If you tolerate all of these phobias I honestly don't understand what the fuck differentiates you from that other group

You can not be tolerant without being intolerant.
You can be not tolerant without being intolerant.

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

Then I think looking up the "paradox of tolerance" will better explain it.

 1like

Tolerance must have a limit, if tolerance is given no limit, then things that should never be tolerated is given freedom to move about

Exactly this. In this day and age people are starting to develop an "anything goes" mentality, which should NOT be the case. We should be tolerant of the fact that all people are different and respect other's beliefs and lifestyle choices, but some things are just unacceptable. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Some examples- being a homosexual or black or jewish are nothing to be condemned for, and you're an asshole if you're going to attack someone based on such things. Having a necrophilia, pedophilia, or zoophilia fetish is 100% wrong no matter how you look at it and you should get help if you are into such things (and should also be ashamed of yourself). There are good reasons all of those things are illegal. It's not intolerant to be disgusted by things that are purely fucked up.

We do not have to simply accept everything we see because we worry about hurting others' feelings, especially when nobody should be having such feelings to begin with...

EXACTLYYYY

If a society is infinitely tolerant without limits, they will be destroyed by the intolerant.
While being intolerant of intolerance sounds paradoxical, it is something that keeps a society alive in the end.

I can totally respect that. There has to be a medium ground for this kinda thing.

middle ground fallacy, that's not a guaranteed solution I'm afraid.

If you're not being an asshole, that's pretty much good enough for me. hugboxes don't really solve problems, it's a place for people to go and get their egos stroked by people that will never call them on bullshit, so long as they aren't a "normie". open for discussion

This. Honesty must be valued above not stepping on anyones toes!

yup yup! I mean I agree nazi's etc should not be tolerated at all, ever. That's literally being an asshole and hurting other people.

But, at the same token, if you want people to treat you special because anxiety, or you want to use self diagnosed autism as an excuse to be a cringy shit? Nah.

You have a fetish that isn't hurting anyone? Go for it! I encourage it, honestly (says the littlefur), so have at it.

Born the way you are? By all means I support your rights.

And even if I think people who voted Trump are delusional, they're people with their own opinions. We can disagree on that, and debate those positions, but as long as someone isn't being an asshole? Let them be.

always glad of this group~

Depends on what you mean by "intolerance".

There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Essentially, I have to say that you've got to pick your battles. Tolerate the things that truly don't matter, but one ought not have to tolerate things that are important or the excuses of those who seek to justify their wrongs or their drains on the society around them. But, it's not healthy to go around hating people either. Tolerance (or the lack thereof) is a tricky thing and should be used with careful intent; to utilize it blindly is a quick route to become one whom society is intolerant of. Of course, dragons aren't exactly known for tolerating a whole lot.

"You tolerate a crying baby or a bad cold, it can still piss you off!"

It's one thing to sit there and say you're open to all ideas and opinions, but that doesn't automatically mean toxic and hate speech can just be spewed without backlash. You gotta draw the line somewhere or it becomes a safehaven for fuckwads that nobody wants to associate with (nazi-furs et. al)

I'm going to say that you sound like you are falling for the lies of the alt left. Let me try to help you before it's too late.
We all know that these things are bad. Racism, sexism, or people phobias. OBVIOUSLY, these things are bad. Any real american knows this. Its why most of us are laughing or cringing at the alt left. These problems do exist yes, but they are not omnipresent, and are few and far inbetween.
Meanwhile, the alt left is everything it claims to fight. It calls for genocide, for sexism, and the repression of others. While the rest of us, already just know better. There will be idiots in the alt right as well. No doubt about it. But who actually listens to them? Just their own small group. Because people just know better.
If you follow their revolution, you will not live to see the end of it. If you thought Hitler was bad, all you need to do is look at stalin. They were not that far apart in action, and they were both monsters, but one didn't kill his own supporters. The alt left is stalin, while the alt right is hitler. Both suck. And both can not be allowed to win.
Tl;Dr: Don't fall for the lies of the Alt Right, AND the Alt Left.

Unfortunatly, this small group is made out to be a lot bigger then it actually is, what with the media power the alt/far left has. From CNN to Youtube, even here on Furaffinity. (Discussion of Islam? Not okay. Calls of Violence to people you suspect of being a nazi or alt right? Perfectly fine.)

People seem to be more willing to believe what they're told instead of standing up for what they personally believe in, and they swallow the force-fed naritive until their own personal beliefs stop being so personal. It's like one big social experiment; A test on how much someone's willing to give into the appeal to majority fallacy before realizing that the majority is wrong.

The problem is that they are in control of a lot of media, or many are cucking out to their faildiology. Google is now led by liberals who would gladly steal your free speech when it will be legalized, which could very well happen at this point.

The left is imploding as we speak. They are already collapsing in on themselves. Most seem to see past their lies, which is great, but the left is destroying itself. Which is fantastic. Because that means we can rebuild them. All we have to do, is ignore the alt right and left. And rebuild the left to be better. I'm still going independent because both sides are dumb, but at least there's hope. Hope for massive failure.

