In this instance, an extra-personal defense and the truth. Like I said before, don't make the attack if you can't handle the response.

Except my intention is not to cause additive harm, simply return it from where it came and to correct the record in the face of lies. A truth can only hurt those who choose to deny it.

No, I don't remember ever saying anything that more than 1% of the population would call really racist or slightly racist.

That sample size comment was only taken seriously by you.

I'm confused what a fake liberal is and which posters are the fake ones and which are the real ones

bahbah - in all sincerity, I think you're focusing too much on the racism. While we all agree that you've argued some racist positions, I'll be the first to defend you by saying you might not be able to understand racism. I think your focusing on racism misses that your bigger problem is you're incredibly dense and obtuse. In other words, I can accept that you're not bright enough to understand why your opinions have come across as incredible racist. While that lessons your culpability as a 'knowing' racist, it still means you're an awful poster.

You were well noted for posting completely erroneous stuff, having a multitude of posters post a wall of evidence showing why what you posted was completely factually wrong, and then you ignoring everyone's response and re-posting the same horrible posts the next day.

That doesn't seem to be an exhaustive list. How low would your bar go, exactly?

ahahahaha

you apparently didn't actually read any of that stuff, you just knew you liked bruce, therefore it's impossible for the accusations to have merit. Seems legit!

Wookie and I are in complete agreement. Me saying he confirmed the accusations and Wookie saying he overtly denied the accusations are not contradictory. The fact that you think they are pretty much explains why everyone thinks you're a mental midget.

Even though they both post in SMP, Bruce being a racist doesn't make Swissmiss a denier.

Hell, even I believe that Bruce honestly believes that he's not "a racist," but that's because he honestly believes the racist vitriol he likes to post on the internet isn't the least bit racist.

We're still waiting on her take of what all the historians got wrong on the Holocaust, and what the 9/11 report made up about 9/11.

The cross-subforum tribal rivalry baffles me. It is dumb and uninformative. Essentially it implies an attack on people who like to discuss science, math, and, philosophy, while putting those subjects at odds with politics. That's what republicans do.

↑↑↑↑Antisocial Justice Warrior↑↑↑↑

not going to search for it, but if JAAASH has never been mentioned in this thread he's overdue.

Granted, he's not unique - just your run of the mill guy coming across ignorant and behind in every thread (meaning he'll pop into a thread that has thousands of posts and basically post the same points everyone discussed months ago, completely ignorant that what he's posting is not only old news but of the arguments against everything he says.

It's pretty obvious he just wants to troll conservative/racist talking points as close to the line as he can without getting banned.

When did calling people fake liberals become a thing? Are Jiggs and spank the same person?

Paul D opened the door, I have simply pointed out qualifying behaviors.

I do not agree.

I also disagree w/ this, but I prefer you and the rest of the posters around here who post negative things about me to say I'm dumb rather than I'm racist.

I would edit this to say: Often posters say completely erroneous stuff, I post evidence showing why what they posted was completely factually wrong, and then they ignore my response and re-post the same horrible posts the next day. I guess it depends what side of the argument you are on to say who was repeating non-sense and who was shutting non-sense down.

The one time you tried to post evidence you posted a link to an overtly racist article about the knockout game.

Shall we bring the discussion to your fantasy football threads?

Seriously, if they were randomly deleting posts from politics posters, we should at least sink to their level and harass their posters for coming here and tarding up all our threads.

An eye for an eye makes the world balanced, I always say!

That amounts to exactly the same thing, though. Just with an air of plausible deniability. "Oh, I'm not denying facts, I'm just denying that facts can be made! TOTALLY DIFFERENT!"

Except no, it's not. It's the same argument only one level further back. The next level back is that historians can't establish facts because there was in fact no holocaust! Do you get how it's the implicit middle ground between two explicit denial arguments?

Anais still thinks this is his tribe's forum and only his tribe's forum and he advocates for revenge. It feels great knowing they cannot stop their poor opinions from being confronted and dismissed at anytime, despite every childish and abusive attempt to force dissenters to be shunned and silenced. Sorest losers ever.

