[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ There's your problem. Other people's life stories, in your mind, are the same as Hollywood movie/TV plots. Hmmm, that must be why Leftists are so enamoured with movie stars, they actually believe actors go through the events their characters portray. Given your behavior, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Words aren't violence

They can cause damage.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The fact that your first reaction is that people want their free speech to spread discrimination only shows how much damage your way of thinking causes.

Not people, conservatives. And I see you think that my opinions cause damage, so I guess thats a point to me.

Homophobia and racism warranted public condemnation and were on the decline until the big orange turd in the bad wig used his free speech to legitimise them in the media. Previously there were still marches and pickets held by the KKK, the WBC and other hate groups but everyone else publicly condemned them. So I'm sorry but your sunlight as disinfectant analogy falls flat on its face here.

I never said free speech should be controlled or restricted. What I said was the reasons conservatives are championing it now have nothing to do with empathy and everything to do with being generally unpleasant, selfish and greedy.

Right wing PR people have learned to wrap greed in lies that let people justify it and this is how it now spreads. They also empowered people to ignore the truth in favour of what they prefer. This acts like a barrier to your disinfecting sunlight. The counters to this tactic, like educating the citizenry are too slow to be of use so the only effective fix is to wait for them to screw things up so colossally they can't possibly deny what they've done any more. There is no guarantee they won't successfully blame someone else when this happens, because passing the buck is the final significant part of their new M.O. They already have form for blaming the liberals for failing to stop them doing bad things.

[BadKosh]

WAS IS a snowflake! Afraid of words? Your stereotype opinions are showing, and still BS.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

They can cause damage.

To feelings? Sometimes.

Not people, conservatives.

You're mentally sick and need help.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

WAS IS a snowflake! Afraid of words? Your stereotype opinions are showing, and still BS.

And you continue to live up to every stereotype I could possibly throw out.

Even in this short outburst you ignore what I actually said, accuse me of saying the exact opposite and call me a snowflake like you don't understand how that particular slur is supposed to be used. Something which I see Trump fans doing all the time as if it applies to everyone who disagrees with them.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're mentally sick and need help.

So my opinions can cause damage but the words of conservatives in the public eye can't. What damage are my opinions doing please?

Is everyone who disagrees with you mentally sick and in need of help? If so, welcome to the asylum.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So my opinions can cause damage but the words of conservatives in the public eye can't. What damage are my opinions doing please?

Is everyone who disagrees with you mentally sick and in need of help? If so, welcome to the asylum.

Damage? No. However you are harming yourself. Believing that conservatives aren't people is a sign of mental illness. The dehumanization of others you disagree with is what allows people to justify the most vile acts in human history

You need professional help, sooner rather than later, your twisted ideology has done you no favors.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Damage? No. However you are harming yourself. Believing that conservatives aren't people is a sign of mental illness. The dehumanization of others you disagree with is what allows people to justify the most vile acts in human history

You need professional help, sooner rather than later, your twisted ideology has done you no favors.

Wow.
I never said they weren't people. I reiterated that I said conservatives only championed free speech mostly to protect their right to behave like asshats towards others. I'm sure there are plenty people who are not conservatives that champion free speech for good reasons and maybe even the odd conservative, but the loudest ones are just trying to protect their right to say horrible things to minorities as far as I can see.

[BadKosh]

Your perceived sleights and believing words can hurt make you a snowflake. Perhaps its because you are using the wrong words? Perhaps instead of words hurting, they are actually a wake up call from reality.

BTW - you need to look at the REALITY that its been the immature, butthurt liberals who are rioting, ruining others property, and generally being immature assholes. But you are in UK land and are watching too many propaganda shows, so you are disconnected from what is really happening in the states.

You are believing those fictional stereotypes, and see conservatives in that light.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Your perceived sleights and believing words can hurt make you a snowflake. Perhaps its because you are using the wrong words? Perhaps instead of words hurting, they are actually a wake up call from reality.

Perceived sleights? Are my words hurting you?

I keep seeing claims that you read things but apparently it doesn't apply to my posts. I said words can cause damage. Let me explain because apparently that doesn't make sense to you.

