I Think I Will Scream

[Old Rocks]

. . . . if I turn on the TV one more time and hear another minute of wall-to-wall nonstop 24/7 discussion of the most HEINOUS event of the 21st Century! DAYS after the fact . . . .

That President Trump blamed all sides in the violence in Charlottesville.

DAYS LATER, this is still the Number 1 News Story of the World? That Trump didn't denounce Nazism as the FIRST thing he said? Oh wait, he DID. But in doing so, he tried to include ALL forms of hatred and violence and made a call for more peace and unity in the country.

THAT BASTARD.

HE IS NO LEADER OF OURS.

It just amazes me the number of people even on Fox News calling this a moral outrage, complaining about the incessant coverage all the while never stopping talking about it, that all of his people on his manufacturing council for jobs walked out, and that he is now ruined with both his base and the voters. Because he had to SPELL OUT by name in one massive Pavlovian Catharsis that Nazi's aren't the nicest people, and blame them as the only and SOLE reason why a city turned into a mob.

But the city turned into a mob because once again, the police backed off and LET IT HAPPEN. They stood by and WATCHED.

People left and right all across the country and around the world can't trip over their own feet fast enough now in one big ME TOO to make sure they all barf out in genuflection how much they hate Nazis.

Me too!!! Hack! Spit! Ptooey!

Snifff. You can smell the Political Correction in the air, and the FEAR of being DENOUNCED as NOT being politically correct!

THERE'S ONE OVER THERE, BOB! ONE OF THOSE NON-PC PEOPLE! QUICK! GRAB HIM! TIME TO BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! THAT'LL FIX HIM!

But wait: isn't hatred what the Nazis are about? So you HATE the Nazis for HATING?

There is something seriously wrong with the world.

The Nazi's are FULLY ENTITLED to their opinions and views no matter what they are. There are no "conditions" of morality in the Constitution! If you don't agree with them, CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL YOU GOD DAMNED SNOWFLAKE! There is more outrage over this small group of stupid zealot demonstrators than there is for Imams preaching Death to America in mosques all across our country!

The sad fact is that in all of this, Donald Trump is the only one who got it right. The Nazi's HAD A PERMIT to demonstrate and hold a rally there in Charlottesville, the Antifas did not. What did Charlottesville expect they would do--- ---maybe hand out flowers and Bibles? The problem with BOTH they AND the Antifas is that they both use hatred and violence as the tools to their own ends.

The irony is that the Antifas are protesting against fascism, in doing so in the way they do, they actually use the same methods as the very people they are protesting! Fascism!

Why not think of the Nazis and the Antifas both as groups of Love:

The Nazis would love a nation devoid of Blacks, Jews and Christians where only Whites dominate. They are just pissed because that world doesn't exist HERE. Maybe they need to go find an island somewhere.

And the Antifas would love a world free of other people telling you how to live your life and who can be here, by going around telling others how THEY should live and whether they can be here. And beat you with a bat if you don't comply.

And the world looks on and laughs at the madness as America spins and implodes.

Go ahead and scream and blubber. We see that you guys are good at that.

 

[Conservative65]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

 

[emilynghiem]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Yes and no Conservative65. I think you missed Slade3200 breakthrough msg. About distinguishing the freedom of speech vs the actual hate groups and neo Nazis supremacists Slade clearly opposed out of fear coming into this ORIGINALLY. That was where Slade was coming from where free speech would have been cut off if this was taken too far. One step at a time, Con65.

First we open up agreements on free speech to even discuss all sides. Now we can address what you bring up, but in a free speech context.

You jumped ahead . Sure, now we can talk about free speech and free exercise for Muslims separate from the Islamists and Jihadists trying to shut it down.

That's a whole other expanded area and application. Conservative65 not everyone is an expert in that or all areas at once. Yes it makes us biased and uneven but No it doesn't make us hypocrites just because we don't address all areas or sides at the same time. When I try to do that, I get complaints the msgs triple and get too long. So it causes other problems to do what you say.