Liberals are not left. They are liberals and can lean left. You are talking about the liberals. You sound a lot like a liberal to me, btw.

I don't know any leftist person who watches CNN or uses Youtube for their source of information. CNN is liberal not left. Your view seems to be extremely US-sentric on this topic.
I have never let anyone tell me what to do or think. As a leftists i have done just the opposite and stood up for just what i believe. Society is not in any way left. Its extremely liberal. What you are talking about are liberals. They are not left wing, even though they might call them selves that.

Liberalism is literally the left. You can probably google that very easily. I'm an Independent. Both the left and right are bad. There is a thin middle ground that would probably work best for everyone. But I am most certainly not a liberal.

And i am a leftist and i will tell you that we don't like the Liberals and they don't like us.
You can google that easily but ill do that for you.

https://www.conservativereview.com/.....-and-a-leftist
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic.....most-nothing-c ommon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

I wish i had the time/energy to get into details why. I hope you like to be informed more than you like to be right and try to dig into it deeper yourself.



I am also "Independent" btw. Because even though we have 9 parties in Sweden, none of them represent my views.
So "independent" dosen't tell me much other than, what i already know, that you only have two parties in the states and they are both also pretty much the same shit.

Well if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that there are more than two parties in america. Goodbye.

I know there are. I know about Libertarian Party, etc.
I'm talking about parties with federal representation.

This is that holier than thou condescending crap I mentioned below, just fyi.

So, Z0mbie's then? Because I didn't start this sas. There is no sas up there until Z0mbie. After that, I was going to bed. So I made it short and to the point. There also is federal representation for independents, so again, knowing little. But with nine parties to worry about, I'm not offended at all. Thats a lot to deal with. The other parties here don't have representation.

No, you.
"Goodbye"
you end the conversation in such a way as to assert dominance and superiority. If you were "going to bed" you could have just gone to bed and not replied until later.

No, I ended it short and to the point. You are possibly adding attitude where there is none. I already said I was done debating with him, and then I saw one more response I thought I could get in in a minute. If I really wanted be be assertive, I'd be way shittier at it.

At this point, we are just wasting each other's time. We're not getting anywhere, and we probably both look like assholes. So have a happy holiday. I will bother you no more.

I agree with everything you said Beckers. You seem like one of the few sane individuals left. Unfortunately I feel like it's becoming a huge waste of time to try to talk to people about it. People are too emotional and stubborn to listen to reason anymore.

I also see where you did NOT start the pissy attitude

"I wish i had the time/energy to get into details why. I hope you like to be informed more than you like to be right and try to dig into it deeper yourself." What a bunch of self righteous crap.

Not trying to re-start anything, I just couldn't ignore what I read...

Enjoy your holiday season, whatever it is you celebrate.

Thank you so much. All people have to do is just go look at the evidence, but no, muh feels are too important. But oh well. I'll settle with them being wrong.

I hope you do too.

"alt left" doesn't exist

It most certainly does. Take a look at antifa or any sjw really. They say the same crazy stuff as the alt right. They sound no different when it comes to goals.

that middle ground does not exist because the world is not that simple

"That would" You are correct. It doesn't exist yet. But it's getting bigger. Just way too damn slowly.

It's asymptotic in nature, it will never exist.

Youtube is the very last place you want to go for information. CNN at least has to abide by laws that hold them accountable for certain types of information released that may be damaging if untrue.

Unfortunately, it seems there are more reputable people on Youtube then there is in major news companies. Take CNN threatening to release a private citizen's private information if he didn't make an apology for a meme he had created. This is something I'd expect people on 4chan to do, not a major, 'reputable' news station.

Major news companies also have a habit of dancing around the truth, unfortunately, our laws do not dictate that whatever the media says has to be 100% true, as that infringes on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It is up to the individual to decide whether something is untrue or not, but many individuals would rather believe what they hear as opposed to thinking critically and doing their own research. It's why many far-left ideologues are so widely disputed and yet still are popular ideas and accepted as fact. The media's appeal to the common good in us all, the ones who seek justice and equality, turn us against each other. I, however, am not the best person to speak on that subject. If you'd care to see a very well written, in-depth analysis of the modern-day leftist propaganda and groupthink, I highly recommend Aydin Paladin's videos on Youtube.

"Unfortunately, it seems there are more reputable people on Youtube then there is in major news companies. Take CNN threatening to release a private citizen's private information if he didn't make an apology for a meme he had created. This is something I'd expect people on 4chan to do, not a major, 'reputable' news station. "

There are consequences to this, such as being fired or brought up on charges. Youtube doesn't get that.

"Major news companies also have a habit of dancing around the truth, unfortunately, our laws do not dictate that whatever the media says has to be 100% true, as that infringes on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It is up to the individual to decide whether something is untrue or not, but many individuals would rather believe what they hear as opposed to thinking critically and doing their own research. It's why many far-left ideologues are so widely disputed and yet still are popular ideas and accepted as fact. The media's appeal to the common good in us all, the ones who seek justice and equality, turn us against each other. I, however, am not the best person to speak on that subject. If you'd care to see a very well written, in-depth analysis of the modern-day leftist propaganda and groupthink, I highly recommend Aydin Paladin's videos on Youtube. "

I could just as easily argue that youtube doesn't just skirt around the truth, it makes it up.

