Extremist rhetoric on Trump threads

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hullaballoo

It's difficult, in the face of what he says and now does, to stop the wave of strong and emotional backlash.

The best one I saw about him was "GET ****ED, WOTSIT HITLER."

Havockk

What is your agenda Permabear? You are already in another thread supporting the absurd suggestion that the term 'fascist' should be banned.

The loudest and most vocal voices on this site at this very moment are the extreme-right, and some of the idiocy that I have seen posted is barely believable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Honestly, I don't believe you and I have reservations about your motivations, judging by your participation in the feedback threads I've read.

dudara

Speaking as a regular poster here, not as an Admin (because frankly I'll need to think about this a bit)

The Trump debate is the tip of an iceberg towards which the good ship Boards has been steaming for quite a while. To me, someone who been active on Boards for years, I can say that I see less and less healthy discussion, and more and more oneup-manship and extreme rhetoric. People are literally building walls around their viewpoints and refusing to budge from their fortresses. It's depressing.

There's a whole swathe of people out there who don't understand healthy debate. People who don't understand why it's actually good to have and respect opposite viewpoints.

I don't think Boards is done yet. We haven't hit the iceberg and there's a lot of good discussion still going on. IMO Boards reflects society, so I think this is a bigger problem.

The question for me is "What can Boards do to remain a place where a good discussion is possible?" in the face of a wider societal issue.

Memnoch

Havockk wrote: »

Honestly, I don't believe you and I have reservations about your motivations, judging by your participation in the feedback threads I've read.

I agree. I believe that Permabear has little interest in rational and civil discourse and that his real agenda is to dampen down and censor criticism of Trump, his administration and his supporters.

Let's just revisit Donald Trump for a moment.

This is a man who believes that it is okay to exploit positions of power to sexually assault women. He has derided women who have dared to stand up to him in public for their physical appearance and tried to attribute criticism to menstrual cycles in public debates. He has consistently hurled abuse at his political opponents and detractors. He has generalised mexicans as rapists. He has mocked a disabled reporter. He has called for and implemented bans on people on the grounds of their religion, including refugees. He has called for the murder of the families of terrorists. And just recently, he has authorised a raid in which an 8 year old American girl was shot dead by US special forces. He advocates torture.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/yemen-strike-eight-year-old-american-girl-killed-al-awlaki

So let's just be clear.

Trump is a fascist in the making. He is a misogynist. He is a bigot. He is a racist. He is a narcissist. He is an egomaniac. He is a liar and a conman.

He is an utterly vile and reprehensible human being.

None of what I have said is extremist rhetoric. It is Trump's behaviour and words that are such, and these are therefore accurate terms to describe him, his actions and his language.

What he is doing and plans to do is extremist and must be pointed out and criticised in the strongest possible terms for what it is.

If his supporters feel uncomfortable at their association with such a man, all the better. Perhaps they should reconsider their support rather than trying to censor people from pointing out the truth of Donald Trump.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Firstly, I'd note that Trump supporters here are more than capable of giving their fair share of abuse.

Secondly, it's getting harder and harder to maintain a safe space, for want of a better term for civil and constructive discussion. If I sanction a Trump supporter, I'm a biased leftist. If I do it to one of the anti-Trump supporters, I'm a GOP-loving bigot.

Civil discussion is very much on the decline online as far as I can see. I plan to do my best to keep Politics open to proper discussion but my hopes aren't high.

Kitsunegari

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Firstly, I'd note that Trump supporters here are more than capable of giving their fair share of abuse.

Secondly, it's getting harder and harder to maintain a safe space, for want of a better term for civil and constructive discussion. If I sanction a Trump supporter, I'm a biased leftist. If I do it to one of the anti-Trump supporters, I'm a GOP-loving bigot.

Civil discussion is very much on the decline online as far as I can see. I plan to do my best to keep Politics open to proper discussion but my hopes aren't high.

I think that's the problem in general. There are hundreds of posts that just are abusive of Trump and the administration and nothing is done about it. It's happening in lots of threads because it's 'cool' to be anti-Trump. Anyone arguing against the Anti-Trump camp is a Nazi, a racist, a mysognist and a fascist.

The_Valeyard

Havockk wrote: »

The loudest and most vocal voices on this site at this very moment are the extreme-right, and some of the idiocy that I have seen posted is barely believable.

