🦒  Animal Memes

💥  Naruto Memes

🌌  Prequel Memes

📢  Motivational Memes

🥂  Happy Anniversary Meme

💪🏽  Workout Memes

disagrees Memes

Procession
Procession
Eats
Eats
Tarding
Tarding
Supremeness
Supremeness
Eates
Eates
Tards
Tards
its fine
its fine
want
want
better
better
ifs
ifs 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
        

            
            

                
                
                    friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        profeeders:

kunstpause:

profeeders:
kunstpause:


tbh lol @ KyKy for using rando weird ass tags as if they had ever any traction or were used to target him en masse… One of them has about 5 posts in it, another has his as the only post…
how about Dallas (the org, not the team) starts with showing at least a bare minimum of transparency instead of going on about who is or isn’t responsible for nothing. 
the actual players are out there, each trying to take the most amount of blame, meanwhile their upper management clearly makes decisions even the coach disagrees with and said coach himself hasn’t understood that it is literally his job to shield his players by taking responsibility for their performance. 
everything about their social media presence is a complete pr disaster tbh…


Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit here, just because one of the hashtags aren’t a thing doesn’t mean there isn’t a real problem with players (and probably analysts) getting DMs like this. Jake had them spammed to him to the point where it had a big effect on his mentality (possibly gameplay) and Monte even was suggesting that OWL players shouldn’t have DMs open to fans. I don’t know that Kyky’s lack of death threat hashtag use makes his point that fans being toxic on social media a nonissue.

As far as transparency within the org, I agree with you completely. Playing live action room escape games was a good start but they can do better to protect players. If you, as a player, can walk away from a match thinking a loss was entirely your fault there is something wrong with the infrastructure, not the players. This needs to be fixed 100%. 

You are definitely right about it being an issue. I am a bit overly annoyed at how KyKy is handling the entire thing and everything else around his team on social media but that shouldn’t distract from that issue indeed.The thing that bothers me is: the bulk of the hate is not even directed at him, but this tweet and his use of hashtags as a rhetoric device makes it look like he is making it all bout him. And this after he basically, instead of taking any responsibility as a coach, threw everyone else under the bus with his other comments over the past weeks.So yeah, the point about people treating players better on social media is definitely valid - but he is presenting it horribly imo.And yeah, on top of the whole general PR and communication issue from the org that seemed to have pissed me off extra hard. 

You’re right, the delivery could have definitely been done better. I get that all teams are different and handle losses differently, but even teams like Mayhem (when they were losing) would go out with positivity and promises to work hard and do better AS A TEAM. Valla are also having issues within their team based on their reality show thing, and I don’t know if I agree with that much transparency (or at least that way of delivery) but they do handle losses as a team and not individuals. I don’t know who has the power to make changes like that for Dallas, or if Kyky has tried and failed or something, but things need to get fixed. I don’t think getting rid of him as a coach will fix anything when they’ve had so much instability lately, but without the transparency it’s hard to even see where along the line the issue is. I hope they can sort it out because they (individually) have the potential to show all these teams of children what’s what. : Kyle Souder <
 y@kyKy
 Would not be surprised if majority of
 players start completely closing
 themselves off from social media. OWL
 players have tried to make themselves
 so publically available only for fans to
 use it as an opportunity to shit on themm
 #blamekyky #firekyky #kykydie thats
 the meta rn
 3/16/18, 02:58
profeeders:

kunstpause:

profeeders:
kunstpause:


tbh lol @ KyKy for using rando weird ass tags as if they had ever any traction or were used to target him en masse… One of them has about 5 posts in it, another has his as the only post…
how about Dallas (the org, not the team) starts with showing at least a bare minimum of transparency instead of going on about who is or isn’t responsible for nothing. 
the actual players are out there, each trying to take the most amount of blame, meanwhile their upper management clearly makes decisions even the coach disagrees with and said coach himself hasn’t understood that it is literally his job to shield his players by taking responsibility for their performance. 
everything about their social media presence is a complete pr disaster tbh…


Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit here, just because one of the hashtags aren’t a thing doesn’t mean there isn’t a real problem with players (and probably analysts) getting DMs like this. Jake had them spammed to him to the point where it had a big effect on his mentality (possibly gameplay) and Monte even was suggesting that OWL players shouldn’t have DMs open to fans. I don’t know that Kyky’s lack of death threat hashtag use makes his point that fans being toxic on social media a nonissue.

