSA people are real pieces of work. Sending busloads of people to J6, some of whom engaged in violence....because they were tricked by the TPUSA propaganda that Kirk and others spouted...then TPUSA made a mockery out of things, calling J6 insurrectionists "hostages." This is one of their leaders:

Turning Point leader, former GOP Rep pleads guilty to attempted election fraud | Arizona Mirror

Austin Smith election fraud guilty plea: Former GOP Rep admits forging 100+ signatures on ballot petitions in Arizona

azmirror.com

The multiple levels of projection over election fraud, vote fraud, vote rigging, fascism calling, are so nested it is like the movie Inception.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since that is not what "fascism" means in modern usage, the phrase "actual fascists" does not have an objective meaning.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. Just because a word is being used metaphorically does not mean that it has no consistent definition. I would agree that it hss no objective definition, as you say, but that is true of every word ever devised, hence why and how there are 6200 human mutually unintelligible human languages. Objectivity is not on the table, only communication or miscommunication.

Dude, do you know how metaphors even work?

I'm just glad we are arguing over labels and not discussing actions.

Far right wing / MAGA wing engages in attempted election overthow, telling women to not get educated and have more babies, mocks women coming to public terms of their abuse... but that isn't *insert word*.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

I don't reject social progress, I reject the majority of progressivism. Those aren't the same things. And even then, I don't reject the underlying desire, but rather the means by which progressives seek to achieve those desires.

For example, I think that diversity is a fantastic thing. But I don't think that forcing diversity is a good idea, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. I think having a variety of different backgrounds available in a work setting is beneficial; I don't think that assuming skin color means different backgrounds accomplishes that mission. I think that having different viewpoints represented is beneficial; I don't think that should be the primary goal above the foundational requirements of competence and skill.

I think that everyone should be able to eat fish. I don't think that taking fish from a fisherman and giving fish to other people is a long-term benefit for society as a whole. I do think that teaching everyone to fish, maybe giving everyone a starter fishing pole if they don't already have one, and teaching them how to maintain and improve that pole is a much better way to go about it. Progressivism seems to pretty much always want to just give people fish, and they're perfectly happy taking fish from someone that they've deemed not worthy of having two fish in order to accomplish their short-term goal.

Some social endeavors should be conservative in nature. We have traditions and shared values should should be largely consistent and slow to change, because that's how a society and a culture maintains cohesion and avoids internal conflict. Other social endeavors should be liberal in nature. How we express ourselves, what hobbies and careers we pursue, the style of our lives, what food we eat, what pets we have, almost everything that does not impact other people should be as free as is reasonable. Some social endeavors should be communal in nature. Defense, education, infrastructure, and many more parts of life should be supported by the group as a whole, because the whole group depends on it.

You (among others) seem to have this deep-seated notion that all things "conservative" are bad, and all things "progressive" are good. I think you're wrong - you're working from bad assumptions. To me, most things conservative are low-risk, they're based on things we've done before and that worked well enough that they've stayed in rotation. To me, progressive is high-risk, it's experimental, they're based on new ideas that haven't been tried out and where you don't know whether they'll work or not and they could potentially cause more harm than good. Neither of those is all good or all bad. As the world changes, what used to work may not continue to work - so being permanently tied to a low-risk, conservative solution can create stagnation and decay. New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic. To me, a whole lot of "progressive" policies lack appropriate risk evaluation and mitigation. Risk isn't inherently bad or good, but to make good decisions and effect good outcomes, you do need to be able to identify and plan for the risks involved.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

You know what conservatives share with you? "Lack of faith in progressive ideologies". What distinguishes you from conservatives exactly? Because so far I've only seen your beliefs lining up with "conservative values".

What conservative values do you think I hold? Can you summarize them?

 

[Politesse]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

I don't reject social progress, I reject the majority of progressivism. Those aren't the same things. And even then, I don't reject the underlying desire, but rather the means by which progressives seek to achieve those desires.

For example, I think that diversity is a fantastic thing. But I don't think that forcing diversity is a good idea, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. I think having a variety of different backgrounds available in a work setting is beneficial; I don't think that assuming skin color means different backgrounds accomplishes that mission. I think that having different viewpoints represented is beneficial; I don't think that should be the primary goal above the foundational requirements of competence and skill.