One step and issue at a time. But yes of course you are right, we do need to apply the same standards to all ppl of all groups. Thank you, and Slade3200 stated greater efforts in supporting free speech and not shutting down the protests. Look back for that msg which is not from a hypocrite but someone sincere in overcoming fear and bias . That is what it takes to correct the biases. We all have them and they do come out when we speak. So lets not be afraid and condemn or shut down the dialogue just because of these biases we are all going to have. We know we are cominh from different experiences and angles and are meeting at the crossroads. If we want terrorists to put down their anger and weapons and talk and listen despite differences, we should at least set an example of how to include each other despite glaring biases in our speech, and not give up and shut each other down or out because of it. We've got to do better and try harder as Slade was trying to do, in order to stop the fascism oppression and violence that escalates by condemning free speech. We who have access to free speech have responsibility to protect and use it not shut it down. Thanks for your correction, let's encourage more not discourage by disparaging each other's efforts okay? No offense or ill will intended. Let's get on the same side with this, treat each other as allies in the same fight to overcome oppression, and we can hear each other out better in the spirit of teamwork not making enemies where we can make better allies.

 

[Slade3200]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

 

[emilynghiem]

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

 

[Conservative65]

Muslims have called for the extermination of the Jews. Why do you sympathize with them?

I don't sympathize with anybody that calls for the elimination of the Jews. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

We are talking about the hypocrisy of you leftwing assholes. Your fellow lefties have claimed silence equal agreement. Why does that not apply when you're silent on something?

 

[Conservative65]

You referenced the KKK, Nazis, and white supremacists related to "marching down the streets and calling for the banishment of Jews". You said nothing about the Muslims that do the very same thing. Taking a note from your fellow lefty's playbook, silence means you consent to what those Muslims do. I don't have to put words in your mouth. Your lack of words is all I need to know your sympathize with the Muslim desire to eliminate the Jews.

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

What's wrong with you people.... Nazis, the KKK and white supremacist groups are marching down our streets and calling for the banishment of Jews and blacks. And you are yawning and annoyed because it makes your President look bad when he waters down the seriousness of this problem? Y'all need to do some serious self reflection

So you are saying this stuff didn't go on under Obama?

Hmmmm.....

KKK march in middle America
Thanks given to the president for his support from the ringleader
Equivalence of anti-Nazi violence to Nazi supremacy by said president
I don't recall anything quite like that under Obama

But I was out of the country for a while....

Can someone confirm?

Wrong another liberal lie, The fact is The LEFT thought police really are the NAZIS they follow the doctrine of hitler to a letter. Apparently they think ONLY they are mentioned in the constitution, and anyone who disagrees with them has any rights.

Wow. There really is a very high proportion of Nazi sympathisers on this board. I came on hoping for some insight and genuine debate but no.

I truly hope for the sake of your country that this is not representative of the nation as a whole, though I fear it might be.

You might be wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

 

[Slade3200]

That is just about the dumbest thing I've heard today... Grow up

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

Neither of your last two comments make sense. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Conservative65]

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

 

[Conservative65]

The dumbest things you've heard is yourself making excuses why you only address certain groups you say do those things.

Be a man for once in your miserable life.

Why are you silent on Muslims? Your silence says a lot about you, hypocrite.

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

Neither of your last two comments make sense. What point are you trying to make?

You claim to want debate. You want confirmation of what you say.

 

[Slade3200]

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

Yeah, millions do. Google Muslims against Isis

More Muslims are killed by Isis and other extremist groups than Christians. Go educate yourself

 

[Slade3200]

Muslims??? Are you high? Why are you bringing them into this? If I say something about Muslims are you going to come after me for not denouncing Hillary? If I denounce Hillary, is it what about Bill?.... How far does it go? Stop with the games. We are talking about Charlottesville and what happened there. Muslims were not involved.

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

Neither of your last two comments make sense. What point are you trying to make?

You claim to want debate. You want confirmation of what you say.

I don't care about confirmation. I just want you to back up your arguments with substance and stop playing the games

 

[Conservative65]

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

Yeah, millions do. Google Muslims against Isis

More Muslims are killed by Isis and other extremist groups than Christians. Go educate yourself

Are you justifying radical Muslims killing others because they're of the same religion?

