The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Dill]

(10-12-2021, 05:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your analogy would hold water if I constantly, consistently, posted threads and made posts about Islam in a negative light.  If every time I found a story of a radical Islamist doing something awful I made a thread or a post about it we'd then be approaching what GM does with law enforcement.  Yes, I take umbrage with your dismissal of valid criticism of Islam.  Yes, I find your unwillingness to utterly condemn people who rape, torture and murder with wanton abandon reprehensible.  Yes, I find your willingness to compare people to Nazis and the Taliban both disgusting and hypocritical.  Yes, I have attacked you personally and have been attacked personally by you, Fred and GM.

Now, if your question is can I interact with Dino without rancor on any subject, the answer is yes.  Although, to be fair, he contributes to making that difficult.  But if you're talking about his using support for law enforcement as a talking point, then no, never.  I will always call that out, I will never let him hide behind any claim of support for law enforcement nor will I allow him to condemn others for a perceived lack of support without comment.

I hope that's clear.

Not clear. And our discussion now belongs here, where it is least likely to disturb others, not on the "Storming" thread.

I made no analogy between your Islam posts and Dino's cop posts. I merely responded to your claim that I "flipped a switch" when you called Islam an "ideology" which threatened Western values and civilization, and thus began my "negative" attitude towards you. I showed that the forum record doesn't bear out your version of events.

The analogy would fail anyway because Dino does not generalize from the actions of some cops to the entire law enforcement profession, as you do when you double down on your "valid" criticism that Islam is an ideology which threatens Western Civilization and democracy. 

Recall your recent defense of our anti-democratic Right: "The rather insidious part of these types of discussions is the idea of the "preemptive strike" against those supposedly attempting to overthrow or subvert or Democracy.  After all, once we've been convinced that "X" group is trying to destroy the nation won't any (preemptive) action taken to stop them be totally justified?"(#9)
 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Our-constitutional-crisis-is-already-here.
  
The risk of "preemptive strike" wildly over-exagerrated in your example, is exactly what has already followed from defining Muslims as threats to Western Civilization/democracy--everthing from Mosque shootings to anti-Sharia legislation to street assaults. The victims all harmless, law-abiding citizens.

I have suggested analogies between US and Islamic conservatism, in a mode of social scientific comparison, not name calling. On this very thread I have argued we should be open, on the same principal, to Nazi comparisons, though I have not myself made any. You twist that into a pretext for name calling, then proclaim a "disgust" utterly absent when you assert that I support ISIS. Also I am not unwilling to condemn people who rape, torture and murder. I'm just not willing to call them "animals," as you do. I'll bet most of the posters you admire won't do that either. Finding my refusal "reprehensible" is hyperbolic, selective affect. 

These inconsistencies in your alleged standards look affect-driven, ad hoc. One day it feels good to identify list members with radical Islamist groups, then next day it feels better to ban even sociological comparisons involving such groups as "disgusting." 

One day you worry that identifying anti-democratic traits in a group of US voters will open them to persecution, but the next you pursue that very tactic with a religious minority.

One day it feels great to condescend to other posters; another you feel it has happened to you and just plain wrong. 

I suspect your claim that I have personally attacked you also proceeds from this undisciplined affect. Challenging your statements, often by juxtaposing them with other of your statements, makes you "feel" attacked. In any case, you have no actual examples of my personal attacks because there are none.  You'd have to inflate some ambiguity in a descriptive statement to get one. I don't call people on this list liars or hypocrites or faux-intellectuals or disgusting. Just don't.

Hyperbole accompanies all. Dino is "sexist" on the basis of one post and then a post later proclaimed "misogynist" on the same evidence. He posts on the erratic behavior of an anti-vaccine Republican candidate and is suddenly guilty of "tarring huge swathes of people with the same brush"--i.e., huge swathes of anti-vaxxers. 

Three attacks in one week, on three different threads, to which Dino does not respond. But HE makes interaction "without rancor" difficult?  This consistent harassment is way beyond that law enforcement "hypocrisy" you can NEVER allow to pass.

What I dislike about this situation is that Dino has only two choices, to ignore the harassment, or to address it, thus turning every thread into an accusatory digression. Seems he has chosen the former, which leaves you dogging him from thread to thread, looking for any pretext to charge him with some "hypocrisy" du jour, turning the topic to Dino's character and contravening the TOC.  Why ever would list members think he, rather than, you were the problem?