As far as transparency within the org, I agree with you completely. Playing live action room escape games was a good start but they can do better to protect players. If you, as a player, can walk away from a match thinking a loss was entirely your fault there is something wrong with the infrastructure, not the players. This needs to be fixed 100%. 

You are definitely right about it being an issue. I am a bit overly annoyed at how KyKy is handling the entire thing and everything else around his team on social media but that shouldn’t distract from that issue indeed.The thing that bothers me is: the bulk of the hate is not even directed at him, but this tweet and his use of hashtags as a rhetoric device makes it look like he is making it all bout him. And this after he basically, instead of taking any responsibility as a coach, threw everyone else under the bus with his other comments over the past weeks.So yeah, the point about people treating players better on social media is definitely valid - but he is presenting it horribly imo.And yeah, on top of the whole general PR and communication issue from the org that seemed to have pissed me off extra hard. 

You’re right, the delivery could have definitely been done better. I get that all teams are different and handle losses differently, but even teams like Mayhem (when they were losing) would go out with positivity and promises to work hard and do better AS A TEAM. Valla are also having issues within their team based on their reality show thing, and I don’t know if I agree with that much transparency (or at least that way of delivery) but they do handle losses as a team and not individuals. I don’t know who has the power to make changes like that for Dallas, or if Kyky has tried and failed or something, but things need to get fixed. I don’t think getting rid of him as a coach will fix anything when they’ve had so much instability lately, but without the transparency it’s hard to even see where along the line the issue is. I hope they can sort it out because they (individually) have the potential to show all these teams of children what’s what. 
        

            
            

                
                
                    profeeders:

kunstpause:

profeeders:
kunstpause:


tbh lol @ KyKy for using rando weird ass tags as if they had ever any traction or were used to target him en masse… One of them has about 5 posts in it, another has his as the only post…
how about Dallas (the org, not the team) starts with showing at least a bare minimum of transparency instead of going on about who is or isn’t responsible for nothing. 
the actual players are out there, each trying to take the most amount of blame, meanwhile their upper management clearly makes decisions even the coach disagrees with and said coach himself hasn’t understood that it is literally his job to shield his players by taking responsibility for their performance. 
everything about their social media presence is a complete pr disaster tbh…


Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit here, just because one of the hashtags aren’t a thing doesn’t mean there isn’t a real problem with players (and probably analysts) getting DMs like this. Jake had them spammed to him to the point where it had a big effect on his mentality (possibly gameplay) and Monte even was suggesting that OWL players shouldn’t have DMs open to fans. I don’t know that Kyky’s lack of death threat hashtag use makes his point that fans being toxic on social media a nonissue.

As far as transparency within the org, I agree with you completely. Playing live action room escape games was a good start but they can do better to protect players. If you, as a player, can walk away from a match thinking a loss was entirely your fault there is something wrong with the infrastructure, not the players. This needs to be fixed 100%. 

You are definitely right about it being an issue. I am a bit overly annoyed at how KyKy is handling the entire thing and everything else around his team on social media but that shouldn’t distract from that issue indeed.The thing that bothers me is: the bulk of the hate is not even directed at him, but this tweet and his use of hashtags as a rhetoric device makes it look like he is making it all bout him. And this after he basically, instead of taking any responsibility as a coach, threw everyone else under the bus with his other comments over the past weeks.So yeah, the point about people treating players better on social media is definitely valid - but he is presenting it horribly imo.And yeah, on top of the whole general PR and communication issue from the org that seemed to have pissed me off extra hard. 

