Splinter: Stranger Things Than Nazi Tears

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Tiassa, Oct 2, 2020.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Crying Nazi has been convicted on two federal counts.

    The lede, from Hilary Sargent↱:

    Christopher Cantwell, the neo-Nazi podcaster charged by federal prosecutors with threatening to rape a rival neo-Nazi's wife has been found guilty of extortion and threats. Jurors acquitted Cantwell of cyberstalking.

    Cantwell, once known as a men's rights advocate° emerged to infamy after the Charlottesville white supremacism riots, during which he was recorded uttering spectacular bigotry and violent threats; he earned the nickname, "Crying Nazi", by weeping through several minutes of later video, responding to word of arrest warrants. He has already pled to misdemeanor counts in a deal with Loudon County, Virginia prosecutors, and is included in a lawsuit against organizers of the Charlottesville demonstrations. Monday's conviction involves a dispute between American Nazis.

    How to explain? Well, the Crying Nazi threatened CheddarMane, a Bowl Patrol member, and his wife in pursuit of Vic Mackey, the Bowl Patrol leader. That is, Cantwell threatened Benjamin Lambert (CheddarMane) and his wife and, technically, children, because he wanted a piece of Andrew Casarez (Vic Mackey). The four-day trial also included, as witness for the prosecution, the Bowl Patrol congressional candidate, Paul Nehlen.

    Lambert, made infamous in along the way as a Bowl Patrol member, expressed afterward that he is "thankful to have the opportunity to turn the page on this part of my life". Compared to being outed in a manner that includes the public seeing how someone threatened sexual violence against his wife, and in front of the children, in a beef between American Nazis, we can only wonder what the next page holds, and if we're lucky, it won't be any of our business and we'll never have to think about him again, except as an historical note.


    Assistant U.S. Attorney John Davis, who prosecuted the case, said he was “pleased” and “vindicated” by the verdict.

    He also said the case should be an example for some of the toxic corners of the web.

    “I do think there is a deterrent value—I hope there is—for everyone, including everyone on the internet, including in the white nationalist world and in other worlds where really abhorrent things are said,” Davis said.

    “When freedom of speech is weaponized, and threats are made, a line must be drawn where individuals like Christopher Cantwell will not be allowed to cross,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.

    —if we crawl back through the years of excuses, maybe blithely and blindly telling people to not get triggered was not the most appropriate response to escalating antisociality.

    Three years ago, when the Crying Nazi won his nickname, Amanda Marcotte↱ observed, it was "no huge surprise" that the "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist' ", explaining:

    Cantwell ran for Congress in 2010 as a Libertarian. He and two friends started the "Free Keane Squad," which made it to "The Colbert Report" in 2014 because their main form of activism appeared to be chasing meter maids around and harassing them for giving people parking tickets.

    Cantwell also identified as a "men's rights activist" and wrote for the site A Voice for Men, one of the hubs of organized misogyny on the internet. He expressed his views that the state supposedly gives "women the power to have men arrested for anything without any evidence at all" and how women, in their roles of "traditionally carrying the role of raising children and supporting the men," did not evolve to have high IQs. Like men do. Allegedly.

    It's yet another example of how the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy. While there hasn't been any rigid academic analysis of this phenomenon, sites like We Hunted the Mammoth, which started as a way to monitor the various and overlapping worlds of online misogyny, have tracked that when men get together to gripe about their resentment of women's growing independence, they often start drifting toward talking about "white genocide" and other white supremacist ideas.


    Why hating women would lead so many men to hating nonwhite people is difficult to parse in logical terms. But racism and sexism aren't rational ideologies and really aren't bound by the basic rules of logic. At the root of both lies a thwarted sense of entitlement and a sense that women and people of color are somehow stealing what is the white man's due. That was felt most keenly in Charlottesville last Friday night, when the torch-wielding mob chanted, "You will not replace us!"

    Cantwell himself mentioned one of the most common narratives that white supremacists and men's rights activists use to link the two ideologies together, by claiming that "their" women are being stolen from them by Jews and men of color. In one of his many interviews with Reeve, Cantwell sneers at Donald Trump for "giving his daughter to a Jew" and says, “I don't think you can feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl."

