I thought the comparison between Milo and Hitchens was interesting considering Mahar seemed to have a huge amount of respect for Hitchens.

The criticism he was making I think was a good one. Milo would be much better off just being unafraid to voice views that are likely to be seen as offensive rather than going out and actively seeking to offend.

Well, yeah, you're an immensely ill-informed coward. Your entire life is seeing something and getting worried because you don't understand it.

kioshk when are you going to come out to your parents?

Bringing back something earlier that #triggered Dan, one difference between Hitchens and Milo is that Hitchens was a college graduate.

Also, hey, I'm glad to see you're now offering advice to someone on the same team as you. You see how it's more sincere?

The only team that I care to be a part of is the team that truly makes an effort to understand the other side in a debate and from there tries to reason honestly. People from anywhere on the political spectrum can be on this team.

I am going to rule against discussing Muslims or refugees outside of those content threads where it is directly relevant. That's both to contain a sensitive topic and so that I can more easily check that the PC rules are being followed.

Everyone - please dont carry on the discussion here.

lol

Please can you move Marn's and related Muslim immigration posts to that thread, so that people can continue the discussion there?

Alternatively I can quote them there.

Either way, his claims shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged and unmoderated any longer.

will move the related content parts shortly

Yeah that attitude really unites people.

It's not possible or even desirable to unite supporters of totalitarian leaders with their opponents.

This is funny coming from someone who I cant think of one thing you've ever been correct about.

No, it's most likely the complete opposite. I see things you don't, because you're a ****ing idiot.

Temper tantrum.

How you figure, fool?

I would say I have made a very successful effort to understand the other side. I understand Milo and his fans far greater than you understand liberals and egalitarians. Part of this is because you get so violently triggered you avoid reading liberals like the plague, like how you broke down into a sobbing bitch when I called wil racist and then repeatedly dodged me asking if you knew who Eric Garner was.

I can't think of much we've agreed about either, and I'm very happy with this state of affairs.

In November we both bet on Trump: me because I generally think that betting markets overrate favourites (I've been betting on UK sports for years, generally opposing favourites), while you went with your spidey feels and got lucky lol.

Other than that, nothing thankfully.

Cry more?

Is ****ty86 some sort of spam bot posting random spew?

Oh wait, I figured it out. I was reading way too much into this.

You are declaring that at this moment you are throwing a temper tantrum. I pity the poor fools in your vacinity IRL. Do you need a 'safe space'?

You don't agree with my views so I have no interest in interacting with you. No different then a kid taking their ball and going home because they don't get their way.

You guys angry people, seek help.

Is this an admission that the constant misrepresentations are deliberate?

I can't claim to know what it is you do or dont understand but you constantly violate the 'reasoning honestly' part. (Making unsupported claims about someone would be en example of this. Like saying that you somehow know what it is that I read... Again, how do you think you sound when you say stuff like this?)

I could point you back to what I wrote to explain why Eric Garner isn't a knock down argument against it (did you even read what I wrote?) but I see no point. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage in political discussions honestly.

Even writing this is likely a waste of time.

This is where you are confused: interact != unite.

Speaking for myself, I am most certainly interacting with these fools. In fact, I'm off for a meeting to plan some more interaction in just a few minutes. Disruption is a form of interaction.

FYP

I sound "correct". You seem to think a misrepresentation is any non-charitable writing, like when I call someone a bigot who claims they aren't(or, more accurately, someone who claims that being called a bigot hurts their feelings), but that's not what that word means.

Misrepresenting is like, well, what you do when you whine that liberals call anyone who disagrees with them racist.

That's misrepresenting the truth, which is that the area of disagreement there is racial ****ing equality.

There's nothing dishonest about what I write about Milo, or wil, or you.

Eric Garner isn't a knock down argument against what? What are you even talking about? (the quoted post is the first 2p2 post you've ever made with the word "Garner" in it)

You reading more and writing less would be a win-win for everyone.

You keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. I mean, I specifically called him winning Pennsylvania, which was considered absurd at the time. At the end of this year I'll be picking up my Eric Garner bet, too.

It doesn't really matter in the end. Being more (or less) correct than a bunch of ignorant nerds on 2+2 won't matter much.