Our laws do dictate to an extent that what the media says is true, that's why libel and slander laws exist. I think you may be misunderstanding the first amendment. "Freedom of speech" doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you please, it merely means the Government cannot persecute you for speech as a private citizen. News organizations are not private citizens. "Freedom of the press" means that the press (a recognized body) cannot be persecuted for revealing and reporting truthful information on a best effort basis.

I'm more than happy to look at what anyone has to say, but keep in mind that's just one person's ideas. I'm sure they're great, but again, just one person. Please keep that in mind.

"There are consequences to this, such as being fired or brought up on charges. Youtube doesn't get that."

Yet no one at CNN was ever charged with the threat. Meanwhile, you have lawsuits against what people are and aren't allowed to say against Youtubers that don't have a team of lawyers, see the H3H3productions case.

"I could just as easily argue that youtube doesn't just skirt around the truth, it makes it up. "

Youtube is not a collective, it is a mass of people with varying thoughts and ideas, unlike CNN which seems to be a hivemind of one mentality and one mentality alone with little room for self-reflection. Ask me now and I could provide you to videos done by people who take time researching their topics and arguments into a cohesive video that shows more intellectual integrity then media outlets which still seem to push a leftist narrative. An Example being the "Gender Wage Gap" argument, whereas CNN has made a number of articles claiming the gap exists, but many economists have already disproven that the wage gap exists, at least in the way it's presented as. I discovered that information via Youtube personalities such as Sargon of Akkad.

The point I'm getting at is that there are people on Youtube being more truthful than the Mass Media, and that's the problem, it should be the other way around. So whether or not you want to argue that Youtube as a whole makes up the truth, keep in mind Youtube is not a collective, unlike companies. It's full of people with differing opinions so to say that it as a whole makes up the truth is just moronic, because there's no collective truth to be had.

""Freedom of speech" doesn't give you carte blanche to say whatever you please, it merely means the Government cannot persecute you for speech as a private citizen."

What's your point? In regards to what I said, all I said was that it would be unlawful for the government to interfere with what the media can and can't say, which Freedom of the Press is within the first Amendment, the legal definition of which is:

"The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to publish and distribute information in books, magazines, and newspapers without government intervention."

ergo, Yes, the press has the right to say something that is blatantly untrue and pass it along as fact without government intervention. It is up to people to decide whether or not that information is true and when people don't care to do the legwork to confirm it, they'll just believe what the media has to say. So no, the media does NOT need to be truthful or honest. Slander and Libel laws do not take priority over the First Amendment, and the only way Slander/Libel could be taken to court is if those acts of Slander are if A: Those statements are made out to be fact. B: Caused harm to the person being slandered. C: Was done out of negligence or malice. So laws against slander are not the universal solution to media dishonesty you seem to think it is.

"I'm more than happy to look at what anyone has to say, but keep in mind that's just one person's ideas. I'm sure they're great, but again, just one person. Please keep that in mind."

Again, your point? I would hope you're not trying to say that just because it's one person they're likely to be wrong, as that is fallacious in its own right. Whether it's one person or a million, the amount of people doesn't matter. What matters it their ideas and what they have to say.

"Yet no one at CNN was ever charged with the threat. Meanwhile, you have lawsuits against what people are and aren't allowed to say against Youtubers that don't have a team of lawyers, see the H3H3productions case."



With regards to any charges filed: The consequences I spoke of are losing their jobs, losing credibility as an organization, and yes potential legal troubles: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96606

"The point I'm getting at is that there are people on Youtube being more truthful than the Mass Media, and that's the problem, it should be the other way around. So whether or not you want to argue that Youtube as a whole makes up the truth, keep in mind Youtube is not a collective, unlike companies. It's full of people with differing opinions so to say that it as a whole makes up the truth is just moronic, because there's no collective truth to be had."

But that in and of itself does not make a youtuber right or wrong, or information from youtube right or wrong, just an extra place to get information from should you choose to do so. Plus, what metric do you base truthfulness on?

News organizations report about each other you know, they check each other. It's not a collective. Those folks behind youtube videos? They aren't the only ones involved either. They're crowdsourcing their research by going through people that have already done the analysis for them. An organization like CNN has experts on hand to interpret data. One is distributed (youtuber) and one is centralized (cnn) and both have their role.

" What's your point? In regards to what I said, all I said was that it would be unlawful for the government to interfere with what the media can and can't say, which Freedom of the Press is within the first Amendment, the legal definition of which is:"

that is applies to private citizens, not business entities (well, citizens united joke inserted here)

"ergo, Yes, the press has the right to say something that is blatantly untrue and pass it along as fact without government intervention. It is up to people to decide whether or not that information is true and when people don't care to do the legwork to confirm it, they'll just believe what the media has to say. So no, the media does NOT need to be truthful or honest. Slander and Libel laws do not take priority over the First Amendment, and the only way Slander/Libel could be taken to court is if those acts of Slander are if A: Those statements are made out to be fact. B: Caused harm to the person being slandered. C: Was done out of negligence or malice. So laws against slander are not the universal solution to media dishonesty you seem to think it is."