Ah well, it's a nice change from the usual extreme left viewpoints.

ancapailldorcha

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I think that's the problem in general. There are hundreds of posts that just are abusive of Trump and the administration and nothing is done about it. It's happening in lots of threads because it's 'cool' to be anti-Trump. Anyone arguing against the Anti-Trump camp is a Nazi, a racist, a mysognist and a fascist.

For one thing, they're rarely if ever reported. It's a hot topic. You can check that by looking at either of the Politics fora.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If there's been a noticeable increase of the above, it might be best to step back and ask why that is happening.

Kitsunegari

Robineen wrote: »

If there's been a noticeable increase of the above, it might be best to step back and ask why that is happening.

Fake news, faux outrage and the Democrats and their supporters picking and choosing which humanitarian issues to care about are laregly the reasons why this is happening. The people moaning about immigration from Yemen didn't and don't give two hoots about Obama, and now Trump, bombing Yemen.

The world has gone mad. You'll find more posts on Boards.ie complaining about Trump banning immigrants than you will about Obama or Trump killing innocent civilians in the very countries Trump has banned. You literally couldn't make it up and if you question their line of thought your a Nazi or a racist.

There has been more scrutiny of Trump in less than two weeks than Obama faced in two years. I think people are right to question what are the motives of these people who blindly supported Obama but have come out in their droves to try and stop Trump. There are a number of posters who are continually getting away with OTT criticism.

Havockk

The post above this one epitomises the problem that boards.ie faces in general. It's a problem the media has to come to terms with, but they are paid staff and I just don't know how boards can combat such post-truth nonsense, being that the mods are all volunteers. It's a tricky situation which is compounded by the fact that recently, not even reason or logic is effective against it.

Flint Fredstone

In my experience here and in general I suppose, the further left a person is the more likely they are to be intolerant of other opinions. It comes across as a mission to take away the voice of the other side at times.

I wouldn't have had much interest in a thread about Donald Trump until I seen the way some people were carrying on.

KyussBeeshop

I don't read any of the Trump debates on Boards - I've roundly found all discussion of Trump and the recent election, on most of the Internet, is utterly worthless and of almost no substance.

The signal-to-noise ratio is so low, that the only thing useful for me to do is isolate myself from such discussions, keep an eye on sources that don't fall into the tribalism, and just watch and see what Trump actually does, and judge by actions - not by hysterical reactions to his actions.

I'd also be a person who can agree with Trump on some issues, e.g. globalization/trade-treaties, immigration without enough jobs (not the same as agreeing with his nationality ban) - despite considering myself 'left'.

The tone of such debates on Boards is set by the widescale propaganda surrounding Trump/Hillary and the recent election. People largely don't even realize how severely they have and are being affected by such propaganda, in how the tone of such debates are set not just on Boards but throughout all forms of media.

So yea it's really more a 'sign of the times' for lack of a better way to put it - the hysteria is everywhere - Boards is going to have a hard time fitting that in consistently with the site rules, and will probably find that the enforcement of the rules will change along with the politically 'acceptable' narrative of the day.

kneemos

Basically telling people what's acceptable to think if you start banning certain opinions,not beyond the wit of Boards though I'd imagine.
Dunno how the OP's view is more valid than any other,assuming it is a view and not an agenda.

dfx-

whatever about boards.ie specifically, this is the campaign Trump drove and wanted. He is carrying it on into his Presidency so yes it's going to be like this for four years and certainly until the midterm elections so 2018 at the earliest.

He has himself painted a very dark, grim, end-is-nigh picture of his country in particular where people are out to get you and destroy your country (or country as you see it) so what do you expect the temperature of the discussions to be?

jackofalltrades

When Brexit happened the level of emotions in debates jumped by a big margin.
Before the results you could have some kind of rational discussion.
After threads just seem to descend into an outpouring of anger.

Which I thought was bad at the time until Donald Trump was elected.
Then the proverbial **** really hit the fan.

It's depressing that it seems to be getting to the stage where rational discussion is less and less likely on this and other sites.
And we're only at the start of his Presidential term.
And that's before we even start to look at the possible results in several elections that are happening in Europe this year.

Arghus

I had to laugh after reading the title of the thread and then realising that the OP was making the absurd assertion that it's actually the leftist rheotric that seems to constitute, for him, the more extremist and insulting part of poltical debate on the site. Honestly, really?

drunkmonkey

Time for an American politics sub

Everything and I mean everything that relates to US politics gets put in there whether the thread was started in AH or LGBT form (there was Hitler comparisons there).

