The normalisation of the far-right continues

[coprolite]

On 15/08/2022 at 18:01, Duries Air Freshener said:

wholesome values.

“Every single homosexual in our country … should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head!” insisted one recently. “Put them to death. Put all queers to death. They die,” proclaimed another, adding: “When they die, that stops the pedophilia. It’s a very, very simple process.”

Contemptible scum

[AsimButtHitsASix]

1 hour ago, Wee Bully said:

I’m sorry @Dawson Park Boy - did that trigger you?

Bless.

"Can you point on the dolly where the poem hurt you?"

[Duries Air Freshener]

5 hours ago, coprolite said:

“Every single homosexual in our country … should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head!” insisted one recently. “Put them to death. Put all queers to death. They die,” proclaimed another, adding: “When they die, that stops the pedophilia. It’s a very, very simple process.”

Contemptible scum

What on earth are you talking about?

[Suspect Device]

31 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

What on earth are you talking about?

Some mad Christian mentalist wanting to shoot all homosexuals 'like it tells you to in the Bible'.

Did you not read the link?

[coprolite]

36 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

What on earth are you talking about?

It looked fairly clear to me that you were rubbishing the subject matter of that Kos article on the basis that the people he was discussing were not in fact "far right" but simply held "wholesome values" 

On 15/08/2022 at 18:01, Duries Air Freshener said:

It will if articles like that keep being produced.

‘Far-right’ used to be a term to describe nazis and racists.  Now they’d try and have you believe it applies to anyone with traditional, wholesome values.

The link i included was linked through from that article. 

The content of that link included quotes from and a link to this video :

 

This video clearly shows a man stating that he believes that homosexuals should be executed en masse by the state for being homosexual. 

This is a view which you have implied is not "far right" and is in fact "wholesome". 

I disagree with that view. 

I don't know whether you believe it or not but you have expressed it. 

Therefore i hold you in contempt.  I also believe that you are, metaphorically speaking "scum". 

So in summary,  because you have described advocating mass murder of people for their sexuality wholesome I called you "contemptible scum". 

It should have been obvious from the context but i thought i should walk you through it because you seem really stupid. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by coprolite

[Soapy FFC]

6 hours ago, coprolite said:

“Every single homosexual in our country … should be lined up against the wall and shot in the back of the head!” insisted one recently. “Put them to death. Put all queers to death. They die,” proclaimed another, adding: “When they die, that stops the pedophilia. It’s a very, very simple process.”

Contemptible scum

Sounds like they've been listening to Pink Floyd's "In the flesh" and using it as a guide.

Quote

 

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight?
Get 'em up against the wall (against the wall)
Now there's one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me
Get him up against the wall (against the...)

And that one looks Jewish and that one's a coon
Who let all this riff-raff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint and another with spots
If I had my way I'd have all of ya shot

 

 

[Duries Air Freshener]

59 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Some mad Christian mentalist wanting to shoot all homosexuals 'like it tells you to in the Bible'.

Did you not read the link?

I read the link, but what he brought up didn't contradict my stance.

[Duries Air Freshener]

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

It looked fairly clear to me that you were rubbishing the subject matter of that Kos article on the basis that the people he was discussing were not in fact "far right" but simply held "wholesome values" 

The link i included was linked through from that article. 

The content of that link included quotes from and a link to this video :

 

This video clearly shows a man stating that he believes that homosexuals should be executed en masse by the state for being homosexual. 

This is a view which you have implied is not "far right" and is in fact "wholesome". 

I disagree with that view. 

I don't know whether you believe it or not but you have expressed it. 

Therefore i hold you in contempt.  I also believe that you are, metaphorically speaking "scum". 

So in summary,  because you have described advocating mass murder of people for their sexuality wholesome I called you "contemptible scum". 

It should have been obvious from the context but i thought i should walk you through it because you seem really stupid. 

 

**Picks self off the floor after being held in contempt and called scum and stupid**

Actually, in summary, you've mischaracterised my stance.  I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, described advocating of mass murder as wholesome.  Nor have I said anything about homosexuals being executed en masse, never mind dispute it being far-right.

My honest opinion is that you've deliberately cherry picked certain parts of the article in a desperate attempt to link it to my general stance.  In other words, you're acting in bad-faith.