You’re right, the delivery could have definitely been done better. I get that all teams are different and handle losses differently, but even teams like Mayhem (when they were losing) would go out with positivity and promises to work hard and do better AS A TEAM. Valla are also having issues within their team based on their reality show thing, and I don’t know if I agree with that much transparency (or at least that way of delivery) but they do handle losses as a team and not individuals. I don’t know who has the power to make changes like that for Dallas, or if Kyky has tried and failed or something, but things need to get fixed. I don’t think getting rid of him as a coach will fix anything when they’ve had so much instability lately, but without the transparency it’s hard to even see where along the line the issue is. I hope they can sort it out because they (individually) have the potential to show all these teams of children what’s what. : Kyle Souder <
 y@kyKy
 Would not be surprised if majority of
 players start completely closing
 themselves off from social media. OWL
 players have tried to make themselves
 so publically available only for fans to
 use it as an opportunity to shit on themm
 #blamekyky #firekyky #kykydie thats
 the meta rn
 3/16/18, 02:58
profeeders:

kunstpause:

profeeders:
kunstpause:


tbh lol @ KyKy for using rando weird ass tags as if they had ever any traction or were used to target him en masse… One of them has about 5 posts in it, another has his as the only post…
how about Dallas (the org, not the team) starts with showing at least a bare minimum of transparency instead of going on about who is or isn’t responsible for nothing. 
the actual players are out there, each trying to take the most amount of blame, meanwhile their upper management clearly makes decisions even the coach disagrees with and said coach himself hasn’t understood that it is literally his job to shield his players by taking responsibility for their performance. 
everything about their social media presence is a complete pr disaster tbh…


Just to play devil’s advocate a little bit here, just because one of the hashtags aren’t a thing doesn’t mean there isn’t a real problem with players (and probably analysts) getting DMs like this. Jake had them spammed to him to the point where it had a big effect on his mentality (possibly gameplay) and Monte even was suggesting that OWL players shouldn’t have DMs open to fans. I don’t know that Kyky’s lack of death threat hashtag use makes his point that fans being toxic on social media a nonissue.

As far as transparency within the org, I agree with you completely. Playing live action room escape games was a good start but they can do better to protect players. If you, as a player, can walk away from a match thinking a loss was entirely your fault there is something wrong with the infrastructure, not the players. This needs to be fixed 100%. 

You are definitely right about it being an issue. I am a bit overly annoyed at how KyKy is handling the entire thing and everything else around his team on social media but that shouldn’t distract from that issue indeed.The thing that bothers me is: the bulk of the hate is not even directed at him, but this tweet and his use of hashtags as a rhetoric device makes it look like he is making it all bout him. And this after he basically, instead of taking any responsibility as a coach, threw everyone else under the bus with his other comments over the past weeks.So yeah, the point about people treating players better on social media is definitely valid - but he is presenting it horribly imo.And yeah, on top of the whole general PR and communication issue from the org that seemed to have pissed me off extra hard. 

You’re right, the delivery could have definitely been done better. I get that all teams are different and handle losses differently, but even teams like Mayhem (when they were losing) would go out with positivity and promises to work hard and do better AS A TEAM. Valla are also having issues within their team based on their reality show thing, and I don’t know if I agree with that much transparency (or at least that way of delivery) but they do handle losses as a team and not individuals. I don’t know who has the power to make changes like that for Dallas, or if Kyky has tried and failed or something, but things need to get fixed. I don’t think getting rid of him as a coach will fix anything when they’ve had so much instability lately, but without the transparency it’s hard to even see where along the line the issue is. I hope they can sort it out because they (individually) have the potential to show all these teams of children what’s what. 
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        <p><a href="http://snow-lives--matter.tumblr.com/post/171940862248/libertarirynn-this-isnt-having-an-opinion" class="tumblr_blog">snow-lives&ndash;matter</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171938189669/this-isnt-having-an-opinion-about-being-shot" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>This isn’t “having an opinion about being shot“ you fucking moron. It’s actively trying to change laws they know nothing about.</p></blockquote>

