There’s a wide variety and storied history of anti-communist organization that acted as fronts or ways to recruit fascists.
True, but does not substantially support your argument that I’m a fascist.
They are closely associated, I have every right to joke about it after you’ve misidentified me as a communist (red scare style).
To say that my suspicion you could be a tankie (not a communist - because not all communists are tankies) is Red Scare shenanigans is a pretty clear overreaction. Let’s flip the script so you can see what I mean, starting with your ad hominem from earlier:
Imagine a thread where the Holocaust was being discussed.
Now imagine someone hopping in with the following out of nowhere:
“Did you know the nazis’ camps weren’t even illegal at the time? The Nuremberg Trials were convened explicitly because there was no law prohibiting their atrocities, and the term “crimes against humanity” and their subsequent trial ex post facto had no legal precedent! That’s not something most people know!”
… okay, sure, but… why insert that unless you’re a fact-bot spitting out random related facts or you’re a nazi? So if I mention that’s kinda suspicious and they blow their lid, does your suspicion of them increase or decrease?
Pressing on after I apologized as if it’s a police investigation was its self a dick move. You wanted total demoralization by begging that I conceed further “see you were quacking like a Communist” after I clarified that I wasn’t one… and now you’re still here? We’re ONLY here because you couldn’t stop and let it go.
Kinda rich to police my internet etiquette when you so happily embrace ad hominem.
True, but does not substantially support your argument that I’m a fascist.
I never made that argument. I called you a boot licker. It’s an insult, not an argument.
Imagine a thread where the Holocaust was being discussed.
Oh, imagine a straw man you’re constructing? How about no thanks.
Kinda rich to police my internet etiquette when you so happily embrace ad hominem.
You’re the one policing communism online. Part of the reason I called you a boot licker is because I’ve seen you on these threads before.
Anyways, I can’t be bothered with your type. It’s not worth it, olive branches get swattered away, politeness and goodwill gets ground down with begging further arguments and concessions.
Good riddance. Go on, reply, I know you like to complain endlessly. Product of a relentless personality.
I never made that argument. I called you a boot licker. It’s an insult, not an argument.
Yeah fair enough, I blended your two inane takes and misremembered.
Oh, imagine a straw man you’re constructing? How about no thanks.
That’s not what a straw man is, but okay.
You’re the one policing communism online. Part of the reason I called you a boot licker is because I’ve seen you on these threads before.
Hey, if you think my disliking authoritarianism makes me a boot licker, that’s a really interesting opinion of yours that I’m positive I can’t change.
Anyways, I can’t be bothered with your type. It’s not worth it, olive branches get swattered away, politeness and goodwill gets ground down with begging further arguments and concessions.
Sorry to hear you think “sorry I participate in discussions in bad faith” is some kind of panacea.
Good riddance. Go on, reply, I know you like to complain endlessly. Product of a relentless personality.
True, but does not substantially support your argument that I’m a fascist.
To say that my suspicion you could be a tankie (not a communist - because not all communists are tankies) is Red Scare shenanigans is a pretty clear overreaction. Let’s flip the script so you can see what I mean, starting with your ad hominem from earlier:
Imagine a thread where the Holocaust was being discussed.
Now imagine someone hopping in with the following out of nowhere:
“Did you know the nazis’ camps weren’t even illegal at the time? The Nuremberg Trials were convened explicitly because there was no law prohibiting their atrocities, and the term “crimes against humanity” and their subsequent trial ex post facto had no legal precedent! That’s not something most people know!”
… okay, sure, but… why insert that unless you’re a fact-bot spitting out random related facts or you’re a nazi? So if I mention that’s kinda suspicious and they blow their lid, does your suspicion of them increase or decrease?
Kinda rich to police my internet etiquette when you so happily embrace ad hominem.
I never made that argument. I called you a boot licker. It’s an insult, not an argument.
Oh, imagine a straw man you’re constructing? How about no thanks.
You’re the one policing communism online. Part of the reason I called you a boot licker is because I’ve seen you on these threads before.
Anyways, I can’t be bothered with your type. It’s not worth it, olive branches get swattered away, politeness and goodwill gets ground down with begging further arguments and concessions.
Good riddance. Go on, reply, I know you like to complain endlessly. Product of a relentless personality.
Yeah fair enough, I blended your two inane takes and misremembered.
That’s not what a straw man is, but okay.
Hey, if you think my disliking authoritarianism makes me a boot licker, that’s a really interesting opinion of yours that I’m positive I can’t change.
Sorry to hear you think “sorry I participate in discussions in bad faith” is some kind of panacea.
Likewise!