Edited August 17, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Brother Blades]

Just now, Duries Air Freshener said:

 

**Picks self off the floor after being held in contempt and called scum and stupid**

Actually, in summary, you've mischaracterised my stance.  I have not, by any stretch of the imagination, described advocating of mass murder as wholesome.  Nor have I said anything about homosexuals being executed en masse, never mind dispute it being far-right.

My honest opinion is that you've deliberately cherry picked certain parts of the article in a desperate attempt to link it to my broad stance.  In other words, you're acting in bad-faith.

The broad point of the article is that use of “groomer” rhetoric in the right wing press is an entire misrepresentation of the understanding of LGBTQ rights.

Use of groomer implies a link between homosexuality & paedophilia. A link that is simply untrue. 
So, please do tell, do the people accused in the article of promoting anti LGBTQ bile relating to grooming, live a wholesome life? 

[Duries Air Freshener]

8 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

The broad point of the article is that use of “groomer” rhetoric in the right wing press is an entire misrepresentation of the understanding of LGBTQ rights.

Use of groomer implies a link between homosexuality & paedophilia. A link that is simply untrue. 
So, please do tell, do the people accused in the article of promoting anti LGBTQ bile relating to grooming, live a wholesome life? 

My point was about the incorrect use of the term 'far-right', and that they're trying to apply it to anyone that holds wholesome values.

The headline clearly states '‘Groomer’ rhetoric’s toxic spread on social media revolves around 10 key far-right influencers'.  My opinion is that you'd have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to claim the ten listed influencers as far-right.

I didn't mention the things you and others are trying to pin on me Bro 

[Brother Blades]

17 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

My point was about the incorrect use of the term 'far-right', and that they're trying to apply it to anyone that holds wholesome values.

The headline clearly states '‘Groomer’ rhetoric’s toxic spread on social media revolves around 10 key far-right influencers'.  My opinion is that you'd have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to claim the ten listed influencers as far-right.

I didn't mention the things you and others are trying to pin on me Bro 

Firstly, I didn’t try to pin anything on you, I simply asked a question, which you failed to answer.

For me to engage with you in a wholesome manner, I’ll need a couple of things from you.

Is your definition of “far right” simply fascism & racism? 
If not, what is your definition of far right? 
Will you permit other interpretations of far right (ie - dictionary or popular fact sites)?

Are you interpreting “wholesome” as anything that Christian extremists agree are “wholesome” or are you willing to accept other religious interpretations outwith the Abrahamic? 
Not 100% certain, but aren’t you the guy that detests personal insults & needs the ground rules set out for a good faith debate? 

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

16 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Firstly, I didn’t try to pin anything on you, I simply asked a question, which you failed to answer.

For me to engage with you in a wholesome manner, I’ll need a couple of things from you.

Is your definition of “far right” simply fascism & racism? 
If not, what is your definition of far right? 
Will you permit other interpretations of far right (ie - dictionary or popular fact sites)?

Are you interpreting “wholesome” as anything that Christian extremists agree are “wholesome” or are you willing to accept other religious interpretations outwith the Abrahamic? 
Not 100% certain, but aren’t you the guy that detests personal insults & needs the ground rules set out for a good faith debate? 

 

Sorry to step in here but terms such as ‘wholesome’ and ‘traditional’  have very different meanings to different people.

However, transcending all individual opinions is the LAW. 
As an example, I’m not keen on abortion but I think the law has it about right in respecting the rights of the mother with that of the unborn child. People disagree on this but the law should be obeyed.

Again, I’m not keen on gay marriage as I think marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman with the prospect of children cementing that bond. But again, the law says gay marriage is okay, so that’s the end of the matter.
I accept that I am in a minority and that’s that.

My overall point is that people can have many and different viewpoints but the law of the land must be obeyed no matter how disagreeable it may be.

Sometimes you will be with the majority, sometimes not.

Laws usually reflect the views of a majority of the population at any particular time and that is correct.

Not speaking for him but I find DAF to have strong views but he never advocates breaking the law and that is fine.

[Brother Blades]

14 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Sorry to step in here but terms such as ‘wholesome’ and ‘traditional’  have very different meanings to different people.

However, transcending all individual opinions is the LAW. 
As an example, I’m not keen on abortion but I think the law has it about right in respecting the rights of the mother with that of the unborn child. People disagree on this but the law should be obeyed.