People lie about things, idiots believe the lies and cast votes based on those lies for scumbags. Elected scumbags fail to help or fail to protect people, or sometimes they actively oppress, hurt or kill people.

You're one of those people who believes lies and bases their political opinions on bullshit. You really ought to understand the damage since you're an integral part of the process, but no words don't hurt me. They piss me off when they combine to form utterly retarded sentences or thoughts, but they certainly don't hurt me, because people who think like that don't deserve to matter enough for me to care what they say.
Words might hurt my feelings, but again they really need to come from someone whose opinion I value and I'm not afraid of having my feelings hurt anyway.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

BTW - you need to look at the REALITY that its been the immature, butthurt liberals who are rioting, ruining others property, and generally being immature assholes. But you are in UK land and are watching too many propaganda shows, so you are disconnected from what is really happening in the states.

Well since words don't hurt (and the truth gets ignored) maybe damaging property is the only thing that makes privileged assholes pay any attention?
I don't know what you think I watch but not much of it falls under the category of propaganda. Not that you'd recognise news or a documentary that challenged your existing opinion as anything else.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You are believing those fictional stereotypes, and see conservatives in that light.

Again, you make it easy to believe in the stereotypes, because you closely adhere to them. You are far from the only such person I encounter on the internet on a daily basis who does. But maybe its all performance art like Alex Jones?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I never said they weren't people.

Not people, conservatives.

If that wasn't intentional, it was the greatest Freudian slip I've seen in years.

[Laminar]

"Not people in general, but specifically conservative people" is how you would read it if you weren't trying really hard to find something wrong with what he said and derail the conversation.

[The Final Dakar]

Mods on point.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

"Not people in general, but specifically conservative people" is how you would read it if you weren't trying really hard to find something wrong with what he said and derail the conversation.

Thank you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think wires are crossed here. You would support invading?

No, oppose actually. There is no strategic military objective to be achieved. It's all going to be political, though with a reservation that military action such as airstrikes and special ops are certainly part of the equation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

No, oppose actually. There is no strategic military objective to be achieved. It's all going to be political, though with a reservation that military action such as airstrikes and special ops are certainly part of the equation.

Ok, my confusion was it was an all nothing 18%/82% scenario.

That's probably what will happen, but as you point out:

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I just don't think a stalemate while hundreds of thousands perish and millions are displaced to be any kind of solution either.

This seems to be what we're putting forward. We neither want to leave Assad in power, nor trust the rebels will be any better.

[The Final Dakar]

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I just wonder what the basis for those who oppose the airstrikes is.

We're targeting ISIS held territory.

[The Final Dakar]

The isolationists, the pacifists, and war weary would be my trifecta. (I wonder what changed that 64% of republicans suddenly support them)

Btw, the air strikes being referred to are the Syrian ones, not ISIS.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I just wonder what the basis for those who oppose the airstrikes is.

We're targeting ISIS held territory.

Check again, the poll was from April 7-9, so it specifically referred to the 59-missile strike at Assad's airstrip. Nothing to do with ISIS. The 2013 poll was also specifically about whether or not Americans supported launching missile strikes at Syria in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.bf6a56b8ff39

2013 Poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/....xml?tid=a_inl

2017 Poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/...elease_465.xml

[The Final Dakar]

Yes, my apologies if the timing of the post was confusing, but I hadn't posted here because n some time and had a backlog of stuff I wanted to mention.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Check again, the poll was from April 7-9, so it specifically referred to the 59-missile strike at Assad's airstrip. Nothing to do with ISIS. The 2013 poll was also specifically about whether or not Americans supported launching missile strikes at Syria in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.bf6a56b8ff39

2013 Poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/....xml?tid=a_inl

2017 Poll:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page/...elease_465.xml

Makes more sense to me now. Thanks!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, my apologies if the timing of the post was confusing, but I hadn't posted here because n some time and had a backlog of stuff I wanted to mention.

No problem! I too have been dealing with that whole IRL thing getting in the way of my NNing.