 

[Conservative65]

Dear Slade3200 I think Conservative65 was trying to pinpoint and address a bias . That should be for the purpose of resolving it not for using it as justification for blocking communication. So step 2 - after we agree on free speech as step 1 - when we run into a barrier or condition, or someone using free speech to slap us for something we said or didn't say showing a bias , how do we use free speech to resolve that issue or difference? So we maintain free speech and don't drop the conversation over a glitch in the line. How do we direct and use our free speech to established talking terms and points?

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

Neither of your last two comments make sense. What point are you trying to make?

You claim to want debate. You want confirmation of what you say.

I don't care about confirmation. I just want you to back up your arguments with substance and stop playing the games

Confirmation is the only thing you want. Otherwise you wouldn't whine like a little bitch when someone disagrees and proves you wrong.

 

[Slade3200]

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

Thanks Slade3200 I appreciate you posting that clarification of where you stand and where you made a stretch.
I'm also finding something similar but in the opposite direction: because certain people I talk with need ASSURANCE
that I'm NOT enabling or justifying the bad racist oppression discrimination and genocide, it appears they NEED TO HEAR
THE WORDS that I oppose the white nationlists/neo-nazis. It's like people who NEED to hear you oppose ALL BLM and
it isn't enough to say you oppose the attacks on police by SOME. Or they think you are justifying the mob riots by not being unequivocal enough.

Do you mind if I reference your msg to propose the next step?

I am trying to take the step with people who NEED TO HEAR that I or Trump "unequivocally denounce" KKK and White Nationalists as a group.
I have heard the Alt-Right spokesperson say he is against any such illegal activity and conspiracy to incite attacks or other violations of equal civil rights.
(The one thing I opposed, he said if he got hit they would hit back. I didn't agree with that response, but if they did it I wouldn't blame them.
I would focus on avoiding the hitting in the first place if they just can't take it without committing equal violence even if it is proportional.
I would advise them to stay on the upper moral and legal ground, and not strike back; only use force for defense but not retaliation or the other
side can still file complaints. It is harder to distinguish and defend who was following laws if both sides end up in a fight like Martin and Zimmerman.)

So I think I am somewhere closer to understanding where Conservative65 is with "wanting to hear" that you denounce
Muslims as enabling the Jihadist terrorist attacks. I would hesitate to blame all them as a group.

But can we try working through this:

Conservative65 -- Slade took the step of distinguishing the free speech issue from enabling/not denouncing the White Supremacists/NeoNazis.
You brought up the parallel context of either denouncing or enabling the Muslims/Jihadists.

I can distinguish the difference between: Muslims who are lawabiding and obey civil authority and govt,
Islamists who dangerously mix religious authority with govt and military/police force which becomes oppressive of equal democratic rights and process,
Jihadist terrorist who seek to violate laws by committing military violence and waging political religious wars against civilians without any due process.

Can you make this distinction? Or do you see all three as one: Muslims Islamists and Jihadists all "enabling" terrorist attacks because it's too hard to distinguish these.

I just ran into more people who see the White Supremacists, Confederate defenders, and Free Speech Constitutionalists as all enabling the same KKK NeoNazi crap. Because they can't distinguish these easily, it becomes an oppressive threat politically, even if legally you could in fact do so; it's so inconvenient it's causing mob fear anyway.

Now, since Slade3200 said basically "let's take the Constitutional Free Speech as separate from promoting the White Supremacist/NeoNazi agenda"

Are YOU equally willing or able to take a similar step
and distinguish peaceful Muslims - who also are just asking for equal respect under Civil and Constitutional laws they seek to follow -
from Jihadist Terrorists who DON'T follow or respect civil authority and laws.

or were you asking Slade3200 to denounce these without distinction?
Cuz I can't do that without making a distinction first.
I can distinguish the Muslims from Jihadists and Islamist,
but when this guy today asked me to denounce KKK and White Supremacists, I can
denounce past KKK lynchings and mob attacks and discrimination teachings that Blacks are inferior by birth. But from what I understand of the current nationalist movements, there are different groups such as ones seeking to promote
Western Civilization which isn't necessarily just White, so I can't tell these apart yet.
I have to know WHICH persons or WHICH groups you are talking about first.
If they run together in my mind, that still doesn't make me so afraid that I am willing to condemn by association and not do "due process" to distinguish who did what.

