CPAC stage design - Fascists gonna Fascist

[Dill]

(03-02-2021, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan: Not exactly, but thank you for posting the thread, as I think it rather works in my favor.  It is interesting that you're very comfortable with Nazi to GOP analogies, but won't call people who rape, murder children, behead people and set people on fire in the name of their religion "animals".  An interesting set of ethics you have there.

No. It doesn't work in your favor for two reasons:

1. First, it is a specific example of how "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." In this case you are the "hyper partisan." You may have forgotten that you were accusing Nati of doing what you regularly do, as my example demonstrates.

2. One characteristic of Nazi dehumanization of others was their resort to dehumanizing terms--"animals," "vermin" etc. So no, I don't call people "who rape, murder children" etc. animals. Neither do others in this forum whom you claim to respect. Neither does any student/teacher of ethics outside of authoritarian/totalitarian political systems. (With you, I have to add that this reference to Nazi dehumanization does not say or imply that everyone who dehumanizes other humans in this fashion, such as you, is a Nazi.)

The refusal to dehumanize others in language is the norm for every ethics which refuses the dehumanization of others.

(03-02-2021, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, when he parrots CCP talking points I'll call him out on it.
As I said, I could, but you'd spin and twist so there's very little point.
If you're going to make a demonstrably false claim about me, sure.
Is Trump an elected official?
As stated they damn sure do.  Just don't call anyone an animal though, that's a bridge too far. 

No CCP talking points. Yet another example of YOU doing what you accused Nati of doing, your "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites."  On that same thread my views were different from Dinos, but you called me "intellectually dishonest" for failing to agree with you.

If there is no point in backing your accusations with PROOF,
then there is no legitimate or ethical point in making such accusations in the first place.
People only do that when accusations are the point, not the (non-existent) proof.

Accusing people who do provide proof of "spin and twist" when you cannot provide proof is just another example of spin and twist.

Here's the pattern: you make a series of unsupportable accusations.
When support is called for, you begin accusing others of your spin and twist.

Thus talk of others "hyperbole" and "tinfoil hats" remains just hyperbole.
No substance whatsoever.