I think that everyone should be able to eat fish. I don't think that taking fish from a fisherman and giving fish to other people is a long-term benefit for society as a whole. I do think that teaching everyone to fish, maybe giving everyone a starter fishing pole if they don't already have one, and teaching them how to maintain and improve that pole is a much better way to go about it. Progressivism seems to pretty much always want to just give people fish, and they're perfectly happy taking fish from someone that they've deemed not worthy of having two fish in order to accomplish their short-term goal.

Some social endeavors should be conservative in nature. We have traditions and shared values should should be largely consistent and slow to change, because that's how a society and a culture maintains cohesion and avoids internal conflict. Other social endeavors should be liberal in nature. How we express ourselves, what hobbies and careers we pursue, the style of our lives, what food we eat, what pets we have, almost everything that does not impact other people should be as free as is reasonable. Some social endeavors should be communal in nature. Defense, education, infrastructure, and many more parts of life should be supported by the group as a whole, because the whole group depends on it.

You (among others) seem to have this deep-seated notion that all things "conservative" are bad, and all things "progressive" are good. I think you're wrong - you're working from bad assumptions. To me, most things conservative are low-risk, they're based on things we've done before and that worked well enough that they've stayed in rotation. To me, progressive is high-risk, it's experimental, they're based on new ideas that haven't been tried out and where you don't know whether they'll work or not and they could potentially cause more harm than good. Neither of those is all good or all bad. As the world changes, what used to work may not continue to work - so being permanently tied to a low-risk, conservative solution can create stagnation and decay. New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic. To me, a whole lot of "progressive" policies lack appropriate risk evaluation and mitigation. Risk isn't inherently bad or good, but to make good decisions and effect good outcomes, you do need to be able to identify and plan for the risks involved.

In what ways does this philosophy you espouse differ from standard alt-right propaganda? It looks identical to me. None of what you say here would raise a single eyebrow on an episode of the Ben Shapiro Show.

 

[Emily Lake]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

I don't reject social progress, I reject the majority of progressivism. Those aren't the same things. And even then, I don't reject the underlying desire, but rather the means by which progressives seek to achieve those desires.

For example, I think that diversity is a fantastic thing. But I don't think that forcing diversity is a good idea, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. I think having a variety of different backgrounds available in a work setting is beneficial; I don't think that assuming skin color means different backgrounds accomplishes that mission. I think that having different viewpoints represented is beneficial; I don't think that should be the primary goal above the foundational requirements of competence and skill.

I think that everyone should be able to eat fish. I don't think that taking fish from a fisherman and giving fish to other people is a long-term benefit for society as a whole. I do think that teaching everyone to fish, maybe giving everyone a starter fishing pole if they don't already have one, and teaching them how to maintain and improve that pole is a much better way to go about it. Progressivism seems to pretty much always want to just give people fish, and they're perfectly happy taking fish from someone that they've deemed not worthy of having two fish in order to accomplish their short-term goal.

Some social endeavors should be conservative in nature. We have traditions and shared values should should be largely consistent and slow to change, because that's how a society and a culture maintains cohesion and avoids internal conflict. Other social endeavors should be liberal in nature. How we express ourselves, what hobbies and careers we pursue, the style of our lives, what food we eat, what pets we have, almost everything that does not impact other people should be as free as is reasonable. Some social endeavors should be communal in nature. Defense, education, infrastructure, and many more parts of life should be supported by the group as a whole, because the whole group depends on it.

You (among others) seem to have this deep-seated notion that all things "conservative" are bad, and all things "progressive" are good. I think you're wrong - you're working from bad assumptions. To me, most things conservative are low-risk, they're based on things we've done before and that worked well enough that they've stayed in rotation. To me, progressive is high-risk, it's experimental, they're based on new ideas that haven't been tried out and where you don't know whether they'll work or not and they could potentially cause more harm than good. Neither of those is all good or all bad. As the world changes, what used to work may not continue to work - so being permanently tied to a low-risk, conservative solution can create stagnation and decay. New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic. To me, a whole lot of "progressive" policies lack appropriate risk evaluation and mitigation. Risk isn't inherently bad or good, but to make good decisions and effect good outcomes, you do need to be able to identify and plan for the risks involved.

