Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 3:12 am
I don't have to explain myself to somebody who is so closely married to the Both Sides fallacy that he blames Republican voting fraud on California Democrats.
I never said you did, nor are you required to, but the fact remains if Mr. Chuck was politically active in this very news section he'd receive the same vitriol that you and other like-minded activists display to users. Where is the excuse for sneering mockery and cruelty? WHERE? You're moving the goalposts and going with character attacks.
You seem to be beating me over the head with that constantly, let's address it. I had said that high turnout offsets attempts at voter suppression which 2008 proved. If you're going to keep bringing that up through such clear clench-teethed hatred for a man you've never met, then I could bring up similar cases for you personally, and no doubt many others here could who have been here far longer than I. Nevertheless, I will not be drawn into that game.
I don't know what you want or expect, but an injustice is an injustice regardless. There's just varying levels of it because nature is a system of hierarchies. I think you and your ilk are totally right to want police reform, whether you call it defunding the police or not. We also need electoral college reform, constitution reform, financing reform, reforming of journalism, breaking up the new monopolies, and far, far more. If you want me to admit voter suppression such as throwing out huge rolls of ballots is an injustice, sure. I can do that easily. It's a bit hard for me to relate since I was brought up to see we were never a democracy. We were a federalist republic all too similar to the Romans and we're now a modern-day Rome. But I can grant there's a strong libertarian type idealism there similar to your take on how all Americans somehow have an inalienable right to vote. And sure, I can concede there's also similar libertarian romanticism there as well. Your political view isn't invalid, nor are you as a human being.
I had merely brought up there might never be times at when stripping someone of their voting right could theoretically be inapplicable. How about plea bargain for a sentence in court? If the defendant walks into the choice willingly? And that always translates into not mere disagreement over political viewpoints, but open contempt for me as a person from you and your ilk. Which leads me right back full circle to my larger overall point. As Mr. Chuck has also consistently railed upon Riker's contempt for Barclay as a human being, and yet you hang around. Is it merely to seek out any opponents with a slight deviation to your political views, then blast them all as monsters, traitors to humanity, terrible human beings?
I'd bring up that I don't see you as that way even, despite your radical views, just someone bruised around raw by all of the cultural schisms and rising depression going on, and yet I feel to do so would no doubt generate even
more scorn as condescension, so I apologize in advance, but it doesn't make my sentiment any less true were I to expand on it, plus I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I look forward to you and your ilk doing the same for me and telling me what my
real goal is.
When you start telling other people how they think and hold contempt for them as people out of extreme moral certitude, then you've actually lost the moral high ground. No doubt this will stir up even more vitriol, but in the end, it's not really my problem. Since I have a confession to make, with this one last reply, and never again, it is that I put you on my foe list, of anyone else I've done so for here. Because you're an extreme radical, and it frightens me. Radicalization is the trend of the day in America, an obsolete holdover from our early jungle days, and if we can't shed it as a modern society, it's going to lead us into a very dark place the new radicals are welcoming. And I don't want to walk that road.