Again, I’m not keen on gay marriage as I think marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman with the prospect of children cementing that bond. But again, the law says gay marriage is okay, so that’s the end of the matter.
I accept that I am in a minority and that’s that.

My overall point is that people can have many and different viewpoints but the law of the land must be obeyed no matter how disagreeable it may be.

Sometimes you will be with the majority, sometimes not.

Laws usually reflect the views of a majority of the population at any particular time and that is correct.

Not speaking for him but I find DAF to have strong views but he never advocates breaking the law and that is fine.

Ok, so you respect defamation law? 

[Duries Air Freshener]

41 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Firstly, I didn’t try to pin anything on you, I simply asked a question, which you failed to answer.

For me to engage with you in a wholesome manner, I’ll need a couple of things from you.

Is your definition of “far right” simply fascism & racism? - I'd say it primarily refers to ideologies of parties such as the National Front or BNP, who had high ranking members with national socialist backgrounds.  It's hard for me to come up with an exact definition, but I do think it's overused.

If not, what is your definition of far right? - See above.

Will you permit other interpretations of far right (ie - dictionary or popular fact sites)? - It's not up to me to permit anything, but I'd certainly be open to discussion as to what the term means.

 

Are you interpreting “wholesome” as anything that Christian extremists agree are “wholesome”  - No.

 

or are you willing to accept other religious interpretations outwith the Abrahamic? - Yes, as well as non-religious ones.  As DPB rightly points out, wholesomeness is in the eye of the beholder.

Not 100% certain, but aren’t you the guy that detests personal insults & needs the ground rules set out for a good faith debate? - No.

 

 

[AsimButtHitsASix]

1 hour ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

My opinion is that you'd have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to claim the ten listed influencers as far-right.

I didn't mention the things you and others are trying to pin on me Bro 

1. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia congresswoman

2. James Lindsay, popular “anti-woke” activist and author

3. Lauren Boebert, Colorado congresswoman

4. Chaiya Raichik, activist behind “LibsofTikTok” account

5. Tim Young, right-wing comedian and author

6. Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

7. Frank “Drew” Hernandez, pundit for Turning Point USA (TPUSA)

8. Chad Prather, right-wing pundit for BlazeTV

9. Jack Posobiec, white-nationalist provocateur and TPUSA pundit

10. “Matt’s Idea Shop,” right-wing pundit for The Daily Wire

Which ones are not far-right?

[carpetmonster]

26 minutes ago, Snafu said:

If you could explain what are these wholesome values you mention there?

 

He said before his beliefs could be best described as being ‘close to paleoconservatism’. It p***ked up my ears as a bloke who used to post in a discord server I frequent described himself as such. Most of his posts were either Reagan-era tropes about ‘welfare queens’ and him bemoaning that he was still a virgin fairly deep into his 30s - which is why he doesn’t post there anymore as the mods got fed up with it in fairly short order - but he did at least inspire me to go and look at Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

[Duries Air Freshener]

5 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

1. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia congresswoman

2. James Lindsay, popular “anti-woke” activist and author

3. Lauren Boebert, Colorado congresswoman

4. Chaiya Raichik, activist behind “LibsofTikTok” account

5. Tim Young, right-wing comedian and author

6. Christina Pushaw, press secretary for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

7. Frank “Drew” Hernandez, pundit for Turning Point USA (TPUSA)

8. Chad Prather, right-wing pundit for BlazeTV

9. Jack Posobiec, white-nationalist provocateur and TPUSA pundit

10. “Matt’s Idea Shop,” right-wing pundit for The Daily Wire

Which ones are not far-right?

I don't know them all, but the idea that MTG is far-right is David Icke stuff.

Same with Matt's Idea Shop and Tim Young.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

4 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I don't know them all, but the idea that MTG is far-right is David Icke stuff.

You're a fucking idiot or a c**t.

Probably both.

MTG has called for the execution of political opponents, the mass deportation of Chinese people, said Muslims should not be allowed to hold political office and called for Christian nationalism in the US.

How far to the right do you have to be to see that even Mussolini would be asking her to tone it down?

[Dawson Park Boy]

25 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

Ok, so you respect defamation law? 

Yes. I’m a bit lost here. Maybe I stepped in without fully understanding what was going on.

Has someone defamed you?

[DA Baracus]

You're still taking the troll seriously? Let me know when you stop and the thread is readable again please.