Universal solution? Of course not, and I never said that. I'm countering your assumption that media can say whatever it wants with no consequence whatsoever. You said: " our laws do not dictate that whatever the media says has to be 100% true, "

"Again, your point? I would hope you're not trying to say that just because it's one person they're likely to be wrong, as that is fallacious in its own right. Whether it's one person or a million, the amount of people doesn't matter. What matters it their ideas and what they have to say. "

I'm acknowledging you hooking me up with someone to look at, and I'm happy to take a look at them. It's a preface to the idea that I'll immediately change my mind by just watching some content by one person, which I won't.

"With regards to any charges filed: The consequences I spoke of are losing their jobs, losing credibility as an organization, and yes potential legal troubles"

The article sited is a completely different case over ten years ago, so it's rather null and void when discussing modern news media.

"But that in and of itself does not make a youtuber right or wrong, or information from youtube right or wrong, just an extra place to get information from should you choose to do so. Plus, what metric do you base truthfulness on?"

We were not discussing specific Youtubers, the point I was making was that there are more Youtubers being honest then people at CNN were. It makes Youtube more reliable source for information than the news, which in itself is a problem. And the metric on which I base truthfulness on is observable fact and evidence. That should go without saying as there is no other metric to base the truth on. Obviously, there are topics are not so black and white when it comes to truth and falsehoods, but even in the cases where they are, news outlets still seem to be dishonest.

"that is applies to private citizens, not business entities (well, citizens united joke inserted here)"

The Freedom of the Press applies to businesses that produce news or other forms of media. The Freedom of the Press is within the first Amendment, alongside the Freedom of Speech.

"Universal solution? Of course not, and I never said that. I'm countering your assumption that media can say whatever it wants with no consequence whatsoever. You said: " our laws do not dictate that whatever the media says has to be 100% true, ""

Which you failed to do so, as I proved that by the Legal Definition of the Freedom of the Press, the government cannot intervene with what the media can and cannot say. The only way where those laws are circumvented is through Slander, which I already showed how Slander laws are very specific and do not punish the news for being dishonest whenever they do.

"I'm acknowledging you hooking me up with someone to look at, and I'm happy to take a look at them. It's a preface to the idea that I'll immediately change my mind by just watching some content by one person, which I won't."

Obviously, one person wouldn't make you instantly have a realization, but it's a start. Ironically you're assuming that I think one person could instantly change your mind, when all I said is that I could link you to a few people who make very persuasive, and honest arguments.

Semantics. There's really no point in arguing this topic. Politically, I would say I'm left leaning, but when I say far left in this context, people understand that I mean the nutjobs rioting in the streat and demanding genocide for anyone with white skin.

Your actions define you more then your proclaimed political leaning, so if you say you're on the left, I wouldn't automatically assume you're far-left or liberal. If you said you support Antifa, however, that's another story.

This I can agree with. But Antifa and Ancomms and the racists of the left, are becoming the face of the left. They are gaining more ground and control over the left every day. Even as it collapses.

I would say that I am a left leaning independent. But still far from the left. But I would agree that actions can define a person more than words, almost all the time. There are exceptions to every rule I'd say though. "If actions speak louder than words, then how could the pen ever be mightier than the sword?"

Sounds awfully a lot like you are "falling into the lies of" the alt right, since the "alt-left" does not exist. Its a very "alt-right" word to use.
There is THE left and then there is the liberals (or liberal left).

I'm pretty much as far left as you can get. I'm a anti-fascist which by definition means i'm anti genocide, anti sexism and pro everyone right. Everyone but the people who want to take others rights away from them (fascists). I don't understand where you would get the view you have of the left other than US media or alt-right sources. Like why are you even bringing Stalin up? He was not left, he has nothing to do with the left. He was a fascist dictator, just like Hitler. He is not the embodiment of communism and the left do not align with him.

What are the lies of the left btw? That we all should have equal rights, that racism, sexism, and homophobia are problems in the society we need to deal with?
Because that's the core ideas behind most leftist ideologies.

Sounds like you've fallen already. I'm only going to try and explain this once. If you choose not to listen, then that will be your fault, and not my concern. The alt left most certainly exists. Take a good look at antifa. They are very real, and very very far left. I used to be a democrat. I thought obama was cool. Then I learned about all the bad things he did, and all the thing hillary did, and thought, hey, this is some treasonous stuff here. I should not even pretend to associate with that at all. So now I'm an independent. Because both sides are stupid.

The left most certainly love communism. Heard of Jeremy Corbyn? A man seen standing proudly in front of communist flags? Yes? No? Well he did such a thing, cause there's also a anarchocommunist movement in the left. They sure do hate those nazis I don't see anywhere. But they sure do love those Gulags Communist Ideologies.