<p>It’s quite disingenuous to pretend that no one knows what they’re protesting for. Yes, some people are ignorant to what exact policies are and what ones they want changed, and that’s awful, but most people are fully aware of the issue and that’s exactly why they want change. Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great.”</p><p>Well then I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that. I’m specifically calling out these pubescent protesters, many of whom have verbalized these asinine arguments. Of course there are people who understand existing laws. But the majority of the most popular anti-gun arguments show an astounding lack of knowledge for the current laws in place. Calling for things like mental health checks, background checks, and minimum age requirements when all of those things already exist with varying levels of severity depending on the state. Calling certain weapons “assault rifles” because they look scary despite functioning in much the same way as “less threatening” guns. Exaggerating and at times outright lying about the number of fatal gun incidents in this country and the success of gun control in other countries.</p><p>Yes there are people who know what they’re talking about. But they are disturbingly lacking in the majority of these pop arguments that inundate the news cycle.</p>: HE
 TH TREVOR NO
 SHOW
 "IF THEYRE TOO YOUNG TO BUY GUNS,
 WHY SHOULD THEY BE MAKING MY GUN LAWS?"
 IF KIDS ARE OLD ENOUGH TO BE SHOT, THEY'RE OLD
 ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT BEING SHOT
<p><a href="http://snow-lives--matter.tumblr.com/post/171940862248/libertarirynn-this-isnt-having-an-opinion" class="tumblr_blog">snow-lives&ndash;matter</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171938189669/this-isnt-having-an-opinion-about-being-shot" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>This isn’t “having an opinion about being shot“ you fucking moron. It’s actively trying to change laws they know nothing about.</p></blockquote>

<p>It’s quite disingenuous to pretend that no one knows what they’re protesting for. Yes, some people are ignorant to what exact policies are and what ones they want changed, and that’s awful, but most people are fully aware of the issue and that’s exactly why they want change. Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great.”</p><p>Well then I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that. I’m specifically calling out these pubescent protesters, many of whom have verbalized these asinine arguments. Of course there are people who understand existing laws. But the majority of the most popular anti-gun arguments show an astounding lack of knowledge for the current laws in place. Calling for things like mental health checks, background checks, and minimum age requirements when all of those things already exist with varying levels of severity depending on the state. Calling certain weapons “assault rifles” because they look scary despite functioning in much the same way as “less threatening” guns. Exaggerating and at times outright lying about the number of fatal gun incidents in this country and the success of gun control in other countries.</p><p>Yes there are people who know what they’re talking about. But they are disturbingly lacking in the majority of these pop arguments that inundate the news cycle.</p>
        

            
            

                
                
                    <p><a href="http://snow-lives--matter.tumblr.com/post/171940862248/libertarirynn-this-isnt-having-an-opinion" class="tumblr_blog">snow-lives&ndash;matter</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171938189669/this-isnt-having-an-opinion-about-being-shot" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>This isn’t “having an opinion about being shot“ you fucking moron. It’s actively trying to change laws they know nothing about.</p></blockquote>

<p>It’s quite disingenuous to pretend that no one knows what they’re protesting for. Yes, some people are ignorant to what exact policies are and what ones they want changed, and that’s awful, but most people are fully aware of the issue and that’s exactly why they want change. Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great.”</p><p>Well then I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that. I’m specifically calling out these pubescent protesters, many of whom have verbalized these asinine arguments. Of course there are people who understand existing laws. But the majority of the most popular anti-gun arguments show an astounding lack of knowledge for the current laws in place. Calling for things like mental health checks, background checks, and minimum age requirements when all of those things already exist with varying levels of severity depending on the state. Calling certain weapons “assault rifles” because they look scary despite functioning in much the same way as “less threatening” guns. Exaggerating and at times outright lying about the number of fatal gun incidents in this country and the success of gun control in other countries.</p><p>Yes there are people who know what they’re talking about. But they are disturbingly lacking in the majority of these pop arguments that inundate the news cycle.</p>: HE
 TH TREVOR NO
 SHOW
 "IF THEYRE TOO YOUNG TO BUY GUNS,
 WHY SHOULD THEY BE MAKING MY GUN LAWS?"
 IF KIDS ARE OLD ENOUGH TO BE SHOT, THEY'RE OLD
 ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT BEING SHOT
<p><a href="http://snow-lives--matter.tumblr.com/post/171940862248/libertarirynn-this-isnt-having-an-opinion" class="tumblr_blog">snow-lives&ndash;matter</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171938189669/this-isnt-having-an-opinion-about-being-shot" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p>This isn’t “having an opinion about being shot“ you fucking moron. It’s actively trying to change laws they know nothing about.</p></blockquote>