    Toward parsing in logical terms, or what it means to not be bound by basic rules of logic, time since has seen some clarification, but those notes often seem to only beg more questions. There is a basic empowerment question, and also the point that birds of common feather will eventually gather together. Moreover, at the intersection of male and white supremacism, the common economic culprits look even easier to blame given their functional overlap.

    It is one thing to attend the threshold of threats, as does U.S. Attorney Bonavolonta, but it is worth considering his colleague's discussion of "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said": The point is not to absolutely banish certain speech, but, rather, stop making excuses for wilful bad behavior. It's not like we haven't known, for years, about the toxicity of certain masculinism, for instance, and it can certainly be useful advice to not let stupid words get under your skin, but when they're not simply encouraging body counts, but actually tallying up, there is a problem. It's a complicated discussion who ought to be losing sleep in U.S. Attorney Davis' context.

    To the other, what does any of that mean to a Nazi? At what point did the Crying Nazi ever stop to think about the idea that he was actually leaving a record of threatening sexual violence, including children?

    Who, for instance, would stand up to parse the logic of calling it a rape threat, as Hilary Sargent's lede characterizes? After all, he didn't actually say, "rape", he just said, "fuck". And in front of the children? Come on, that's just macho bluster and you can't take it seriously. Right? People have offered myriad excuses for bloodlusting machismo over the years. Cantwell was the only witness in his own defense, and the jury did not seem willing to accept any such excuse°°. Nor did Cantwell fool himself into believing that sort of excuse, either; it was just something to say in the moment, and he still described a crime.

    In those "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said" it is not permissiveness, in and of itself, about free speech that presents a problem, but, rather, unanchored, or, worse yet, antisocially-anchored permissiveness. For some people, the boundaries of free speech are described by their own fallacious characterizations of some opponent or enemy. It is easy to lose track of meaning and function when these aspects are considered irrelevant.

    There is a functional difference between the right to express oneself, and where who has what power to grant a platform for expression. The underlying concept is not confusing: This isn't about banishing abhorrent speech, but rather, as traditionalists and conservatives put it, accountability. Speech is also behavior, and sometimes must be regraded in that context; i.e., threatening speech. Free speech is not, and never has been, considered to be the license to make any noise anywhere at any time.

    It should be easy enough to suggest this is apparent; it's in Supreme Court rulings, international human rights arguments, and even the rules in small corners of the web like Sciforums. Still, look at what people protect, this way: It's not really racism, nor misogyny, nor even trolling.

    What stands out is how outrageous Cantwell wasn't, as such, until he was, and we're not supposed to fret the escalations until ... well, that remains something of a mystery. It's not entirely unlike the cancel culture discussion.


    ° ... published by the same website (and covered by the same TV show) as men's rights advocate and bicoastal shooter Roy Den Hollander↗ ...

    °° cf., Sargent, "Day 4"↱: Cantwell answered, "It could have meant his wife would consent to having sex with me in front of the children." Attorney Wolpin "stressed that the language … was par for the course for neo-Nazi subculture", and Lambert "would have known that [Cantwell] was not serious”.​

    Marcotte, Amanda. "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist,' which is no huge surprise". Salon. 18 August 2017. Salon.com. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3cCgaut

    Sargent, Hilary. "Cantwell Trial Day 4: So much Cantwell". The Informant. 25 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3ifQu7W

    —————. "Christopher Cantwell guilty of extortion and threats". The Informant. 28 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3n9B6Om
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Once again, Hilary Sargent↱ for The Informant:

    The story of Cantwell's rise and fall is important, because Cantwell was—and is—a caricature of the movement itself. Misogyny. Domestic violence. Targeted harassment. Hypocrisy. Dishonesty. Entitlement. Self-hatred.

    His views on women were no different than countless others in the far right, where misogyny runs rampant. Show me one prominent member of the far right who doesn't have a long history of degrading, if not violent, rhetoric toward women. Misogyny is to the far right what flour is to bread.

    “Even if you become the alpha male, some stupid bitch will still ruin your life,” the neo-Nazi blogger Andrew Anglin once wrote.

    In 2018, Matthew Heimbach, co-founder of the neo-Nazi group Traditionalist Worker Party, was arrested and charged with domestic battery in Indiana. (Heimbach had previously faced misdemeanor charges for accosting a Black woman at a Trump rally.)