A thunderdome for democrats and republicans that's very lightly modded or don't even bother modding it, let them burn themselves out.

Needs to happen. Cobsider it a social experiment.

Wibbs

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The tone of such debates on Boards is set by the widescale propaganda surrounding Trump/Hillary and the recent election. People largely don't even realize how severely they have and are being affected by such propaganda, in how the tone of such debates are set not just on Boards but throughout all forms of media.

This. So much this. Even in the imported terms used.

gallag

Memnoch wrote: »

I agree. I believe that Permabear has little interest in rational and civil discourse and that his real agenda is to dampen down and censor criticism of Trump, his administration and his supporters.

Let's just revisit Donald Trump for a moment.

This is a man who believes that it is okay to exploit positions of power to sexually assault women. He has derided women who have dared to stand up to him in public for their physical appearance and tried to attribute criticism to menstrual cycles in public debates. He has consistently hurled abuse at his political opponents and detractors. He has generalised mexicans as rapists. He has mocked a disabled reporter. He has called for and implemented bans on people on the grounds of their religion, including refugees. He has called for the murder of the families of terrorists. And just recently, he has authorised a raid in which an 8 year old American girl

This is an example of it, and it goes unchanged, for years it's been known women throw themselves at rich and powerful men, Trump says when you are rich and famous women will *LET* you do anything to them, even let you grab them by the pussy. Suddenly this is brand new shocking information and a confession of sexual assault.

He made a joke about a woman's anger and her menstrual cycle, crass? Yes, end of the world or as bad as say a leading politician pulling a woman onto his lap after a few in the dail bar, no. Also the simple fact people are so entrenched there is no point even showing you the video that proves he made hand gestures the same as the "mocking the disabled reporter" ones about 12 times before that incident, you've already seen it but your mind is made up!

He also never said all mexicans are rapists and has put a temporary travel ban on 7 countries (not muslims, even what left of the Christians and jews are also affected) highlighted by the Obama administration as the most dangerous. Guardian article is just unsupported claims and guesswork.

K-9

Unfortunately I haven't been able to give as much time to nodding as I'd like over the last month so response times maybe slower than usual.

Agree with the points made in the Op and on the thread. Time for a zero tolerance clampdown methinks. If that means a quieter forum, sobeit!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dudara

@Memnoch, gallag (and all posters) - we are not discussing Trump himself, this feedback thread is about extreme rhetoric on Trump threads (and possibly other threads also).

I do not want the Trump debates that are flaring everywhere on Boards overflowing into this thread.

dudara

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This all sounds very civil and moderate of course and I cannot speak for the other poster but I am calling you out because I believe you are being dishonest.

It's very well to say that 'I don't support Trump', but you have expended more effort from what I have seen in certain threads attacking the *left* as if it is some sort of defined entity. Look at your threads in feedback, it's all in regards to the rhetoric of the left. I have yet to see you say anything other than the benign *I do not support Trump* in your attacks on the right. When the truth is that there is a broad coalition aligned against Trump from the Left to the Center to the moderate and conservative Right.

So yes I believe you are being dishonest and intellectually corrupt in what you are trying to achieve here.

gallag

dudara wrote: »

@gallag - we are not discussing Trump himself, this feedback thread is about extreme rhetoric on Trump threads (and possibly other threads also).

I do not want the Trump debates that are flaring everywhere on Boards overflowing into this thread.

dudara

WOW, so the post I was replying to point for point, you know, the one that says "let's examine trump" is fine, my reply to it = mod warning, I hope as this is a feedback thread you won't get to grumpy at me pointing out the rank hypocrisy that is on topic to the thread.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

I haven't been able to give as much time to nodding as I'd like over the last month so response times maybe slower than usual.

Asleep on the job eh?

Flint Fredstone

Havockk wrote: »

This all sounds very civil and moderate of course and I cannot speak for the other poster but I am calling you out because I believe you are being dishonest.

It's very well to say that 'I don't support Trump', but you have expended more effort from what I have seen in certain threads attacking the *left* as if it is some sort of defined entity. Look at your threads in feedback, it's all in regards to the rhetoric of the left. I have yet to see you say anything other than the benign *I do not support Trump* in your attacks on the right. When the truth is that there is a broad coalition aligned against Trump from the Left to the Center to the moderate and conservative Right.

So yes I believe you are being dishonest and intellectually corrupt in what you are trying to achieve here.

