Yes you are saying the same rhetoric. Do you think Nazis in Weimar Germany were like running around saying "we need to exterminate 4 millions Jews". No they did what people like you or ATW do. Spam news media with anecdotes of the evil LGBTQ groomers and spam the news cycles with that content so the public becomes turned off by those groups enough for when those groups start disappearing into train cars, the common German doesn't question it or care about it.
There is no strawman. You are a fascist. In fact you are one of the few posters here where I'm not even trying to trigger or exaggerate. Your post history on this website is very fascist. Like you are textbook fascist.
First of all I didn't say anything about LGBTQ communities being pedophile dens. You're just framing this to call me a nazi some more because you're a communist (are you? I'm just doing what you do). And yes, I don't like terrorists who want to destroy society... that includes communists like the ones you listed. However I don't hate LGBTQ people, but I do hate any groomers hiding amongst them as I would hate groomers hiding amongst a clergy. Just groomers actually. I hate groomers. Oh and migrants? That's absurd. Migrants, who are migrating legally, are welcome and vital part of the economy. Again, you have this warped view that people who disagree with you want to just throw people in death camps. Are you perhaps projecting much? Perhaps YOU are the one who hates people so much that you think disagreement means the other person is EVIL. And the other person belongs in a camp? I dunno, you seem obsessed with such things. I think you need help like many people on this board. Especially because you seem to be stuck in the past. You engage in political necromancy, which is unhealthy. The Wiemar Republic is dead and the Nazis are specific to a past era (other than a small minority of idiots who no one takes seriously other than you). The Nazis failed. The Commies failed. The old political atmosphere is done and you are stuck in the past. Get a grip.
Lol today as we speak there are Hitler apologists who say stuff like "Hitler did not hate the individual Jew, just international Jewry". Nazis and fascists have a long history of saying stuff like "we don't hate x group of people as individuals, just the ideology they spread". So ya you are going down the same Nazi talking points. Who are you calling terrorists exactly here? And again, you hate all the same people as Nazis from Soros to trans people.
Nazis don't start our by saying they want to put people in death camps. Do you think Nazis in the 1920s before they gained power and started invading neighbors were openly talking about putting people in death camps? Do you even know that Hitler was careful in putting degrees of freedom seperation between him and death camp rhetoric? You know before he gained power he never expressed such explicit rhetoric about sending people to death camps? Today as we speak there is still a historical debate on whether Hitler ever explicitly ordered death camps or if it was just an organic thing that formed from overzealous underlings He expressed the same rhetoric as you: people outside the traditional hierarchy systems are terroristic in nature.
Literally these are not nazi talking points. Also I don't hate trans people. That's ridiculous. Every post you make is just another strawman. You are always lying because you are a sad little person full of hate. I have never had to lie to discredit someone who disagrees with me. People like you are constantly doing it for me.
Only communists/marxists who express a desire to destroy the entire system I would call terrorists. I don't consider any other group we have mentioned as terrorist threats (edit: nazis are a terrorist threat too and you will be happy to hear I hate them too). You really wish I hated all the groups you keep bringing up don't you? Also define traditional hierarchy. I don't think you can. Is there one? Not sure about that bud, other than a capitalistic system. Also all I want is for children to not be at drag shows. That is my opinion because I think they are sexual in nature. You have severe problems if that makes someone a nazi in your eyes. You need to get help.[/QUOTE]
Lol they are absolutely Nazi talking points. Even Nazis before they gained power had to do the most basic of PR and make claims about not hating individual Jews but the concept of "Jewry". They couldn't convince as many people in Germany that they weren't bat **** insane without having slightly more flowery language. Also stuff like death camps usually happen organically with a prior log period of RHETORIC of spammed anecdotes of people in certain groups being bad. Before the Holocaust, decades of hate rhetoric about Jews and anecdotes of examples being spammed in print media allowed the hatred to culminate to death camps.
Ya that's usually something a fascist would say. Difference between disagreeing with those ideologies and labeling anyone who believes in those ideologies as terrorists.
"who want to destroy the system" (violently to be specific which is your typical antifa terrorist) Commies who want to play fair in democracy are OK in my book and present no terrorist threat. I still think they are dangerous because of what communism always results in, but I don't hate peaceful people. Again you really wish I was a nazi. I think that's cute. You need to feel like you are a hero fighting evil. I get it. You have nothing else going on in that life of yours.
I'm glad you are narrowing your scope of "terrorist" to those who commit violent attacks now. Read all your posts leading up to your most recent one because your only criterion for "terrorist" designation was "Marxist who wants to change the system". MLK also wanted to change the system. Is he a terrorist?
ya dude the fact that I had to shame you into narrowing your definition of terrorist from just "commies who want to change the system" to add "also want to commit violence" means you either are one step away from being a fascist or already are there.
Well, I am allowed to explain myself aren't I? Is this some essay where I have to elaborate on EVERYTHING I say and define everything to a T? I spoke with a generalization of what I consider a terrorist. Yes, there are non-terroristic commies, so I will walk that statement back with no pride lost. It's a simple fact and I acknowledge it. You want to play GOTCHA I see because I wasn't specific enough. Cute. Anyway, no MLK was not a terrorist. He was quite peaceful.
No, it means I want to be clear bro. I think you have issues still. Should I be more specific on that too?
Yo dude if I was going to label people as terrorists one of the first things I would accuse them of is being violent. If all you say is commies who want to change the system are terrorists, that's a reasonable assumption by me to have that you think all self labeled communists are terrorists because all self-labeled communists by the definition of their ideology want to also change the system.
Glad to hear you would accuse people of being violent. You do you. I have no need to accuse people of being violent. There are violent commies and they should be dealt with legally. No I don't have to like them either. Also I don't think "CHANGING" is a problem. I think change can be quite good and systems need changing. There have been many positive changes since the civil rights era, for example. You seem to want to again build a strawman in that I think people who want CHANGE are somehow violent? No, this would be wrong. You are assuming too much, even when I just spent time explaining my position. I have explained enough in fact. If you'd like to talk about why you support children at drag shows, I'm all ears. Why do you think it's OK? Do you not see how they are sexually explicit shows? Also do you not see how they degrade femininity and mock women.
I think for you to actually consider my arguments about this, it would require you to change your paradigm from automatic assumption that these people are inherently evil and have nefarious goals. It requires you to examine if their intent might be positive but their means might be wrong. Basically you have to redshift how your brain works where your initial assumption isn't thinking a person is evil but thinking maybe they have good intent but are doing it the wrong way. It requires you to stop your binary outlook on life of whether someone is either only good or evil.
I spent a lot of time answering your questions but you refuse and ATTACK. Only attack with you. You have no sincere intention of having a conversation I see. Also no one said ALL people involved in drag shows are evil. Or the shows themselves. You attack again. (a majority of the people involved are not evil) So again I'll ask: Why do you think it's OK? Do you not see how they are sexually explicit shows? Also do you not see how they degrade femininity and mock women. If you can't answer this, then I don't think we can have a discussion because you won't (or likely can't) even explain your basic claim.
Again you started out from the premise that people who send their kids to drag shows are inherently evil. You literally said that. I can't really explain this to you if that is your starting position. You have to open up to the idea that these people just might not be inherently evil but just disagree with you.