    Richard Spencer, the one-time face of the white nationalist movement, allegedly pulled his ex-wife down the stairs by her hair. An affidavit cited in a 2019 HuffPost article includes further allegations of abuse that spanned the 8-year marriage, including Spencer having “pushed her down and held her by her neck and her jaw,” when she was four months pregnant.

    In January, white nationalist Augustus Invictus was arrested on domestic violence charges. Invictus' wife, Anna, told police he held a gun to her head and forced her and their two small children to travel to Florida against her will. Invictus has since been freed on bail pending trial in South Carolina.

    When Cantwell wasn't targeting women he knew personally, he was earning praise from the far right for his willingness to turn women he didn't know into public targets.

    It seems worth adding, of the paragraph on Invictus, that it appears to run in the family. His father was charged with extraordinary crimes including racketeering and trafficking a minor°; they actually managed to land in the same county lockup at the same time.

    Sargent's article reads like a horror show, but this is only one aspect. There is much to the statement that "Cantwell dangled women before his audience … like a hunter training a hunting dog", but the next point can feel even more melodramatic: "And who in the movement hasn't done this?" We might stroke our jaws thoughtfully and say, "Oh, well, I'm sure there are a few." But this might overlook the unfortunately bountiful harvest.

    And there are a few paragraphs on cooperation with journalists—or, if we choose to spend the moment on a note, journalistic cooperation with white supremacists—but the more important ambivalence might have to do with law enforcement:

    Cantwell has been widely criticized for having cooperated with law enforcement, as if this is somehow unheard of within far right circles, that no one who is true to the movement would ever willingly cooperate with police.

    There's an awfully long history of neo-Nazis turning to law enforcement.

    The former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan became an FBI informant. White supremacist Hal Turner was a paid FBI informant, who was later revealed to have worked as an undercover operative for law enforcement for several years, according to news reports from the time. The takedown of the Aryan Brotherhood was assisted by a former member who became an informant and prosecution witness. A federal informant helped prosecutors secure the conviction of a South Florida white supremacist for his role in a murder plot.

    Milo Yiannopoulos is cooperating with the feds. "Antisemite and former Libertarian rapper Jared Howe" has apparently spoken with the FBI in recent times. It turns out that while members of the Bowl Patrol cooperated with law enforcement, their leader, Andrew Casarez, was not interviewed in the Cantwell investigation. "But there's no indication Casarez refused to be interviewed", Sargent reports. Rather, interoffice coordination at FBI seems to have failed.

    Which in its way brings us 'round to the doxxy wars. If Cantwell "set out to spill secrets about his enemies", and in doing so "using the tactics of antifascists and journalists against one of [his] own", he "was hardly the first person in the far right to resort to this, and he surely won't be the last". Sargent reports that while journalists and antifascist researchers do identify some neo-Nazis, "many others are doxed by way of a tip from a rival or an offer to throw a competing podcaster to the wolves". Those following the doxxy wars on social media are already familiar. Bowl Patrol congressional candidate and state's witness Paul Nehlen went after Douglass Mackey°°, CUNY professor Josh Dietz was identified by multiple alt-right trolls; the aforementioned August Invictus went after Top Kek Studios. "And I'd be remiss," Sargent notes, "to not also point out the number of Telegram channels that popped up this year, seemingly with the sole purpose of doxing rival movement members."

    Cantwell once said he needed to "understand the problems of the entire world", because knowing himself would end in suicide. "Am I the greatest person who ever lived," he wondered, "or the fuckin' stupid piece of shit who deserves a bullet in his skull? I'm not entirely certain from one moment to the next."

    Sargent closes with a difficult reflection, a maybe that leads to the obvious, acknowledging, "We don't know what goes on inside the heads of most neo-Nazis, what self doubt lies beneath the racist, misogynistic, gun-toting, race-war-preparing, hateful, alpha male bullshit." Yet, in the sense of his dualism, the greatest or else worthless, "he is no different from anyone else who turns to the easy, black-and-white answers provided by the far right":

    Your life not what you thought it should be? The Jews are to blame.

    Can't find a wife? Women are evil whores.

    When individuals in the far right look at Cantwell now, they see him in those black-and-white terms. They snicker, shake their heads, and think themselves better.

    He was a snitch, a coward, a cuck, a grifter. I'm nothing like that guy.