Like myself, he's probably sick to the teeth of the agenda being pushed by the left. You only have to look at the threads in here about Trump. The amount of hearsay, twisting of words, anonymous sources and hysteria is really grating.

The further left you go the less tolerant they become to anybody with a differing opinion, the less respect for democracy there is and it's plain to see throughout the various fora here.

Lovely Bloke

gallag wrote: »

WOW, so the post I was replying to point for point, you know, the one that says "let's examine trump" is fine, my reply to it = mod warning, I hope as this is a feedback thread you won't get to grumpy at me pointing out the rank hypocrisy that is on topic to the thread.

yeah, this

A perfect example of what's allowed, or let go, and what's not.

To pinpoint and single out that particular poster, when there were two posters "discussing Trump" speaks volumes.

It says that it's ok to discuss Trump, but only if you are disparaging.

Get into an actual factual breakdown of those arguments, and you can stfu.

dudara

gallag wrote: »

WOW, so the post I was replying to point for point, you know, the one that says "let's examine trump" is fine, my reply to it = mod warning, I hope as this is a feedback thread you won't get to grumpy at me pointing out the rank hypocrisy that is on topic to the thread.

I've asked all posters to stop discussing Trump himself, it just so happened that yours was the one that made me do it. Fair point that I missed the previous one, so I've gone back to edit my warning.

To be clear - my comment was in no way intended to shut down one side of the argument, and I'm disappointed that it was interpreted as such.

drunkmonkey

dudara wrote: »

this feedback thread is about extreme rhetoric

I had a thread shut down yesterday went into review after 69 posts might get released but not sure as usual probably could have worder the title better, basically it was about our female politicians becoming dangerously hysterical, it was inspired by Mary Robinsons comments that I thought were out of line.

It's on the radio and most news website everyday all this extreme talk and our own politicians are at it as well.

Someone said it above "propaganda" who was it said "divide and conquer" it's as if there gearing us up for war making us go extreme against each other just about locker room talk and we're playing right into it.

What can boards mods do about it? Have you even the man power to control it, can't start banning and infracting everybody.
I thought my thread kinda hit the nail on one side of the extremism by our female politicians that's causing a lot of it in Ireland. The thread shouldn't have went into review as it was about the same problem this thread is about.

Maybe a pop up when you get to boards the next time explaining to men and women how it's going to work and extremist speak won't be tolerated. Maybe with some quotes giving examples. Like Enda biting the hand that feeds with his comments about Trump.

Or maybe back to the thunder-dome idea, make it an area that you can only see if logged in and send all the extremists there until they promise to behave. The Guantanamo Bay of boards if you will. Don't let google cache it, it doesn't need to. It's a private prison.

Not sure what else you can do or just hope it fizzles out when Russia takes over an EU country pretty soon and the world looks to America for help.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You are right wing though. And despite saying you are equidistant between Clinton and Trump in how you feel about them, looking at your pre-election posts, you were far more preoccupied with Clinton and more trenchantly critical of her than Trump too. The language you use in relation to Trump is much more mild and in the pre-election, you defended him a lot in some of the criticism him. I can't see you ever doing that for Clinton despite supposedly opposing them both equally and when she had blatant lies told about her.

So you can see why some, myself included, would view your objections to anti-Trump and anti-right wing "rhetoric" with suspicion.

Havockk

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Like myself, he's probably sick to the teeth of the agenda being pushed by the left. You only have to look at the threads in here about Trump. The amount of hearsay, twisting of words, anonymous sources and hysteria is really grating.

The further left you go the less tolerant they become to anybody with a differing opinion, the less respect for democracy there is and it's plain to see throughout the various fora here.

Far left? Does boards have much of a history with posters pushing a fully communist agenda?

What I find interesting is the whole *snowflake* (as it were) angle I see being driven now. Once upon a time it was the *liberals* who were the snowflakes but that's been completely turned on it's head now, with posters on the right believing they have the right not to be *grated* with opinions different to their own.

As for hearsay, twisting of words, anonymous sources etc... all things elements on the right can be equally criticised for.

gallag

dudara wrote: »

I've asked all posters to stop discussing Trump himself, it just so happened that yours was the one that made me do it. Fair point that I missed the previous one, so I've gone back to edit my warning.

To be clear - my comment was in no way intended to shut down one side of the argument, and I'm disappointed that it was interpreted as such.

Nope, you told me, and me only to stop, you couldn't have missed the other post as it was actually quoted in my post.