<p>It’s quite disingenuous to pretend that no one knows what they’re protesting for. Yes, some people are ignorant to what exact policies are and what ones they want changed, and that’s awful, but most people are fully aware of the issue and that’s exactly why they want change. Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>“Pretending everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed brat doesn’t exactly make you look great.”</p><p>Well then I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t do that. I’m specifically calling out these pubescent protesters, many of whom have verbalized these asinine arguments. Of course there are people who understand existing laws. But the majority of the most popular anti-gun arguments show an astounding lack of knowledge for the current laws in place. Calling for things like mental health checks, background checks, and minimum age requirements when all of those things already exist with varying levels of severity depending on the state. Calling certain weapons “assault rifles” because they look scary despite functioning in much the same way as “less threatening” guns. Exaggerating and at times outright lying about the number of fatal gun incidents in this country and the success of gun control in other countries.</p><p>Yes there are people who know what they’re talking about. But they are disturbingly lacking in the majority of these pop arguments that inundate the news cycle.</p>
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        <p><a href="https://charrwastaken.tumblr.com/post/171281655333/libertarirynn-deverer-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">charrwastaken</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171281174639/deverer-libertarirynn-apparently-it-really" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Don’t forget that one time when he presented a Pro-Choice hypothetical, and when Ben Shapiro refuted it, <a href="https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672">he basically accused him of being gay and blocked him.</a><br/></p></blockquote>

<p>He finally told me he was only responding to me constantly to “prove how irrelevant” I was before proudly declaring he was blocking me. I’ve never read this guy’s books but if he writes as good as he holds up in the mildest of debates I don’t think I’m missing out.</p>: AT&T
 2:51 PM
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn 6m
 Imagine being a grown ass man who
 can't distinguish fiction from reality and
 thinks a bunch people scared to death
 of guns will be the leaders of a violent
 revolution
 91
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynn
 Imagine having such poor reading
 comprehension that you read the
 above tweets and honestly believed
 they contained anything you just said
 Actually, you don't have to imagine
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
 Tweet your reply

 AT&T
 2:52 PM
 * 62%
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn.11mv
 emmaubler: libertarirynn:
 AHAHAHAHAHAHA eeeeeeee
 ッツクI think my eyes just rolled out
 of my head. If... tmblr.co/
 ZJ_3Pu2VX7Z-Z
 91
 부부부부
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynın
 No one cares
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
<p><a href="https://charrwastaken.tumblr.com/post/171281655333/libertarirynn-deverer-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">charrwastaken</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171281174639/deverer-libertarirynn-apparently-it-really" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Don’t forget that one time when he presented a Pro-Choice hypothetical, and when Ben Shapiro refuted it, <a href="https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672">he basically accused him of being gay and blocked him.</a><br/></p></blockquote>

<p>He finally told me he was only responding to me constantly to “prove how irrelevant” I was before proudly declaring he was blocking me. I’ve never read this guy’s books but if he writes as good as he holds up in the mildest of debates I don’t think I’m missing out.</p>
        

            
            

                
                
                    <p><a href="https://charrwastaken.tumblr.com/post/171281655333/libertarirynn-deverer-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">charrwastaken</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171281174639/deverer-libertarirynn-apparently-it-really" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Don’t forget that one time when he presented a Pro-Choice hypothetical, and when Ben Shapiro refuted it, <a href="https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672">he basically accused him of being gay and blocked him.</a><br/></p></blockquote>

<p>He finally told me he was only responding to me constantly to “prove how irrelevant” I was before proudly declaring he was blocking me. I’ve never read this guy’s books but if he writes as good as he holds up in the mildest of debates I don’t think I’m missing out.</p>: AT&T
 2:51 PM
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn 6m
 Imagine being a grown ass man who
 can't distinguish fiction from reality and
 thinks a bunch people scared to death
 of guns will be the leaders of a violent
 revolution
 91
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynn
 Imagine having such poor reading
 comprehension that you read the
 above tweets and honestly believed
 they contained anything you just said
 Actually, you don't have to imagine
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
 Tweet your reply

