You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth, like pretty much everything in your comment. I think you’re trying to paint my argument as something it really is not and you’re taking it too far. What is a legitimate call to violence, exactly? Are you trying to deny the stochastic effect of this type of language? Is the stochastic effect not the entire purpose of rhetoric?
You are so painfully wrong. I’ve already stated that I’m playing devil’s advocate. I’m not trying to do anything other than help you exercise your critical thinking skills. It should be obvious.
The origins of this convo were you saying that the far-right aren’t shooting people based on far-right ideology, which is wrong, because being far-right is entrenched hierarchy and social violence. Leftism is compatible with pacifism, far-right is not.
I question myself all the time, it’s just that you had no coherent points to give.
It is actually impossible for you to simply read my words and interpret them as they are written without injecting your own story, isn’t it? You can’t just put everyone you talk to into one of two boxes.
I already stated that there is a considerable overlap between followers of right wing ideology and domestic terrorism. I am genuinely terrified that we are entering a world where reading comprehension and critical thinking are completely absent from political discussion.
The problem isn’t really that you’re interpreting my words incorrectly, it’s more about how you put words in my mouth and go batshit making wild assumptions about my conclusions. It’s so hard to have a conversation with someone when the vast majority of it is spent walking back things I never even said.
You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth, like pretty much everything in your comment. I think you’re trying to paint my argument as something it really is not and you’re taking it too far. What is a legitimate call to violence, exactly? Are you trying to deny the stochastic effect of this type of language? Is the stochastic effect not the entire purpose of rhetoric?
My point is that killing cops isn’t a leftist position. You’re trying to twist it into one. Simple.
You are so painfully wrong. I’ve already stated that I’m playing devil’s advocate. I’m not trying to do anything other than help you exercise your critical thinking skills. It should be obvious.
Kinda hard to help others do what you struggle with, I guess.
Zing! Nice deflection, you can safely go another day without questioning your perspective in the slightest.
The origins of this convo were you saying that the far-right aren’t shooting people based on far-right ideology, which is wrong, because being far-right is entrenched hierarchy and social violence. Leftism is compatible with pacifism, far-right is not.
I question myself all the time, it’s just that you had no coherent points to give.
It is actually impossible for you to simply read my words and interpret them as they are written without injecting your own story, isn’t it? You can’t just put everyone you talk to into one of two boxes.
I already stated that there is a considerable overlap between followers of right wing ideology and domestic terrorism. I am genuinely terrified that we are entering a world where reading comprehension and critical thinking are completely absent from political discussion.
“The far-right isn’t shooting anyone. It’s an ideology.”
Yes, it’s an ideology that is inherently violent, unlike the far-left.
What, exactly, did I misinterpret?
The problem isn’t really that you’re interpreting my words incorrectly, it’s more about how you put words in my mouth and go batshit making wild assumptions about my conclusions. It’s so hard to have a conversation with someone when the vast majority of it is spent walking back things I never even said.