The lies of the left are the lies that all white men are racist. That we live in a fascist state now. That homophobia is omnipresent. The core ideas sound great and all, but that's the core ideas of both sides. If all white men are racist, why can I be friends with people from around the world? If we live in a fascist state now, why is it you can riot in the street without meeting military gunfire? If homophobia is truly omnipresent, then why would the supreme court of the united states protect the rights of gay marriage? There are no rights to fight for. We already have them. Now we have to concentrate on keeping them.

For example, you want to fight for something that's actually important? Go fight for net neutrality. If we lose that, we lose everything. Get ready for an actual dystopian future led by corporations who control all information. We have little time to stop it. We've done it a couple times now, so we can do it again.

No dude. You have never met a left person in your life. We do not love Gulags. What the left loves is socialism. Not communism. You can have socialism without communism, but the debates in the states have made them synonymous, which they are not. I'm not some kind of online keyboard tumblr-leftists or whatever, i am active and i know what i'm talking about. You need to read up on these things and try some new perspectives. Your ideas are skewed by US-Politics, i can see it in the way you argument. Its just like FOX or CNN to me. Its so ungrounded in the reality outside of the pro profit news-tertainment bubble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascism
Here's a brief history of Anti-fa and what it in its core is. When you understand that we can continue and talk about the toxic elements that do exist within the anti-fa movement.
But either way the core ideas are about everyone rights.

So net neutrality is more important to you than equality?
Not saying that net neutrality is more or less important in any way, but it seems you do.

You are a lost cause, and no longer worth my time. At least you see that antifa has some very shitty flaws. Have a happy holiday, I'll be wishing for you to be better and know better for christmas. I will bother you no more. I expect the same.

No i'm not a lost cause. I'm still open for discussion and others views.
But if you choose to protect your already set ideas, beliefs and views; that's up to you and only you.
I can't change that, neither can anyone else.

That's the "I don't know how to hold up an argument or debate anymore so I'm gonna step up and act like you're the idiot" cop out

democratic socialism, not socialism. Socialism is an economic system where as communism and democracy are political systems. I agree with you, just be careful of the terminology lest we set off libertarians and such.

With regards to what you said about the importance of issues, I think you're on the right track. Some of this, I think, is in regards to brand of morality.

Stop the chest beating holier than thou crap please, jesus. That's not what this group is about. Go join alt-furry if this is how you want to make your argument. You're misrepresenting something you don't understand.

I think you need to read a little bit more if you think liberalism, tumblrism, and communism is the be all end all of the left. You don't have to believe in it yourself, but strawmen hurt you more than they help you and rejecting that anything in the left beyond your strawmen exist is not going to bode well.

Also, ironically, its mostly the left fighting for net neutrality this time for some reason.

^ thank you so much

take this alt-right shit somewhere else and don't blame any political persuasion or affiliation for problems you see in the community. Saying "real American" is flat out ignorant considering people on this site are from all over the world.

When it comes to Stalin, I don't see that many people singing his praises on this site. Your analogy is moot in the first place.

"Don't fall for the lies of the Alt Right, AND the Alt Left. "
In this case I agree that extremes are not the way to go, just be mindful of middle ground fallacies.

Before you read this as if I were saying it in a condescending tone, I would like to point out, that I am not trying to start any arguments. If you read my original post, you will see that I'm not actually being a dick. Once you start telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, or labeling me something that I'm not, THEN I'm going be be a bit of a dick. But I don't have to go anywhere. You can or cannot tolerate me at your own leisure. That's how I'm going to operate here for now.

If this was alt right, it would be racist. And if this was alt left, it would be racist. I will stand in the middle and laugh as both sides make themselves look dumber by the day.
That said, I am referring to things on a global scale. While it may be ignorant to say "real american" It's also not, when you factor in that people from all nationalities come here, and that a large sum of nations have built their governments on our principals, and after serving with people from around the world, many claim that the fight against the falling left is now a global issue. Seriously, the EU is being led by lefty globalists, militant islam is running rampant, and left wing politics has devolved into identity politics, rather than actually trying to run a government.

I was never talking about stalin on this site. I was talking about stalin in general, because there are many on the left who claim nazi's to be everywhere and the greatest evil of all time. Which is not true, and they were not the greatest evil of all time. A close second sure, but papa stalin was a greater monster. But nowhere in the journal did it say this was a site only thing. So I'm going to ignore your counter argument. Sorry.

Obviously there are some things that can't have a middle ground. Such as pedophilia. If one side said yes, and the other said no, the correct answer would be no. But there are so many things that could have a beneficial middleground, that both the left and right can't or won't accomplish. I would hope that we can all come to agree on many things.

And lastly, in regards to no longer debating Z0mbie up there, it was a matter of going to bed, and not caring. If I was really holyer than anyone, I would be a priest, but I'm not. No one is better than anyone, just as no one is inferior to anyone. That is what I've been trying to say, while the right and left claim otherwise. If you disagree with this, then you are racist. It's ok to be anyone.

I hope that you will see that this is not an attack on anyone, but rather, a logical defence against others. Happy holidays.