 AT&T
 2:52 PM
 * 62%
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn.11mv
 emmaubler: libertarirynn:
 AHAHAHAHAHAHA eeeeeeee
 ッツクI think my eyes just rolled out
 of my head. If... tmblr.co/
 ZJ_3Pu2VX7Z-Z
 91
 부부부부
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynın
 No one cares
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
<p><a href="https://charrwastaken.tumblr.com/post/171281655333/libertarirynn-deverer-libertarirynn" class="tumblr_blog">charrwastaken</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171281174639/deverer-libertarirynn-apparently-it-really" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote>
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Don’t forget that one time when he presented a Pro-Choice hypothetical, and when Ben Shapiro refuted it, <a href="https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672">he basically accused him of being gay and blocked him.</a><br/></p></blockquote>

<p>He finally told me he was only responding to me constantly to “prove how irrelevant” I was before proudly declaring he was blocking me. I’ve never read this guy’s books but if he writes as good as he holds up in the mildest of debates I don’t think I’m missing out.</p>
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        <p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p></blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>: AT&T
 2:51 PM
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn 6m
 Imagine being a grown ass man who
 can't distinguish fiction from reality and
 thinks a bunch people scared to death
 of guns will be the leaders of a violent
 revolution
 91
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynn
 Imagine having such poor reading
 comprehension that you read the
 above tweets and honestly believed
 they contained anything you just said
 Actually, you don't have to imagine
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
 Tweet your reply

 AT&T
 2:52 PM
 * 62%
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn.11mv
 emmaubler: libertarirynn:
 AHAHAHAHAHAHA eeeeeeee
 ッツクI think my eyes just rolled out
 of my head. If... tmblr.co/
 ZJ_3Pu2VX7Z-Z
 91
 부부부부
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynın
 No one cares
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p></blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
        

            
            

                
                
                    <p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p></blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>: AT&T
 2:51 PM
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn 6m
 Imagine being a grown ass man who
 can't distinguish fiction from reality and
 thinks a bunch people scared to death
 of guns will be the leaders of a violent
 revolution
 91
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynn
 Imagine having such poor reading
 comprehension that you read the
 above tweets and honestly believed
 they contained anything you just said
 Actually, you don't have to imagine
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
 Tweet your reply

 AT&T
 2:52 PM
 * 62%
 Tweet
 LibertariRynn @Libertarirynn.11mv
 emmaubler: libertarirynn:
 AHAHAHAHAHAHA eeeeeeee
 ッツクI think my eyes just rolled out
 of my head. If... tmblr.co/
 ZJ_3Pu2VX7Z-Z
 91
 부부부부
 Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Replying to @Libertarirynın
 No one cares
 2/25/18, 2:49 PM
<p><a href="https://deverer.tumblr.com/post/171281116434/libertarirynn-apparently-it-really-burns-him-up" class="tumblr_blog">deverer</a>:</p>

<blockquote><p><a href="https://libertarirynn.tumblr.com/post/171280964314/apparently-it-really-burns-him-up-that-some-random" class="tumblr_blog">libertarirynn</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Apparently it really burns him up that some random girl on Twitter disagrees with him. We have achieved maximum butthurt! 😂😂😂</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder he wants the kids to fight because he can’t even handle dissent on Twitter.</p></blockquote>

<p>He’s literally still tweeting me back with petty third grade insults like “no one even cares about you!“ Pal I’m not the one taking time out of my day to respond to someone I apparently don’t care about 😂</p>
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Shaving your leg hair is not only oppressive, but a sign of mental illness. I should know, I'm a random guy on the internet.: tooiconic
 Shaving is part of the patriarchy!!! No woman does it for herselfl!
 screams the girl who grows three thin little blonde hairs, who isnt
 burdened by ingrown hairs and constantly feeling itchy when she
 doesn't shave.
 respectthefemalebody
 You won't feel itchy once it gets long enough. And I mean, shaving is
 Women have been shaving our legs
 less than 100 years. It started as a gimmick for razor companies to
 sell their products to women while men were fighting ww2
 Have you ever even seen what your natural adult leg hair looks like
 fully grown?
 What, do you think women are born with a gene that compels us to
 shave?
 tooiconic
 Hi, you don't know my body better than I do
 I had fully grown leg hair and all over body hair by 11 years old and I
 was an itchy, miserable mess. The leg hair in particular would touch
 my sheets, even my own clothes, and make me so itchy that I
 couldn't sleep anymore. The same thing with my pubic hair and leg
 hair still happens as an adult even after not shaving for about 5 days.
 Shut the hell up with this patriarchy bullshit

