>>3285>I've insulted you by disagreeing with you and "misrepresenting" you
No, you've directly insulted me, too.
The quote I pointed out in >>3283
was in context to you saying I had a "mood disorder". And of course, there's been plenty of other instances besides that.>but I've never called you a racist with no empathy. I
called me a racist. That was one of the earliest problems you and I had. > I don't think you're a racist. I think you hold some racist views, and are too stubborn to admit it, but we went over why I don't think holding racist views and being a racist are the same thing.
Well I'm very happy to hear that. It's nice to know. Genuinely.
Though you did say it ages ago, during your political ban as I recall since it was a problem we had run in to a few times, and one I had ultimately complained about. > I've also never said you lack empathy or that you're "an asshole", especially since that last one violates the rules.
Not so sure about that. I am fairly certain you have called me an asshole, a few times. Usually resulted in the thread getting locked, at that point.
Suggestion of being unempathetic had come up plenty of times, though, for sure. Sometimes more as a blanket for anyone who holds a belief, too. I believe, in the 2A thread, it was something along the lines of "Seems sort of counter-productive to vote against representatives who value human life."
Though, again, by your own logic; "That wasn't an insult. It was my honest opinion about his behavior".
So, by that metric, I've never insulted you either.>As for mint, it actually wasn't my honest opinion about him. My honest opinions about him are far, far worse. I felt what I said was holding back, but apparently it was still too far.
I'm not really disputing that. My point was, I said what I said mainly because it was apparently fine for you to say what you did about Mint, as something of a 'proving a point' matter.
It was, in a way, something of bait for Zecora. I expected the standard suggested would not actually hold up. Was a bit surprised when nothing was done, but, I guess it'd be hard to argue the case when I inevitably complained about it.>I'm fine with voice. I'd prefer it, in fact.
Fair enough, then. I'd prefer it that way as well, for the reasons I mentioned. Plus, I think it generally helps humanize people. IT's a bit easier to hate folk when you don't think of them as anything but text on a screen.>I assume you are talking about Neo-Nazis, because Nazi Germany was not about free speech and silenced people and the media constantly...
I'd consider it more or less the same. I think the Nazi party would also be making free speech arguments if they were getting censored at the time. >But Neo-Nazis aren't in favor of universal free speech. Only free speech for people they consider "people" (i.e. whites)
I do not think I believe that.
It's something I've never heard anyone say.
Where did you hear that one? Maybe they're radically different from the ones I usually end up talking to.>So yes, I am against their version of free speech. Moreover, I question whether they actually ARE for free speech, or try to use free speech as a shield to protect their rhetoric while silencing their detractors.
Reasonable. In that case, anything you'd point to and say "Nazis also like this", I'd just say the same.
I'm against their
version of that thing.
I question whether they actually are
for that thing, or are just using it as a shield/bait to seem more reasonable.