Ok. If you (or anyone else) post something that I believe crosses the margin I'll point it out in the spirit of reconciliation, and I know you will if I do.

ok but we can't always demand the other will agree or apologise. If you're unhappy mention it and I'll try to avoid it or clarify.

Of course. There will always be some differences but there has to be some form of respect for them.

totally agree.

There are two factors I can identify in why I treat you differently to others, one of which will be present for others.

The first is that with correctness comes a burden, of having arrived at what I deem to be a more correct set of opinions than others, but via a desire for both truth and love. I believe that if we want people to be leftpilled, as we have, we need to set an example. So I expect and demand that those who agree with me try to rise above the pettiness, not sink down to their level. I expect our opponents to resort to trying to trip us up over our own words, make personal attacks, and so on. I hope you will not, because it makes me and our cause look bad.

What I imagine I share with others in the way you act that I object to is your constant claims of victimization. You are making it out as if you are uniquely and unfairly victimized for your views. This is not the case. Where you are victimized, it is in the same way you are attacking others. You are trying to blow their jackets off when letting the sun shine achieves the objective more easily. Bluster and browbeating only recruits dullards. Dullards vote, too, but here we can generally expect a better class of debating style to work better. Make the case, don't attack the man, even when the man attacks you.

Easy for you to say. People don't turn up out of the blue to make single post attacks on you then disappear for a while and rinse, repeat. Hello, diebitter.

I can't and am not claiming victimhood because in the past I've given as much stick as I've received, and I completely get that. But just watch how nothing changes with the likes of him and jojoe, and also contrast it with others here I've disagreed with but post in mutually cordial ways with, and ask yourself what the difference is between them (Husker, simor etc) and the attack dogs.

I have been attacked plenty both in this subforum for my political views and after giving plo advice in good faith I have been attacked for supposedly intentionally giving bad advice (amounts to: solver bad for low stakes, just play exploitatively) and in the latter case it got very personal very fast.

I'm not asking you to have a huge deep soulsearch, long weekend looking into the mirror type thing. Are you justified in having a chip on your shoulder? Possibly. Does it help you?

GTO bad at low stakes is so trivially true it's like saying the Rwanda policy is inhumane and have "noted academics" argue in the media for the policy. People, eh?

What would help me is more support from the people who don't want this thread turning into a pie flinging contest, in pointing out unwarranted attacks when they happen regardless of who's making them. That has been conspicuously absent here, and it's something that in turn perhaps you and chez could work on. Does that sound reasonable?

It's quite an eye opening discussion on perceptions.

Just taking you and me (and it's how I largely perceive it with the others), you accuse me of hideous things like being a national front supporter and I generally retaliate with a bit of mockery or relatively mild comments. I think it would be great if we all just moved on. I'm going to have to be taken on a long journey to see it your way.

I don't think I've accused you of that, but of a) being too sympathetic with its supporters for whatever they perceive to have happened in their environment that's made them so hateful, and b) of not challenging their racism because you have this thing about polarisation. Would that be a fair understanding of your position re. them?

I'm not alone in being confused by your views on racists and finding them incompatible with socialism.

Of course it wouldnt be fair.

I'm sure you're not alone. There's even a forum that was once partly dedicated to agreeing with you. None of it is based on much apart from my opposition to their methods (which i'm afraid I think you also employ too much). It's not based on understanding anything. Socialism does not remotely require behaving like that lot.

The long and short of it is that I think you throw a load of **** at me and other posters. You may think it's justified but the reality is a response you dont want.

I see. That does sound like you want latitude to throw **** back at me but also want to deny latitude to me to throw **** back at the people who choose to abuse me out of the blue. No one is ever going to agree that’s fair.

No I think you use the same method with others as you use with me. You're throw shite at people. They respond - maybe later and you can persaude yourself they initiated it.

That is my perception. I'm sure it's not exact but it's a huge part of it.

If that’s your perception why is it acceptable to you for some people to respond in kind but not others?

It's all acceptable to me. Its acceptable for you to throw **** at me all you like. Do what you want.

I dont think it's good politics or debate and I'd prefer you found a better method but if you dont agree then carry on.

It clearly isn’t acceptable to you because you go to great lengths to condemn it.

My perception and yours don’t match, that much is clear. I think perhaps your biases play a large part in your perception, and this is probably quite normal.

Our disagreements on how to deal with far right extremists in real life and on forums, which are polar opposites, have been the root cause of friction between us for years and you have a very odd choice in bedfellows. Listening is good, but not voicing disagreement is very bad and enables their perception that you agree with them, empowering them. Others also share this perception.

After the forum debacle I’ve been very suspicious of your motives, it’s true.

No that's all accpetable. I can disagree with you, oppose you and think you're method is awful while accepting it all. I'll even accept you genuinely think your method is good and your judgements are sound.

Our perceptions definitely differ. You seem to have no awareness of how you behave towards others and why you get the response you do.

I wont respond to the rest as I'm trying to give you some leeway. What happens next between us is entirely up to you.

Trying to give me some leeway isn't the reason.

There you go again.

No I don't.

So far you've been happy to talk about anything raised. Then suddenly, when it comes to the topic of disagreements over how best to deal with far right extremists and racists here and in real life, you button up and claim it's for my benefit. There you go again. I'm not sure you have much awareness of how you behave towards others either.

Yes you do.

Diving back deeply into your silly nonsense is not the place to start.

There you go you've had a response to it now. Did it help? i can provide more if you wan't. If you want a sensible discussion then just drop the silly nonsense and judgemental bollocks - going to have to do it for a while. Or dont.

Discussions of how to (or not to) engage far right extremists is all just silly nonsense to you.

Yes I'm judgmental about neo-Nazis, and so should you be.

Are you willing to discuss this event from yesterday and in particular what we can do with arguments to persuade people out of this mindset?

No. That is an example of your silly nonsense


How to deal with the far right is an important topic well worth discussing but you're going have to show a lot of willingness to move past the silly nonsense first if you want us to have another go at talking about what you think about my views.

What do you think i think ffs. Shower them with flowers?

Good, because I genuinely want to hear your views.


I honestly don't know, which is why I want to hear your views. These sort of events are likely to become more frequent, I think we can agree, and while I think governments are reaping the "rewards" of decades of blatant lying, cronyism and even corruption democracy is still preferable to the alternatives.