 respectthefemalebody
 Why do you think more women shave their legs than men?
 What do you think the word patriarchy means?
 Dont know why youre bothering. She acts personally attacked by
 every little thing feminists do, lol. She fails to even realise that no one
 would have a problem with "thick black hairs" if razor companies
 hadnt made
 women their target buyers.
 tooiconic
 ?77???
 Did you just say that some women have thick leg because of
 razors??? I'm Italian. Italians have thick hair. What part of "l was
 tchy and horribly uncomfortable by age 11 didn't you understand?
 Please tell me you're not one of those people who thinks shaving
 makes your hair thicker. Please.
 Im saying u wouldnt be insecure about it if women shaving was
 never a thing to begin with

 tooiconic
 Where did I say I was insecure? I started shaving because I was
 ITCHY. What part of that is confusing?
 You think your itchy but its your mind tricking you, due to insecurities.
 spookysugarr
 Holy shit @tooiconic this bitch thinks she knows more about your
 body than you do
 Im a psychiatrist, shes likely suffering from ocd, anxiety disorder &
 mild Schizophrenia
 Also are u her personal white knight, every time someone disagrees
 with her ur here taking her hot loads to prove ur devotion
 spookysugarr
 Dude, you're not her doctor
 And no, but thinking just because you have a profession you know
 what's going on with people's body's from a Tumblr post, really?

 spookysugarr
 Help her what? You don't know if she's already talked about this with
 her own doctor or therapist or physiatrist or whatever, you can't just
 go diagnosing people like that on the internet. People self diagnose
 all the time and that's dangerous
 I don't know why it's so hard to believe you can feel itchy with hair on
 your body? That's my top reason to shave tbh
 @tooiconic message me and we will work through your phobia of leg
 hair, together.
 anti-sjw-rebel
 She doesn't have a phobia of leg hair. She shaves because it makes
 her uncomfortable and itchy
 Quit trollin dude.
 What she does with her hair is her own business not yours

 figgernaggotlove
 Some people don't realise they need help until it's too late
 tooiconic
 Please don't give this idiot anymore attention
Shaving your leg hair is not only oppressive, but a sign of mental illness. I should know, I'm a random guy on the internet.
        

            
            

                
                
                    Shaving your leg hair is not only oppressive, but a sign of mental illness. I should know, I'm a random guy on the internet.: tooiconic
 Shaving is part of the patriarchy!!! No woman does it for herselfl!
 screams the girl who grows three thin little blonde hairs, who isnt
 burdened by ingrown hairs and constantly feeling itchy when she
 doesn't shave.
 respectthefemalebody
 You won't feel itchy once it gets long enough. And I mean, shaving is
 Women have been shaving our legs
 less than 100 years. It started as a gimmick for razor companies to
 sell their products to women while men were fighting ww2
 Have you ever even seen what your natural adult leg hair looks like
 fully grown?
 What, do you think women are born with a gene that compels us to
 shave?
 tooiconic
 Hi, you don't know my body better than I do
 I had fully grown leg hair and all over body hair by 11 years old and I
 was an itchy, miserable mess. The leg hair in particular would touch
 my sheets, even my own clothes, and make me so itchy that I
 couldn't sleep anymore. The same thing with my pubic hair and leg
 hair still happens as an adult even after not shaving for about 5 days.
 Shut the hell up with this patriarchy bullshit

 respectthefemalebody
 Why do you think more women shave their legs than men?
 What do you think the word patriarchy means?
 Dont know why youre bothering. She acts personally attacked by
 every little thing feminists do, lol. She fails to even realise that no one
 would have a problem with "thick black hairs" if razor companies
 hadnt made
 women their target buyers.
 tooiconic
 ?77???
 Did you just say that some women have thick leg because of
 razors??? I'm Italian. Italians have thick hair. What part of "l was
 tchy and horribly uncomfortable by age 11 didn't you understand?
 Please tell me you're not one of those people who thinks shaving
 makes your hair thicker. Please.
 Im saying u wouldnt be insecure about it if women shaving was
 never a thing to begin with