(Now with BLM I have seen so much more irresponsible behavior and shootings, I am more likely to hold all BLM responsible than try to figure out which group is for or against what thing. I only recently found 1 BLM leader who is like me, willing to work with all people and groups, and not preaching violence; similar to Muslims who don't even relate to Jihadists at all. But that isn't enough to undo the bad associations that BLM has as a collecive entity. So for BLM I do tend to be biased against the whole movement without distinction because the lack of being able to do so HAS COST police their lives. so to me that is dangerous, to hide behind lack of distinction of responsibility. With the White Supremacist and nationalist, the people I have seen are able to be distinguished from each other, and held to account for each person's beliefs.
So I'd rather finish distinguishing what is Alt Right from Western bias, etc. first)

Can we start with the Muslim/Islamist/Jihadist distinction?
Do you want to hear that we denounce ALL Muslims for enabling the other two?

Or are you able to distinguish the free exercise of Muslim beliefs within Constitutional laws?
So that's like distinguishing free speech within Constitutional bounds, and is
not about "enabling or condoning" abuse to promote a hostile discriminatory or oppressive belief system against others.

Thanks Conservative65

If this doesn't work, we can try comparing with BLM. I admit I lump all of that as one image in my mind. So I guess that's like people who do that with White Supremacists or "ALL Muslims period", where if you don't condemn the whole group, then you are enabling violent terrorism.

I can take the step @Blade3200 took when I distinguish "Jihadists" from Islamists and Muslims or "Zionists" from Jews and Christians. But I"m still at a loss trying to figure what to call the differences in BLM that all seem to be enabling anti-cop attacks, and in the language I would need to use to distinguish KKK/Supremacists vs. nationalists/patriots. Otherwise that is confusing and offending others who run these together as well.

Of course I denounce any kind of jihad and terror, I have no hesitation in doing so, except when I'm asked as a diversionary tactic to change the discussion. The difference I see in the two scenarios is you have the core belief which is Islam. At its core it is a virtuous religion just like the other major religions. It is focused on peace but, like the other religions, it has violent elements in its doctrine that get focused on and distorted by extremists. I completely denounce the extremist views that lead to violence. I want to be careful that we don't lump good hearted Muslims in with the extremists.

As for the Nazis and white supremacists, I don't see any virtuous elements of their mission. It is all hate and division. We should all be able to decisively condemn the ideology of these hate groups.

Wouldn't those good Muslims denounce what the radical ones do?

Yeah, millions do. Google Muslims against Isis

More Muslims are killed by Isis and other extremist groups than Christians. Go educate yourself

Are you justifying radical Muslims killing others because they're of the same religion?

How in the world are you drawing that conclusion from what I said? Of course not, I outright condemned any extremist activity and ideologies. Why are you trying so hard to force your narrative down my throat? It just makes you look insecure and incapable of honest debate.

 

[Slade3200]

Hi Emily, I appreciate your moderation between our discussion, i've had many with Conservative65 and I know exactly what he was trying to do by bringing Muslims into the discussion and that was divert the conversation to something that thinks he can "get me" on. It is a cheap and petty game. But i'm with you. Stick to the topic and have an intellectual debate of opposing viewpoints and let logic/reason prevail.

You don't want debate. You're just like the former affirmative action President. You want people to agree with you because you said it.

I've already "got it" on you before. No reason to believe I won't "get it" on you again.

Neither of your last two comments make sense. What point are you trying to make?

You claim to want debate. You want confirmation of what you say.

I don't care about confirmation. I just want you to back up your arguments with substance and stop playing the games

Confirmation is the only thing you want. Otherwise you wouldn't whine like a little bitch when someone disagrees and proves you wrong.

I just said I don't care about confirmation. I debate people on this board all the time and I don't give a shit what they think of me. I respect my arguements and reasoning or facts to support my argument and I expect the same from those who I'm talking to. You don't provide rationale or facts to back up your arguments. You only seem interested in name calling and engaging in petty squabbles. Look at this conversation. Go back and read the thread. It's pathetic. Grow up