ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9hr ago
Given that no one told him they want to make him a slave, what were you defending it from?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12hr ago
Any that come close to "Demonic pigskin talking about bringing back slavery. Fuck the 'norms' you deserve to killed fuck you cracker bitch" on their level of emotion? Any that you would personally defend like you're doing this one?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12hr ago
I'm not shoehorning you with anybody. I'm just bemused that these "group X should be able to react emotionally to your arguments" demands are seemingly only made of me, and literally never on my behalf. I couldn't care less which group you belong to, or if you don't belong to any group at all, I care about the dynamics.
I'm not asking you to prove your past track record, I'm asking if you can think of a similar argument from the other side that you would treat the same way.
No different than if your priest tells you to shut up and listen because you are a sinner…
Except that doesn't happen.
I’m not Christian but if your local priest decides you cant partake in eucharist, as punishment for certain actions, in certain denominations aren’t you no longer in good standing?
For one, these days, not really. But the bigger point is that's an entirely different thing. This is chastising someone for what they did, I'm talking about shutting someone up because of what they are. Even in the former scenario there's a difference between Christians and progressives, in that Christians give you, in this case, a literal path to redemption. You stop doing what you did, you confess, and you're good again. With progressives once you're cancelled, you're cooked. Public apologies only make things worse.
Nobody has asked me to wax feminine balls
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
that it can only be viewed with amused dispassion.
Are there any left-wing arguments that right-wingers are allowed to have emotional spergouts about, and you will personally defend them if they do?
Arguing over semantics does you no good.
It's not semantics. "Implicitly" means a completely different thing than "explicitly", and your argument is nowhere near as strong if you meant the former.
The logic presented in his comment also justifies the mass disenfranchisement of blacks
It might, or it might not, depending on many other factors. Reacting aggressively before determining what he said was true, is actually giving more strength to that argument than he did.
There was one back on Reddit, because they prevented the blocked from replying to the blockee at all, rather than just hiding the response from them.
More options
Context Copy link