 tooiconic
 Where did I say I was insecure? I started shaving because I was
 ITCHY. What part of that is confusing?
 You think your itchy but its your mind tricking you, due to insecurities.
 spookysugarr
 Holy shit @tooiconic this bitch thinks she knows more about your
 body than you do
 Im a psychiatrist, shes likely suffering from ocd, anxiety disorder &
 mild Schizophrenia
 Also are u her personal white knight, every time someone disagrees
 with her ur here taking her hot loads to prove ur devotion
 spookysugarr
 Dude, you're not her doctor
 And no, but thinking just because you have a profession you know
 what's going on with people's body's from a Tumblr post, really?

 spookysugarr
 Help her what? You don't know if she's already talked about this with
 her own doctor or therapist or physiatrist or whatever, you can't just
 go diagnosing people like that on the internet. People self diagnose
 all the time and that's dangerous
 I don't know why it's so hard to believe you can feel itchy with hair on
 your body? That's my top reason to shave tbh
 @tooiconic message me and we will work through your phobia of leg
 hair, together.
 anti-sjw-rebel
 She doesn't have a phobia of leg hair. She shaves because it makes
 her uncomfortable and itchy
 Quit trollin dude.
 What she does with her hair is her own business not yours

 figgernaggotlove
 Some people don't realise they need help until it's too late
 tooiconic
 Please don't give this idiot anymore attention
Shaving your leg hair is not only oppressive, but a sign of mental illness. I should know, I'm a random guy on the internet.
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        odinsblog:
Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance”

OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) 

Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you 

It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are

And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil
: Keegan Stephan
 @KeeganNYC
 The left just calls anyone who
 disagrees with them a nazi."
odinsblog:
Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance”

OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) 

Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you 

It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are

And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil

        

            
            

                
                
                    odinsblog:
Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance”

OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) 

Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you 

It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are

And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil
: Keegan Stephan
 @KeeganNYC
 The left just calls anyone who
 disagrees with them a nazi."
odinsblog:
Yes, these are real life Nazis, and NO, we aren’t going to defeat them with “love and tolerance”

OTHER LIES you will be hearing from Nazi sympathizers: 1. you should respect a Nazi’s freedom of speech (NO—nobody owes respect to racists or Nazis and hate speech that incites violence is not protected under the 1st Amendment) 2. you’re no better or “the same” as them for fighting back (WRONG—this false equivalence would make the side who believes in genocide and enslavement “just as bad” as the side trying not to be the victims of genocide and enslavement) 3. hate breeds hate (NO—injustice, oppression, racism and generations of systematic discrimination is what breeds hate) 4. “both sides” are at fault (WRONG—this is another false equivalency that treats the aggressor, James Alex Fields, as innocently as the victim, Heather Heyer) 5. “Burning the Confederate flag or destroying Confederate monuments are acts of violence, just as bad as violence against people” (NO—that’s asinine and you’re an idiot if you believe that false equivalence, property ≠ people) 6. it’s just a “difference of opinions” and everyone has a right to their opinions (NO—dehumanization, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, Islamophobia, ablism and trans/homophobia are not harmless opinions; they are tools for systems of oppression, and NO, you do not have to blindly give respect to Nazis who are seeking to destroy others for being their innate selves) 

Many of these are obviously false equivalencies, but what they all have in common is they essentially tell you not to resist, and eternally turn the other cheek and “love” the people attacking or oppressing you 

It’s like this: Nazis support genocide. They actively support racism and racial discrimination. They literally believe in a “master race”. Their end goal is to either destroy or subjugate all non-white people. Nazis and white supremacists are a cancer to humanity. If you discovered that you had cancer, you wouldn’t try to love or tolerate it or anything else—you would immediately begin doing everything in your power to eradicate it. There is no such thing as having an acceptable amount of cancer. Nazis and white supremacists need to be treated like the cancer they are

And please pay close attention to anyone who uses vague “both sides” language to avoid assigning blame to anyone, or worse, ask you to “try to understand” the Nazis’ side, as if the only two sides aren’t right vs. the side the Nazis are on: evil

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save