In what ways does this philosophy you espouse differ from standard alt-right propaganda? It looks identical to me.

What exactly is "alt right propaganda" in your view?

 

[Politesse]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or not you call yourself one.

I don't reject social progress, I reject the majority of progressivism. Those aren't the same things. And even then, I don't reject the underlying desire, but rather the means by which progressives seek to achieve those desires.

For example, I think that diversity is a fantastic thing. But I don't think that forcing diversity is a good idea, and I think it's fundamentally flawed. I think having a variety of different backgrounds available in a work setting is beneficial; I don't think that assuming skin color means different backgrounds accomplishes that mission. I think that having different viewpoints represented is beneficial; I don't think that should be the primary goal above the foundational requirements of competence and skill.

I think that everyone should be able to eat fish. I don't think that taking fish from a fisherman and giving fish to other people is a long-term benefit for society as a whole. I do think that teaching everyone to fish, maybe giving everyone a starter fishing pole if they don't already have one, and teaching them how to maintain and improve that pole is a much better way to go about it. Progressivism seems to pretty much always want to just give people fish, and they're perfectly happy taking fish from someone that they've deemed not worthy of having two fish in order to accomplish their short-term goal.

Some social endeavors should be conservative in nature. We have traditions and shared values should should be largely consistent and slow to change, because that's how a society and a culture maintains cohesion and avoids internal conflict. Other social endeavors should be liberal in nature. How we express ourselves, what hobbies and careers we pursue, the style of our lives, what food we eat, what pets we have, almost everything that does not impact other people should be as free as is reasonable. Some social endeavors should be communal in nature. Defense, education, infrastructure, and many more parts of life should be supported by the group as a whole, because the whole group depends on it.

You (among others) seem to have this deep-seated notion that all things "conservative" are bad, and all things "progressive" are good. I think you're wrong - you're working from bad assumptions. To me, most things conservative are low-risk, they're based on things we've done before and that worked well enough that they've stayed in rotation. To me, progressive is high-risk, it's experimental, they're based on new ideas that haven't been tried out and where you don't know whether they'll work or not and they could potentially cause more harm than good. Neither of those is all good or all bad. As the world changes, what used to work may not continue to work - so being permanently tied to a low-risk, conservative solution can create stagnation and decay. New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic. To me, a whole lot of "progressive" policies lack appropriate risk evaluation and mitigation. Risk isn't inherently bad or good, but to make good decisions and effect good outcomes, you do need to be able to identify and plan for the risks involved.

In what ways does this philosophy you espouse differ from standard alt-right propaganda? It looks identical to me.

What exactly is "alt right propaganda" in your view?

Propaganda supporting the alt-right?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic.

Name a progressive idea that has resulted in "catastrophe". "Wokeness" doesn't count, because that's vague as shit.

 

[Politesse]

Which further confirms my suspicions that Bomb#20 and their ilk are far less skeptical of bullshit being promoted by their own side

It's not our own side. That's where you and those like you consistently go awry, and you absolutely refuse to listen to what is actually being said. Neother Bomb#20 nor I nor, to the best of my knowledge Derec and Tswizzle, are Republicans. None of us have any particularly allegiance to Republicans, nor to conservatives. What we do all share is a LACK OF FAITH IN PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGIES.

For all intents, you're working in an extremely black and white world view. And in your all or nothing approach, you make the mistake of believing that if we aren't staunch catholics, we must therefore be staunch pagans. In truth, we're none of them. I don't adhere to ANY political philosophy, nor do I think Bomb#20 does either. I believe that Derec is historically a bit more on the Democrat side, albeit not on every issue. I think the same is true of Tswizzle, but I'm less certain of that. At the end of the day, the only political view I'd say we four have in common is that progressivism is short-sighted, ineffectual, and in application does harm to far more people than it helps, and is unsustainable.

If you have no real political philosophy and do not adhere to a party, but the only thing you are certain of is that you reject social progress, then you are political conservative whether or New things might work out better, but they can also be catastrophic.

Name a progressive idea that has resulted in "catastrophe". "Wokeness" doesn't count, because that's vague as shit.

Didn't you read her post? Many Blacks have jobs, TANF is Marxism, and people are mean to conservatives.