"Before you read this as if I were saying it in a condescending tone, I would like to point out, that I am not trying to start any arguments. If you read my original post, you will see that I'm not actually being a dick. Once you start telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, or labeling me something that I'm not, THEN I'm going be be a bit of a dick. But I don't have to go anywhere. You can or cannot tolerate me at your own leisure. That's how I'm going to operate here for now."

I did read it, and you literally blamed the "alt-left" as you call it.

"If this was alt right, it would be racist. And if this was alt left, it would be racist. I will stand in the middle and laugh as both sides make themselves look dumber by the day.
That said, I am referring to things on a global scale. While it may be ignorant to say "real american" It's also not, when you factor in that people from all nationalities come here, and that a large sum of nations have built their governments on our principals, and after serving with people from around the world, many claim that the fight against the falling left is now a global issue. Seriously, the EU is being led by lefty globalists, militant islam is running rampant, and left wing politics has devolved into identity politics, rather than actually trying to run a government."

The rhetoric you used is associated with alt-right ideologies. Standing in the middle and laughing at both sides is just as narrow minded as picking a side and sticking to it blindly. Sometimes one side is right, sometimes it's wrong, sometimes it's partially right. I wouldn't be proud of "laughing" at a side.
"the falling left" assumes something that isn't happening, and that is that leftist policies are causing the demise of some sort of social or political goal, and that's not happening in any measurable form.

"I was never talking about stalin on this site. I was talking about stalin in general, because there are many on the left who claim nazi's to be everywhere and the greatest evil of all time. Which is not true, and they were not the greatest evil of all time. A close second sure, but papa stalin was a greater monster. But nowhere in the journal did it say this was a site only thing. So I'm going to ignore your counter argument. Sorry."

Your argument was moot at best, a straw man at worst.

"And lastly, in regards to no longer debating Z0mbie up there, it was a matter of going to bed, and not caring. If I was really holyer than anyone, I would be a priest, but I'm not. No one is better than anyone, just as no one is inferior to anyone. That is what I've been trying to say, while the right and left claim otherwise. If you disagree with this, then you are racist. It's ok to be anyone."

You're making absolute statements regarding the left and only the left. This is the first time I've seen you "blame" the right for anything other than bringing up the fact Hitler would have been alt-right.

I already blamed the alt right in my first post as well, so you didn't read it as well as you thought. I already said there were idiots over there as well. No one listens to them.

rhetoric is quite the cop out, when you consider the fact that it's most certainly true. All you have to do is look at it. Merkel is destroying the EU. Brexit is fantastic for britain. They're leaving a sinking ship. We don't need to take in any more people we don't know. Its super easy. Most countries have a legal system for that. It's usually not that hard. We have a system, and my friend went through it. Everyone else can too. Meanwhile, in the EU, saying such a thing is grounds for going to prison. Because you have to welcome everyone. Because if not you're racist, and you go to jail for that. These are the policies put in place by the left. Meanwhile, the countries and the people aren't taking it anymore. But the EU is left. And the left is being led by idiots and so too is the right. I never voted for trump. But I didn't want hillary either. Both are bad, but one is slightly less bad than the other. And also isn't trying to sell weaponised plutonium/uranium. So that's good. But you're right. It's not good to laugh when these are the people that are in charge. On either side, but both sides shouldn't be able to justify it either. They should be respectable. They just aren't.

Do as you wish with that one. Your choice on the matter at the end does not affect my life at all. So if you want to ignore it, that's totally fine by me. One less thing to talk about.

"I already blamed the alt right in my first post as well, so you didn't read it as well as you thought. I already said there were idiots over there as well. No one listens to them."

Above, in that context, I was speaking to what you were saying in the message previous to it. It was a direct counter statement, not a cumulative statement.

"rhetoric is quite the cop out, when you consider the fact that it's most certainly true. All you have to do is look at it. Merkel is destroying the EU. Brexit is fantastic for britain. They're leaving a sinking ship. We don't need to take in any more people we don't know. Its super easy. Most countries have a legal system for that. It's usually not that hard. We have a system, and my friend went through it. Everyone else can too. Meanwhile, in the EU, saying such a thing is grounds for going to prison. Because you have to welcome everyone. Because if not you're racist, and you go to jail for that. These are the policies put in place by the left. Meanwhile, the countries and the people aren't taking it anymore. But the EU is left. And the left is being led by idiots and so too is the right. I never voted for trump. But I didn't want hillary either. Both are bad, but one is slightly less bad than the other. And also isn't trying to sell weaponised plutonium/uranium. So that's good. But you're right. It's not good to laugh when these are the people that are in charge. On either side, but both sides shouldn't be able to justify it either. They should be respectable. They just aren't."

This entire paragraph is talking points, anecdotes, and rhetoric. How can that be a copout when it's literally what you're saying in the paragraph I just quoted.

Because it's all true. Have you not been paying attention to the EU? At all?

I want to apologize for any confusion I may have caused with the Merkel is destroying the EU. She is the globalist leader of the eu, not theresa may, who is trying to cause brexit. Once again though. We are not going to get anywhere, with anything. So have a happy holidays. I will leave you alone now.

This is exceedingly late, but it nice to see someone fighting the good fight. Go Mikey.