    But if you're part of the far right, you are, of course, on the same path he was on.

    There are other maybes. I recall a white supremacist who died earlier this year for sake of a Covid conspiracy theory and wonder what if someone had actually hauled off and punched that Nazi. You know, like, someone with credibility. Someone who could knock some sense into him, force him to check himself. Because it is true, maybe if Cantwell had been smarter, and more capable, he could have been something else.

    I remember a different lament about self destruction, "Gotta get back, I never meant to take it this far."°°° It doesn't quite fit except in the sentimental way it does, but if the maybe has to do with being smarter and more capable, the Crying Nazi probably can't ever get back to where he never was, and probably never stood a chance from the outset.


    ° "John Gillespie, 71, of Melbourne, is facing several charges, including human trafficking of a minor and exchanging legal representation for sex with teens as young as 15 years old …". (Spectrum↱)

    °° a.k.a., Ricky Vaughn, @Ricky_Vaughn99, @RapinBill; see Pollack↱.

    °°° Savatage, "A Little Too Far↱.​

    Pollack, Catherine. "Middlebury Grad Revealed as Prominent Alt-Right Troll". The Middlebury Campus. 11 April 2018. https://bit.ly/36Fsglp

    Sargent, Hilary. "Snitches, cowards, and liars". The Informant. 7 October 2020. Informant.news. 7 October 2020. https://bit.ly/34OqwUH

    Spectrum News Staff. "Central Florida Attorney Accused of Trafficking Minor, Running Prostitution Ring Out of Home". Spectrum News. 20 April 2020. MyNews13.com. 7 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3lo9xz3
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Maybe we should have a sub-forum for blogs?
    Ethernos D Grace likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ethernos D Grace Registered Senior Member

    yes! but i don't think i'd be much of help because my sense of morality seem too ideal for people.also i'd love to see people's idea of morality and where it becomes a grey area and black.
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    It may be best to look at Tiassa's blogs as something like the 'Quote to remember' thread.
    Something like showing off your latest stamp/quote for your collection.
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    This is actually an excellent idea! It would be nice to have a place to diary, blog etc if one chooses.
  10. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Honestly, it seems like some Members already use the entirety of sciforums as their personal blog.
  11. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Who needs facebook.
  12. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    When the The Atlantic and The New Yorker have turned down your submissions half a dozen times, where else can you turn?
    Seattle likes this.
  13. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    I will be so busy writing my blog every day, I won't have time to read other peoples blogs or site posts. Can't wait, you folks have such a treat in store once I start blogging.
  14. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    If you live up to your forum name it will be a blast!
    foghorn likes this.
  15. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Joking aside. In the context of this site having members blogging, how many members here would be worth reading? And what would they be blogging about?
    Then, you put a comment under the blog, the comment doesn't get a reply because the blogger is busy blogging.
  16. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    If we run with the notion that this is supposedly a discussion forum then can a blog promote and sustain discussion? I suggest it is possible, but to be effective the blog must have certain chracteristics:
    • It should be accessible. This requires that it:
      • Employ simple, but lively language
      • Have a clearly stated goal
      • Be well constructed
    • It should be inherently interesting to a broad audience. I might like to talk about the impact that Bowen's insights had on the development of igneous petrology, but it won't be a topic of conversation around many watercoolers.
    • It should offer an unbiased viewpoint. This does not mean it should contain no opinion, but rather opinions should be offered as that - opinions. The blogger should indicate an openess to entertain contrary views, while the blog sets out why they currenty hold the views they do.
    It might work. Thoughts?

    Another possibility would be the Educational Blog, where the discussion is led by the blogger. This would require:
    • The blogger was an expert on their topic
    • Any reasonable person could see that they were an expert
    • The topic was one of interest to a reasonable number of members
    • They participated via questions, not via challenge, or disagreement.
    I like it as a concept. I don't think it could work. At least not here. Perhaps there are already such blogs and bloggers out there, I just haven't encountered them.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Okay, I have to ask..

    Why do you guys keep going around, flaming and pushing threads off topic like this?

    At least one of you received a warning about this shitty behaviour not that long ago.

    Was the last warning not enough?

    Do any of you have anything to say about the actual subject matter of the thread? Do you do this because the words are too long? Can't read more than 3 lines without losing track?