Lovely Bloke

dudara wrote: »

I've asked all posters to stop discussing Trump himself, it just so happened that yours was the one that made me do it. Fair point that I missed the previous one, so I've gone back to edit my warning.

To be clear - my comment was in no way intended to shut down one side of the argument, and I'm disappointed that it was interpreted as such.

you missed a post that was quoted in the post you originally singled out and warned?

In the words of the Politics Cafe.

Get up the yard.

Havockk

It appears the brigading has started.

dudara

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

you missed a post that was quoted in the post you originally singled out and warned?

In the words of the Politics Cafe.

Get up the yard.

Yes I did miss it. I've already admitted that. And I've updated my warning to reflect that.

And I'm also not discussing this any further. It's pulling the original topic off track. So it stops now.

Lovely Bloke

dudara wrote: »

Yes I did miss it. I've already admitted that. And I've updated my warning to reflect that.

OK :rolleyes:

drunkmonkey

@dudara all joking aside, you need to ask yourself what would Trump or Putin do if they found themselves in this situation. They wouldn't be taking any **** that's for sure.
You've an unruly bunch here that the point of the thread has been lost on.

How do we stop extremist speak polluting every area of boards. That's the question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flint Fredstone

Havockk wrote: »

Far left? Does boards have much of a history with posters pushing a fully communist agenda?

What I find interesting is the whole *snowflake* (as it were) angle I see being driven now. Once upon a time it was the *liberals* who were the snowflakes but that's been completely turned on it's head now, with posters on the right believing they have the right not to be *grated* with opinions different to their own.

As for hearsay, twisting of words, anonymous sources etc... all things elements on the right can be equally criticised for.

So by extension of quoting a word I used you're basically calling me a snowflake?

I'll leave it there with you so. It would be beneath me to use terms like snowflake, libtard or similar.

Oh and I'm not on the right by the way.

Memnoch

I would like to ask the question of how extremist speech is defined? There has been a growing and dangerous trend over the last few years of oppressors adopting the language of victimhood even as they abuse and exploit.

If a man says that he likes to exploit his position of power to 'grab women by the pussy'. This to me, and it would seem the majority of reasonable minded people and commentators, is a description of sexual assault. This is an extreme act. It is extreme language. And it has been roundly condemned as such from all spheres of the public and political spectrum.

Making fun of a woman's physical appearance in public in order to undermine her criticism of you is verbal abuse. It should be defined as such and condemned as such.

Saying that this behaviour is deeply misogynistic is the correct way to describe it. There are those who would like to normalise such attitudes and behaviours and the first step in doing so is to adopt convenient euphemisms and play down what has been done and said as simply "banter".

Generalising people as rapists on the basis of their ethnicity is racism. And it should be called as such. I don't see how it is using extremist language to say that this is a racist attitude. Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is racism.

My point is this. To accurately describe abhorrent behaviour as such is not extremist and it takes a profound twist of logic, dishonesty and immorality to attempt to describe it as such.

We are seeing a rise of the far right throughout the world. In Russia, domestic violence is being decriminalised. In the US, the next Justice of the Supreme Court is someone who founded a club called 'Fascism Forever.' The chief of the president's staff, who now sits on the National Security Council in place of the representative of the joint chiefs of the military is a man who seems to have a problem with Jews - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/trump-campaign-ceo-bannon-complained-jews-daughters-school-article-1.2767615 and of course Muslims.

Extremist and Draconian measures are being proposed and implemented around the world.

Censoring legitimate criticism of such behaviour and attitudes by defining it as extremist rhetoric is the first step in enabling and facilitating such behaviour.

The right want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to demean women and not have it called misogyny. They want discriminate against and generalise ethnic groups and not have it be called racism.

They want to be sexist. They want to be racist. They just don't like feeling bad when it is pointed out that this is what they are doing.

In all of this what gets lost are the innocent people who are the real victims of such extremist behaviour and rhetoric. Such as refugees fleeing war-torn countries who are labelled as economic migrants so that we need not trouble our consciences when they sink by the boatload in the Mediterranean. Or Muslim refugees from failed states in the Middle East who are generalised as potential terrorists. Or the women who are being domestically abused in the United States that will have nowhere to turn when the current administration cuts funding to programs that provide assistance to victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and stalking.