Wtf. I said that the official report has his weaknesses, not that it made up things about 9/11. You are distorting the truth just to get me for some reason I can't phanthom. Please stop that. I acknowledged the mistakes I made a zillion times and you sound just completely hateful no matter how good your intentions are.

Here you go for criticism on the 9/11 report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

It is even not that controversial here in Switzerland that it has some glaring omissions. I wouldn't go as far as calling it a fraud as wiki says some critics do. But to even expect that it was some honest investigation by independent minds and without mistakes is just lol.

But I will not go into more specific arguments about the report here because you made me realize that even touching the subject with a ten foot pole is just not possible on 2+2. Nice job.



I never said all the historians got something wrong about the holocaust either other than missing my 2 surviving relatives. Look, 13ball made a good point some 100 posts ago. I am overly critical of academia and too little critical of the "normal" fringe. This has to do with the fact that I read bad (and peer reviewed) studies every ****ing day. It could be field specific though, I haven't really delved into history yet, only got my feet wet. I don't agree with this readily, but I could be wrong:

a) There is still some ongoing debate about the methods, just take the debate about the USHMM researchers for example. The number of Jews killed could be corrected upwards in this context, although it is unlikely. But is everybody saying that they won't go up a Holocaust denier?

b) As I said, it was a bad move to take the holocaust as an example of my yet undecided criticism of historians because there where just so many studies made about the subject and that makes the margin of error somewhat more reasonable as when estimating how many people crossed the rubicon. Some sucked though.

c) I was somewhat fixating on the numbers for Hungary and the go from 270'000 to 550'000 dead Jews depending on the method. As I said, I am writing about my family history right now.

d) As I said, I am undecided about the way history and historical facts are "made". Historians are too. The same goes for all humanities and social sciences. I am interested in how these work, not the exact numbers of the holocaust (edit: I am interested in seeing correct lists of the dead and the method of finding estimates, I just don't think it is the relevant point edit2: in this specific case). Even if only 1 million Jews were killed it would still have been horrible and evil. Just because there are Holocaust deniers out there who think they can argue the Holocaust away by lowering the numbers doesn't mean they are right. Just because there are people out there thinking they can label anybody a Holocaust denier just because they are comfortable (just for the sake of argument, thanks) with lower numbers, doesn't mean they are right (notice that I am not advocating that it was only 1 million, thanks). They are actually detracting from the important point and the important point is why it happened. I am tending to think it has everything to do with psychology and history research is useless in trying to explain it. I could be wrong, I could be wrong, I could be wrong, I could be wrong. I could be super wrong. I am super wrong all the time. But I am not a holocaust denier FCS.

e) Am I holocaust denier enabler just because I question how history as a science or art works? That is actually the better question albeit still somewhat ludicrous. Am I a x-theory denier enabler just because I question how physics as a science works? Am I a believer in killing the poor just because I question how economics as a "science" works? I don't think so but it is not as clear cut. But at least people not questioning it are enablers of the status quo and that has its negatives too.

f) I don't think we should honor holocaust deniers. They are just a necessary evil.

But I will not go into more specific arguments about the Holocaust here because you made me realize that even touching the subject with a ten foot pole is just not possible on 2+2. Nice job.

Not possible? The only thing stopping you from actually spelling out whatever it is you're trying to say is you and your language impediments. Certainly, the mods aren't going to censor whatever conspiracy-laden bull**** you subscribe to.

Swissmiss gets uninvited from her local political party for being extremist. Feeling deeply wronged, she turns to PUC.

Upon arriving at PUC and expressing her bat **** views, politards from all walks of life chastise her and explain how generally ****ed up her views are.

So where to go 2-3 weeks from now, when inevitably a politard goads her into unabashedly proclaiming her pure, uncensored antisocial views and she gets permad?

Answer: Who cares? She and Deuces can go live it up in oblivion together.

How ought I to act in responding to something that I think is a lie but that you think is the truth?