    Because try as I might, I simply do not understand why some of you seem to have made it your job to flame and troll people because you think their posts are too long..

    Does anyone here have anything to add about the fact that when white men congregate online to start whining about what they perceive to be injustices - such as what they seem to believe women having equal rights is an injustice as one example - these white men inevitably delve into the deep, dark and dank world of white supremacism? I mean I know at least one of the posters exhibiting toxic behaviour in this thread is already identified as such and has already received a warning for racist trolling this year.. Which is ironic really. I guess it matches the profile.

    In short, you are literally proving this thread correct.

    So how about this..

    Cut this shit out.

    Or I will moderate you each and every single time you type one word out of line on this site until you are banned permanently from this site. As far as I am concerned, you spend more time whining that posts are too long, flaming and trolling than you actually do posting any content of value.

    Don't bother responding to this post. This is the one shot across the bow that you will get. You only get one.
  18. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    The thread style is considered by several of us to be pretentious. The author seems more concerned about appearing erudite than about encouraging discussion. Sadly, this view, though held by several active members is either ignored by the author and other staff members, or roundly condemned.

    You seem unaware, or unable to believe, that those of us expressing these views are committed members of this forum, who value it and wish to see it thrive. I sincerely believe that the posts by Tiassa undermine the value of the forum, but not nearly as much as the treatment by staff of our objections. Rather than enter into a dialogue about these concerns you choose to threaten and then to act upon those threats.

    What you call flaming is a frustrated effort to get you and other staff members to recognise that there is a problem here and it is not us. Ban those of us who feel this way and you diminish the forum.

    I've taught communication skills for a couple decades. It's a shame Tiassa never attended one of my classes.

    No. The posts are verbose. They are pretentious. They are self-referential. They read like Donald Trump with a proper education. They discourage discussion. They do not encourage it. So we object, in what you call trolling and flaming, because we care about this forum. We care about its health. We care about productive discussion. We care about vigorous debate. And so we call out writing practices that we believe discourage these things.

    Here comes the sound of a broken record: when an argument is presented in a pretentious manner there is no encouragement to discuss the topic.
    Another thing that can discourage discussion is rhetoric that appeals to emotion rather than concisely presented facts. To be clear, I refer to your sentence above. Now I understand you are upset. It's natural. Your beliefs are being challenged; your authority quesitoned. It's uncomfortable. I am uspet too. I dislike it when I my contributions are ignored or denigrated. I'm oddly human in that regard. If your response to this is to issue threats and act on them, it may make you feel better, but it does little of value for the forum.

    So how about this. How about you consider that this may not be shit, but a genuinely felt grievance. Consider that htere are members whose views on some matters may differ from yours, but who value the forum and wish to see it flourish. You have an opportunity to act like President-elect Biden and reach across the aisle, seeking conciliation with those you currently condemn. We are not your enemies. We are forum members.

    Thank you.
  19. Bells Staff Member

    You are still to comment on the actual subject matter of the thread...?


    Who is this "us"?

    You have 648 posts and have supposedly been a member here since 2005...

    So who is this "us" of which you speak?

    Seattle? Because you two seem to tag team pulling this shit... He's already been flagged numerous times, be it for flaming and trolling, to racism to a subject matter that was so offensive..

    Do you want to see the forum "thrive"?

    Stop trolling and flaming and actually participate in discussions about the subject matter.

    The majority of your posts here consist of one line, that usually has you trolling or flaming.. Do you think you add any value or anything of significance to this site?

    I am genuinely curious now. Your participation on this site is to either flame people or post quips or whine when people get too wordy.

    So who do you think undermines this forum more?

    Someone who goes at length to research what is being posted, is able to back up any claims with evidence? Or the one flaming with one liners and whining about posts that are just too long?

    That's a rhetorical question. The answer should be obvious.

    I am thankful Tiassa has never attended any of your classes. He is able to communicate what he wants to say and discuss and he is able to do so in an intelligent manner.

    Now, I am sorry that more than 1 paragraph is too difficult for you.

    I mean, you can not read his posts if they are too wordy for you. That is an option. I query how someone with such a lofty history teaching communication skills, you have failed to master simply not taking part in a discussion that was beyond you or too much for you because there's just too many words...

    Would you prefer he attends your class and sound like a yokel instead of educated?

