@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

False dichotomy. Wokeism was a cancerous political movement, but the reaction from the Right should have been to defeat it conventionally, not to devolve into Trump Cultism nor to treat it as a blank check to engage in nearly unlimited political hypocrisy (e.g. Trump's open corruption).

If it could be defeated conventionally, why didn't the Democrats do it? Why didn't any of the never-Trumpers?

Ironically, I think Kulak genuinely does believe in them, I just think he's an instigator who wants other people to take him seriously enough to act on his suggestions. But yes, I think his hatred and desire for violence is real.

That's a reasonable take, but personally the guy is just a bit too preoccupied with spreadsheets about how his posts perform for me to take the content terribly seriously.

And I think most people who claim to be afraid of fascism, or who think Trump is Hitler,.are being sincere. They are ignorant and sheltered and generally have no concept of what "fascism" would really look like

This is an issue I have with "charity" and "steelmanning", it often results in attacking someone in an attempt to defend them. Is being ignorant worse than being insincere, or is it the other way around? Either way MadMozer doesn't strike me as either ignorant nor sheltered.

Actually, accusing someone of not believing what they are saying is uncharitable

I think it depends. I don't know if I can formulate a general rule at the moment, but for an example from the other side: I don't think saying Kulak doesn't actually believe in his violent rebellion fantasies is uncharitable.

Dayum, you managed to find a reason to use that one again! That's some dedicated hatin'!

Your dedication to insisting that nothing you said in the past should matter, sure is a sight to behold.

though I will point out that I didn't actually demand money stakes to "prove he really believed what he was saying."

I'm not really demanding money stakes either, I'm completely fine with a gentlemen's bet. It's just that he expressed concerns about relative probabilities, and with money you can do things like favorable odds that take them into account.

And yes I think he should prove he actually believes what he's saying. There's nothing unreasonable in stating that he doesn't.

though I was briefly offended at the thought of using the military

Ok, right. That was the part that the Nybbler was asking about. If he wasn't joking about thr military, the deal not going through makes the lack of occupation more surprising, not less.

The deal didn't go through. Were you paying attention?

Wait, so for you the outrageous thing about it was that he offered to buy it?

A 10% chance that Trump is Hitler is a good reason for Americans who don't want to live under Nazi rule (or foreigners who might have to fight a future Nazi America - the main reason why Hitler is the worst is the aggressive war) to be worrying, but I still wouldn't want to bet on it.

As gattsuru pointed out, I'm happy to offer 10:1 odds. I just flat out don't believe that anyone actually thinks "Trump is Hitler" is even remotely likely, and I don't think they are actually worried about that.