Its obvious ain't it? Full tolerance is hypocritical. There are things that are obviously terrible and should not be tolerated or accepted. I won't forgive people because "they made a mistake" if their "mistake" is simply unacceptable. "Oops, I raped them! I was drunk! Sorry"...no, fuck you. See what I mean? Most people shouldn't need to have that stuff pointed out. Unfortunately, the saying "common sense is uncommon these days" seems to be growing in number more and more and frankly, its sad. You shouldn't have to point out something so obvious, but alas, you had to. :/

this omg

Tolerance should be a privilegium, or to give the benefit of the doubt, or as a mental 'compromise', not a rule to be followed no matter what.

What should be tolerated is a topic for the ages though, lol.

^ this right here. Case by case. Some folks will claim extremes are always bad and the middle is always good. That's fallacious, sometimes an extreme is the "proper" way to go.

"Humanity tends to progress as it jumps between two extremes." -Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Unfortunately, humanity only learns from experience, and the way we progress is much like a pendulum, swinging from one extreme to another, and as we swing, we come closer and closer to an ideal and, as much as you seem to hate to call it, a middle ground of sorts. And if you want to claim the middle ground fallacy, I will tell you that assuming an argument is inherently wrong just because a fallacy is being used, is also a fallacy in its own right. It's known as the Fallacy Fallacy.

The point is, that the "alt-right" and "alt-left" are both two differing extremes, the alt-right being an overcompensating counter to the alt-left's mistakes. The alt-left in itself is an extreme overcompensating for the admittedly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. history of America. It seeks to promote every race, gender, sexual orientation, above White, Straight men. The Alt-Right are a White Supremacist group trying to maintain the idea that Whiteness is still valid, and then more so in saying that whiteness is superior, which it clearly is not.

The argument itself isn't wrong, just the idea being presented is fallacious (just to clarify)

The alt-left is not a thing, it doesn't exist. While the people you're referring to do exist on the left, they're not quite as dangerous as the folks on the right, statistically speaking.

Yes, it is presented as fallacious but that doesn't make it wrong. To accuse something of being fallacious usually has the connotation that the argument is wrong, and when you say "sometimes an extreme is the "proper" way to go." It does imply that you believe the argument is wrong.

"The alt-left is not a thing, it doesn't exist."

Well, that depends on what you define as Alt-Left and Alt-Right. Alt-Left, Far Left, Extreme Liberals all seem to be interchangeable nowadays, so you'll have to forgive me on my choice of words. Regardless, saying they "don't exist" is a rather dismissive and overly simplistic response.

But I'd be very interested in seeing your statistics as to which side is more dangerous, especially since I can point to acts done by people on the far left being a direct threat to people, Specifically Antifa, which is a documented terrorist organization. On top of the various misinformation that can be harmful to society, such as instating laws that can lead to people being jailed for "Misgendering" people (See: Bill C 16 and SB219). The Alt-Right isn't a good thing, but I would say the Far Left is worse nowadays. Of course, if you have statistics that prove that people in the Alt-Right are more dangerous then the people on the left, I'd love to see it. Of course, we need to specify that these statistics must be relatively recent, and not over a century ago.

"Yes, it is presented as fallacious but that doesn't make it wrong. To accuse something of being fallacious usually has the connotation that the argument is wrong, and when you say "sometimes an extreme is the "proper" way to go." It does imply that you believe the argument is wrong."

The argument doesn't have to be wrong, when fallacious it is logically invalid. That's the definition. Once something is logically invalid, proving it to be true is much more difficult. In what you quote, I am stating my position, not stating that the argument is wrong, as nowhere to I say that it is.

"Well, that depends on what you define as Alt-Left and Alt-Right. Alt-Left, Far Left, Extreme Liberals all seem to be interchangeable nowadays, so you'll have to forgive me on my choice of words. Regardless, saying they "don't exist" is a rather dismissive and overly simplistic response. "

As a socially accepted descriptor of a group of people that when used immediately brings to the mind a certain stereotype. Alt-left is currently not one of those, and therefore, logically, does not exist as it has no definition. It's logically similar to a divide by zero error, at the current point in time at least. Maybe alt-left will be a thing, maybe even soon, but as of writing, it's not widely accepted. That's the full answer as to "doesn't exist". Poor choice of words on my part due to absolutism.

"But I'd be very interested in seeing your statistics as to which side is more dangerous, especially since I can point to acts done by people on the far left being a direct threat to people, Specifically Antifa, which is a documented terrorist organization."

Aggregated data on attacks classified as terrorist attacks by ideology based on this dataset https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/.....cks/?year=2017 shows "radical islam" in front, and "right wing" in second, with "left wing" barely playing any role at all. right wing and left wing are used to describe groups or individuals that perpetrated incidents who subscribe to those ideals. Data current up to 2017.

What you've described regarding that misgendering bill I absolutely agree is harmful to society. I would also argue that any bill repealing penalties against hate speech equally as harmful.

"The Alt-Right isn't a good thing, but I would say the Far Left is worse nowadays. "

based on what?