The far right complain constantly about political correctness. Yet they are the ones clamouring loudest for a safe space on boards where their extremist ideology should not be pointed out for what it is and the damage that it does and is doing to countless innocent people.

gallag

Memnoch wrote: »

I would like to ask the question of how extremist speech is defined? There has been a growing and dangerous trend over the last few years of oppressors adopting the language of victimhood even as they abuse and exploit.

If a man says that he likes to exploit his position of power to 'grab women by the pussy'. This to me, and it would seem the majority of reasonable minded people and commentators, is a description of sexual assault. This is an extreme act. It is extreme language. And it has been roundly condemned as such from all spheres of the public and political spectrum.

Making fun of a woman's physical appearance in public in order to undermine her criticism of you is verbal abuse. It should be defined as such and condemned as such.

Saying that this behaviour is deeply misogynistic is the correct way to describe it. There are those who would like to normalise such attitudes and behaviours and the first step in doing so is to adopt convenient euphemisms and play down what has been done and said as simply "banter".

Generalising people as rapists on the basis of their ethnicity is racism. And it should be called a such. I don't see how it is using extremist language to say that this is a racist attitude. Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is racism.

My point is this. To accurately describe abhorrent behaviour as such is not extremist and it takes a profound twist of logic, dishonesty and immorality to attempt to describe it as such.

We are seeing a rise of the far right throughout the world. In Russia, domestic violence is being decriminalised. In the US, the next Justice of the Supreme Court is someone who founded a club called 'Fascism Forever.' The chief of the president's staff, who now sits on the National Security Council in place of the representative of the joint chiefs of the military is a man who seems to have a problem with Jews - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/trump-campaign-ceo-bannon-complained-jews-daughters-school-article-1.2767615 and of course Muslims.

Extremist and Draconian measures are being proposed and implemented around the world.

Censoring legitimate criticism of such behaviour and attitudes by defining it as extremist rhetoric is the first step in enabling and facilitating such behaviour.

The right want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to demean women and not have it called misogyny. They want discriminate against and generalise ethnic groups and not have it be called racism.

They want to be sexist. They want to be racist. They just don't like feeling bad when it is pointed out that this is what they are doing.

In all of this what gets lost are the innocent people who are the real victims of such extremist behaviour and rhetoric. Such as refugees fleeing war-torn countries who are labelled as economic migrants so that we need not trouble our consciences when they sink by the boatload in the Mediterranean. Or Muslim refugees from failed states in the Middle East who are generalised as potential terrorists. Or the women who are being domestically abused in the United States that will have nowhere to turn when the current administration cuts funding to programs that provide assistance to victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and stalking.

The far right complain constantly about political correctness. Yet they are the ones clamouring loudest for a safe space on boards where there extremist ideology should not be pointed out for what it is and the damage that it does and is doing to countless innocent people.

I would just like to remind people to not reply to this attack on Trump, sure he covers the exact same point he made against trump on the first page, but do not respond or you will get mod actioned.

Memnoch

gallag wrote: »

I would just like to remind people to not reply to this attack on Trump, sure he covers the exact same point he made against trump on the first page, but do not respond or you will get mod actioned.

This is a thread about extremist rhetoric on Trump threads.

I am addressing the rhethoric itself and the accusation that it is extremist.

Zaph

gallag wrote: »

I would just like to remind people to not reply to this attack on Trump, sure he covers the exact same point he made against trump on the first page, but do not respond or you will get mod actioned.

gallag, if I didn't know any better I would say you're actively trying to stir sh*t here. Knock it off with the backseat modding or you're right, there will be mod actions taken.

Havockk

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

So by extension of quoting a word I used you're basically calling me a snowflake?

I'll leave it there with you so. It would be beneath me to use terms like snowflake, libtard or similar.

Oh and I'm not on the right by the way.

I'm not calling you that, I'm pointing out that what I find interesting is the reversal of rhetoric since the election result, and it's something that is worth mentioning, your post just made pointing it out much easier.

Another thing I will point out is the reversal of the defence of free speech since the result also. I saw post on Reddit I believe a few days back, that summed it up nicely, a play on the famous quote, went something like this;

"I do not believe in fascism, but I will defend to the death your right to prepare and organise for it."

Again, interesting that the right have gone from that position to a stance where they want to control opinion from the left and its delivery.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If there are less right wing posters on boards then of course you will see less of the above. I would guess the proportion of extreme to moderate right wingers on the site is similar to the proportion of extreme to moderate left wingers. So I don't see what is to be achieved by simply highlighting extremist left wingers. The extremist right wingers are as bad. That there are less of them doesn't change that.