    This does not even make sense..

    It normally helps if you are able to read and comprehend more than 3 lines in a paragraph.

    There are a lot of things that can be discussed in what he posted.

    1. White supremacism.
    2. Why is it that white supremacists often have a history of misogyny?
    3. Why is it that men often resort to threats of rape in cases like this? What is it that triggers white supremacists in particular, to deem women to be property and resort to threats of rape or have such a violent history when it comes to women, which could tie in to 2...?
    4. How closely tied to white supremacism is the men's rights movement?

    That's just a few.

    You claim to have taught communication but you are unable to understand what is being discussed in this thread or find anything to talk about except whine that it's too wordy? Would you like him to use smaller words?

    Well that's on you and not him.

    If you cannot understand or if you are unable to participate, that's on you and not him.

    Perhaps you should just stick to posting about what your cat disagrees with?

    You must pitch a fit in a library if you are confronted with books.. "TOO MANY WORDS!"

    Appealing to emotion and then commenting on another's emotional state because my authority is questioned?

    I'm not upset. I'm annoyed that my time is being taken up dealing with your stupid shit yet again.

    There's a difference.

    I am sure you believe your 648 posts in what? 15 years has been terrific contribution on this site, so much so that we must surely bow or kowtow to your demands and wishes because we just don't want to lose posters like you..

    You are an annoyance. Your posts are rarely on topic. You rarely actually participate in a discussion about the subject matter and you spend more time here flaming people.

    You aren't questioning my authority. You are simply a waste of my time.

    How about you don't read his posts if they are too wordy for you or you don't understand them?

    There is absolutely no requirement for you to post or respond to him.

    You know, be an adult instead of flaming?



    Do you know what makes a forum flourish? No flaming and trolling.

    Forums do not fail because posts are too wordy. Forums fail to flourish when members spend the majority of their time posting 1 line quips and flaming people.

    What a bunch of "malarkey"..

    Cut the shit out. And we won't have a problem.

    So glad we had this chat. And really happy to see you are capable of stringing more than 10 words together in a coherent sentence!
  20. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    given your propensity for self important and self righteous bitching i fail to see the shame of it. he communicates just fine, your laziness and sense of entitlement to be spoon fed not withstanding. i get you want a medal for managing to wedge a stick that far up your ass but i fail to see why you should be praised for your frankly shitty attitude. you have a typical right wingers sense of entitlement in you feel you should have final say on anything.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    File Under Stranger Things, Maybe?

    Of all typal, typical, and stereotypical rightist whatnot and soforth, one thing I'll never quite fail to be puzzled about has to do with subtlety, the lack thereof, and questions of why anyone would even attempt it.

    For instance, in the moment, we have the advice—

    —and also managed to get some definition of the complaint—

    —as regards a discussion of, "Nazi Tears and Stranger Things".

    Now, in all the time that you might have seen me address the concept of anti-identification, or even inasmuch as we might wonder after any affirmative assertion of a solution, there also arises the question of whether one could please fail to fulfill type. For instance, inasmuch as opinion and viewpoint might discourage discussion, and needs to remain unbiased, what, was I too hard on Nazis?

    And, you know, since that can't possibly be it, I'll just file it under the rubric of stranger things. Nonetheless, I find myself reflecting on years of political discourse, both in the world out there and right here at Sciforums, and wonder why, these years later, it is such a difficult concept for some to grasp that maybe, if it's not supremacism or some other infamous politic, they might stop fulfilling the forms and stations thereof.

    The particular hardsquatting disruption we're seeing is the latest version of something; if we consider Hipparchia's "us", we might note Seattle, at least, has been complaining about stylistics for at least three years↗, and since that can't possibly be his fallback whenever he can't wrap his head around something that he thinks offends him, we can just file it under the rubric of stranger things.

    For all the complaint, we don't really have much to work with. I wonder if there's a reason "they" can't tell us what the problem is.

    Oh, who am I kidding, of course there is: They are either unable, or simply unwilling.
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    All that I've posted in this thread is "Maybe we should have a sub-forum for blogs?"
    Your response seems to be a be an overreaction don't you think?
  23. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    are you fucking kidding me? you say this after the absolute shit show of a response you had in the cancel culture thread, I admire the set of brass ones you have to try and pull this but jesus christ man really?

Share This Page