Anything else you'd like? Serious question.

"As a socially accepted descriptor of a group of people that when used immediately brings to the mind a certain stereotype. Alt-left is currently not one of those, and therefore, logically, does not exist as it has no definition. It's logically similar to a divide by zero error, at the current point in time at least. Maybe alt-left will be a thing, maybe even soon, but as of writing, it's not widely accepted. That's the full answer as to "doesn't exist". Poor choice of words on my part due to absolutism."

I'm sorry, but this is a messy case of word salad. All I'm saying is that whether you call it Alt-Left, Far-Left, Extreme Liberals, or whatever, they do exist. I could also use the term SJW, as that is a more accepted term, even to those who are accused of being SJWs.


"Aggregated data on attacks classified as terrorist attacks by ideology based on this dataset https://storymaps.esri.com/stories/.....cks/?year=2017 shows "radical islam" in front, and "right wing" in second, with "left wing" barely playing any role at all. right wing and left wing are used to describe groups or individuals that perpetrated incidents who subscribe to those ideals. Data current up to 2017."

I find it funny that you can find no incidents of Antifa terrorism on this map, despite the fact that they do include non-fatal acts of terror. Only two incidents that I was able to find on the map were caused by indicated White Supremacists. One was the Charlottesville Riot, and the other was what seemed to be a genuine act of racism. Now on the topic of what happened in Charlottesville, we need to address the fact that there was a peaceful meeting of right-wing people scheduled, and that members of the far-left had invaded the legally scheduled event. I'm not saying what James Alex Fields was right, but that this would have never happened if the far-left had not invaded the event in the first place.

Meanwhile, Antifa is recognized by the DHS as being a domestic terrorist organization: https://www.politico.com/story/2017.....nce-fbi-242235

And here are some of their "peaceful protests"

Setting UC Burkly on Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ByCVgqgV-Y

Assaulting a Trump Supporter with a Bike Lock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qKCl9NL1Cg

Destroying Public Property in DC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKgc0404w2I

Sucker Punching a Trump Supporter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr93I0y_Dho

A couple more instances of Antifa assaulting people and inciting violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E61BTum2OI

I could possibly dig up more instances, but there's a bigger point to be made. While yes there have been a few genuine white supremacists and Far-Right activists who have acted violently and proposed a threat, they are nowhere near as violent and in large numbers as Antifa, and Antifa is just a group spawned off the Far-Left, not the Far-Left in its entirety. Yes, they have a lower kill count, but that is through sheer dumb luck and incompetence. They set a building on fire that could have very easily killed more than just two people. What's worse, is that Antifa is far larger in both numbers and support than the white-supremacists and general alt-right. Speak with most people and they'll condemn racism, but there are a good number of people who would still say Antifa is peaceful. Hell, there's a number of images here on FurAffinity that incite violence against the alt-right and Nazis, despite the fact that these "Nazis" are usually only accused as such, and rarely are actual Nazis.

"What you've described regarding that misgendering bill I absolutely agree is harmful to society. I would also argue that any bill repealing penalties against hate speech equally as harmful. "

Hate Speech is Free Speech. Regardless of what you think, people have the right to say whatever they please, and just because someone is offended by it, that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to say it. Some people have claimed "Hate Speech" is threatening to a certain minority or group, but rarely do these words incite any violence toward those groups. The point is, Hate Speech is nothing more than words certain people don't want to hear, and taking away the ability to say those words has far worse consequences then people saying it and being offended. In fact, here's the supreme court ruling on Hate Speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.....rst-amendment/

"based on what?"
1) The Far-Left has vastly more support for its ideas than the Alt-Right, and even people who oppose the Far-Left still call out the Alt-Right's bullshit.

2) The Far-Left's ideology is one that is far more prevalent, and thus causing more harm to society. I already stated the forced pronoun laws, but there are more considerably damaging ideas that go unchallenged, such as the concept of Islamophobia (Denying the existence of Islamic Terror.) Affirmative Action (Giving a certain race and gender better chances solely for their race and gender.) and my personal favorite, Teaching men not to rape (Instead of teaching women how to defend themselves, because you can't stop a criminal from committing crime. They know it's wrong but they choose to do it anyway.)

3) As I've already pointed out, the domestic terrorist organization known as Antifa running rampant.

4) The Far-Left ideals are equally racist as the Alt-Right's, which as I believe I stated prior, is that they believe the white race is inherently bad. (See: It's Okay to be White incident/"controversy.")

If I haven't made my point painfully clear that the Far-Left is as dangerous, if not even more then the Alt-Right, then I have my doubts that I could ever convince you. In which case, I'd have to say that this is a conversation not worth having, as unless you can prove me wrong, neither of us are going to gain anything from it.

^^^^^^^^This. This so much.

Power to you! More people need to oppose this trend.

I love how the Nazifurs, diaperfurs and animal rapists are all joining together. It makes it easier to drive them out of the fandom

this should be an easy concept to grasp???

There's an awful lot of edge in these comments. And not the good/funny/clever kind.

Like... Just relax.

No kind of Phobia or Hate is Accepted!
I agree with you!