This is what I said you do. (And you do) I didn't generalize to all liberals. You saying that I did misrepresents my position. I'll give you points here for irony!

You notice how I don't delete your entire post to dodge questions, Madcap?

You get off on this petty bickering more than I do.

Honesty is a uniting influence, and since we can go observe and conclude how honest that post you quoted is and how honest your response here is, we can decide if it is that post you quoted or your post which is most influential towards 'uniting people'.

So, assuming that post you quoted is mostly honest.
and,
Your response is not much more than a mocking bite at uniting people, which is mostly not very genuine.

It would seem that it is true that post you quoted has more honest attitude than your post, and is better than your attitude when it comes to uniting people.


Cliffs: The post you quoted assumed mostly honest is a uniting influence for people. Your post is assumed not a mostly uniting influence. Your post is weaker at uniting people, but you still have an opportunity and the freedom to investigate the honesty of that post you quoted and turn it around.

It's not petty bickering, though, it's that honest discussion about the absolutely most important issues in the world today.

Like you said you wanted to make an effort to understand the other side, but apparently that "effort" extends to... already knowing that nobody is racist, nobody is sexist, nobody is xenophobic. And so political discussion, for you, is mostly hectoring liberals about how they are too mean on the internet.

You didn't know what wil wrote before you decided he wasn't racist, and when confronted with one quote from him you tried to rewrite it to be less racist, and when confronted repeatedly with my question about Garner you kept deleting it to avoid answering.

Honest understanding requires both honesty and understanding.

And of course, though, when the shoe is on the other foot Madcap is QUITE WILLING to explore the possibility that Muslims and transsexuals have negative character traits. Those are positions deserving of civil and reasoned agreement. That anti-immigration views might have some negative aspects lurking in the intentions, though?

That discussion is beyond the pale.

Tests gotta exist for that.

Is there anything that isn't racist or sexist to you? Are there many people here that you don't bicker and fight with like a child?

YOU are the problem, Fly.

So did we agree on no Maddow + no National Review?

Meh, Fly might be right that faux liberals are concern trolling. But, I think it's this rift between the SJWs, new liberals, and old liberals.

But Milo being offensive is why he has such a large audience. Maybe the most essential element of right wing "outrage porn" is the moneyshot of the cucked liberals getting served a hot load of justice, usually in the form of calling them ****s and stuff.

This is honest discussion to you?

I haven't even been involved in any transgender debate.

If I can't even get you to see why you shouldn't constantly make **** up, why should I think you even care about getting closer to the right answer. This is why I was ignoring your posts. It won't lead to anything.

And just to be clear... this post is directed at YOU. Not all liberals.

Yeah, that's probably true and a major reason why he probably won't change even if he recognizes the problems with doing what he is doing. Building his own brand and attention whoring seems to be what he cares about most.

Milo, he of the "good points", had some pretty offensive **** to say about trans people in bathrooms in the Maher show, that you ****ing commented on to give him an at-a-boy but offer some constructive criticism.

So yeah, you have. You could've not caped up for Milo if you were truly ignorant of him, but you made your ****ing bed.

OK and you're absolutely right, it's not honest discussion, because every ****ing response you make is isolating one nitpicky point and ignoring the rest of the post. You absolutely refuse to ever engage on the merits of any issue, all you do is ****ing whine that people aren't nice enough to the scum of the ****ing Earth.

That you, for example, only objected to the trans stuff but not the Islam or immigrant stuff is what... concession that I was right? That's the clearest reading. Similarly, you have no ****ing idea who Eric Garner is, right? Never ran across that name is all your youtubes or your subreddits.

I am not trying to have a conversation about politics with you. I am trying to explain why such a conversation is impossible. If you can't agree with me on the points that I raised, there is no use moving forward.

The next time I ignore your posts, just remember what I wrote here:

His screenname is ****ty86, I mean, we're foolish to expect otherwise, right?

I'm not sure Maher realizes everything about Milo. It's not new for him. He was a Ron Paul fan very briefly before somebody apparently pulled him aside.

Wil resorting to 'I kno u r but wat am I'

It's always a whimper, never a bang.

Uh, I know why you ignore my posts, because I ask questions you either don't want to or can't answer, because I read you like a ****ing book from the jump.

Not anything new that no one knew about but
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...?CMP=edit_2221

Just wait til we lump them all together as new fascists. Oh, too late according to the streets.

You would't pass.

Yeah, "Do you know who Eric Garner is?" is really a tough one to handle.

Milo got invited to speak at CPAC, and some conservative oppo shops got looking into his past, and he gave some edgy takes on ****ing 13 year olds:



Makes. Some. Good. Points.

Yet here we are, without an answer.